maverick muse on November 23, 2007 at 2:33 PM

One single sentence defeats that entire screed.

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

e-pirate on November 22, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Okay, I used an example and you didn’t get it…
Here let me be real plain,
No (doesn’t disqualify him) and any…if they are qualified.
As if me pointing to a Mormon and saying he could be VP, or higher if we knew what he stood for, wasn’t plain enough.
That’s some denial or stupidity buddy.

maverick muse on November 23, 2007 at 2:33 PM

Wow, just Wow. A lot of information.
Thanks, it is always important to step back, and take a look of who and what you are following.

opusrex on November 21, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Thanks for the response. Most baptists do not go to seminary, so my comment as far as schooling I think stands. Mormons are far and away the most educated in their beliefs. Which then shows up in other studies, very few Mormons are at the bottom of their class.
Free destinies, but they are controlled (especially in youth) by our peers, family, etc. That is the reason, in some cults (like Jim Jones)to “just walk away” isn’t a reality. But I get your premise.
Great keep the faith, but also read some of the new texts. Religion is changing, it is predominantly man made and that makes it fallible and not perfect. Don’t be afraid to challenge for the truth, and deny the wrong.

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 2:40 PM

Leaving the Mormon church is NOT easy, as depicted and taught by contrast in the Mormon temple ceremony. Leaving what Mormons insist is the only true, legitimate church and the kingdom of god upon the face of the earth is most difficult because Mormon authorities take offense that one of their own would dare differ with their case for legitimacy and perfection.

Make the distinction between Mormon high school seminary class and Christian theological seminaries of higher education.

As per Mormon “seminary”, it is an hour class M-F in a Mormon building taught to high school Mormon kids by a Mormon Seminary teacher whose qualifications are being a Mormon in good standing. Those seminary teachers who work full-time for the church have an undergraduate degree, often from BYU. Any Mormon graduating from BYU is required to pass 12 credit hours of Mormon scripture classes; Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, Pearl of Great Price. Mormon “institutes” of religion are located around most university campuses, offering more of the same, and sponsoring young adult activities. All Mormon church classes center around Mormonism, even when studying the Bible as it is understood according to Mormon scripture that now includes every word spoken at Church General Conference and every word printed monthly in the Ensign publication, taking precedence to anything previously written. Ah, the comfort of continuous revelation, the ease of change in shifting sands.

As per Mormon “bishop”, again, there is no formal theological and sociology study similar to Catholic training, for comparison. Mormon bishops are generally successful business men or prominent community members of some sort who run their local congregations according to directives from SLC via stake presidencies and regional representatives from the general authorities.

As per Mormons and historical discrepancies, each “prophet” has his day of fame. As soon as the next arrives, all is according to the current mouthpiece. As per “scriptures”, any NEW church publication pre-empts any OLD doctrine. What a lark as the message from general conference during the 1970-80 period. How firm a foundation are those shifting sands of convenient PC propaganda. Don’t ignore the obvious result of endorsing every new church magazine edition Ensign “scripture” that Mormons are overloaded with new, improved versions of doctrines, and are encouraged to ignore “ancient” records from the nineteenth century, let alone anything from preceding centuries. The “that was then; this is now” over-simplification negates historical implications.

As per the Mormon priesthood, yes, Joseph Smith ordained a black. But Brigham Young et.al. made the curse of Cain doctine against those of African origin, and denied them the Mormon priesthood until 1978 when the new decision was made, that was NOT declared a “revelation” but a policy change–just as the Manifesto against polygamy was not a “revelation” but a policy change FOR POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY. As per the Mormon priesthood, during the days of polygamy, women were ordained and performed anointings on the ill in Mormon colonies. Of course, to study history accurately leaves one in the position of excommunication from the Mormon church.

As per sense of historical perspective, one Mormon blogger ranted this past week that recalling the Mormon Adam-God theory proved a thinker stuck in the 1870’s. As per csdevin, vanceone, et.al. representing the new generation of Mormons, they would deny their own descent from polygamy, eschewing their contemporary polygamous cousins just as they reject their polygamous progenitors. What an interesting resurrection awaits. The new generation of young Mormon missionaries for at least a decade believe that not very many Mormons ever practiced polygamy “in the olden days”.

I don’t care any more which specific new twist the Mormon authorities use for propaganda; it’s just more of the same–anything for power. Their empire started with the united order that our high school seminary teacher spent the year teaching was not communism though it was; but communism in the 1960-70 was anti-American, and by golly, Mormons are going to determine what is American when they save the Constitution. I remember the Maricopa Stake Conference prayers by general authorities to “soften the heart of the Gentiles in our favor”. Given enough time and goods taken from all new converts, and the arrival of the US Army compounding exasperated internal circumstances, the united order was eventually disbanded as a uniform practice, and those Mormons left holding the purse strings became proselytes of capitalism (hello, Mitt). I know from generations of consistent experience not to give a Mormon my trust. Though not alone in this practice, they justify their sins with denial and revise history claiming the power of God over you. Today’s Mormon church is a fascistic, powerful social institution. To place the US Presidency into the hands of the Mormon church is foolish. A Mormon holding a temple recommend has first allegiance to that church as god’s kingdom upon the face of the earth; no quibbling that fact without deceit.

As per Mormon history with Mexico, the polygamous colonies established after the Manifesto were destroyed by Pancho Villa’s revolution as Mormons ran for their lives back to Arizona (Gila Valley). But like all Mormon history, that experience no longer holds relevant water. Recognize the current agreement between Hatch and Reid towards GLOBALISM via benefits to illegal aliens practicing reverse discrimination against US citizens, and see how Mitt and the Mormon church as well fit right in there. Self justification: the end justifies the means, so do anything, say anything for power.

SouthernGent on November 23, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Second that. Unfortunatly I don’t think he’ll seal the borders nor lower our taxes. And I can’t see him taking the fight to the Dhimmicrats.

Will he
Seal the borders?
Take the fight to the terrorists?
Take the fight to the democrats?
Lower my taxes?
Stay out of my bedroom?

I will answer you the same as I have answered on all of the other blogs that did not deal with his religion….

I didn’t avoid it…

Did you understand that? Plain enough?

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 10:35 PM

That’s some heavy denial there buddy. You DID avoid the question. I wasn’t asking about Mitt in particular, just an entirely hypothetical question. Does “Random Candidate” being a Mormon disqualify him from being the President? And if so, what is the highest elected office, if any, you would support him for?

A very observant and savvy commentator comes on board to say this in response

Buy Danish on November 21, 2007 at 11:09 PM

I support all posts in which I am referred to as “very observant and savvy.”

Vanceone on November 22, 2007 at 2:35 AM

Before you spout out the anti-Mormon victim card. What quotes were false? What quotes were not accurate? You are saying those quotes never happened. Remember, a poster challenged us, and by the way he was very silent after my posts…I think it was disturbing to see the truth…it often is. First comes the denial, but you can’t be truly faithful, and deny truth.
Head out of sand…those are real quotes, from your real prophets…calling me anti-Mormon when I quote your founders and presidents (and not out of context)may make you feel good, but doesn’t change the truth. The truth, stands on it owns, you can’t put a bushel over it. Light trumps darkness, and words in the light of day can be blinding, but they also can show you the way.
Sorry if they disturb you, honestly, I am a conduit, they were the creators, they and you, have to live with it. Exposing it is not attacking, it is displaying.
If I have not quoted them accurately, or if you think they never said that okay, attack and correct me. But if I am right, and those quotes belong to your prophets…think again as to whom should be attacked. Even if it shakes your faith, think of what your “prophets” have really said…does it fit into, not your faith, but God’s words in Deuteronomy 18:20-22…if you feel those words are wrong, and you have better words from another book, then correct me.
This would mean, I can’t quote Mitt on anything, if it does not “sound good”, or fit into your belief in him, then it must be wrong. If I use an actual quote and stance from Mitt, and it doesn’t fit into your system of beliefs…then I am wrongly attacking him…just using your arguments.
Look again everyone at the header, it is a mixture of politics and religion.
One by one, Vanceone, I have answered your challenges, never calling you any names. Never making personal attacks, only stating what your founders believe and teach. I truly am sorry that you and others are so afraid of the truth…don’t hide from it, embrace what they say…read what they have said (not what is fed to you), and realize that their may be another path. Replacing confusion and confrontation about disturbing truthful facts, with anger isn’t the solution.
I encourage everyone to read these to books from scholars, one a noted Mormon scholar and the other a noted theology scholar.
“One Nation Under Gods” by Richard Abanes
“An Insider’s View of Mormon Origins” by Grant Palmer (a noted Mormon history writer, just to show balance)
And you can read, then discard what is untrue, not what you think is untrue, but what is really not factual.
Discernment, is what the bible calls it. We should all question our religious leaders and hold them accountable…at a much higher standard; the bible commands us to.

packsoldier on November 22, 2007 at 2:05 AM

Of course it isn’t relevant to you. You claimed it was about inferiority and I proved it wasn’t. That isn’t gibotry nor is it racism. It was discriminatory behavior based on premises that they felt were commandments from God. Was it right? I don’t think so, but I understand the feelings that motivated them, and I refuse to call it something it isn’t. The LDS church “apologized” when they lifted the ban and all worthy males were eligible for the PH.

The LDS are decent people who do nothing to intentionally demean or destroy the faith that someone else has in their religion. They think people should be allowed to worship as they please, and desire the same respect in return. That concept is a main tenet of their beliefs.

By their fruits shall you know them.

Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 1:01 PM

You’re wasting your time. The best thing for you to do is to cease trying to explain anything to her. Your kindness and patience is being repaid with disrespect and gibotry.

R2B thinks that vetting a candidate includes issues that have nothing to do with the office. She has already said Mitt would be OK for the VP slot until he was more seasoned. Her entire reason for engaging in this debate stems from her desire to get the conversation on LDS teachings out in the open so she can expose them for the sham she thinks they are. The LDS faith defends itself. The only thing that needs defending from you is the LDS people. As a rule you wont find a more consistently kind group of people. By their fruits you shall know them. That fact sticks in the craw of every giboted “Christian” that pickets an LDS church on Sunday, or passes out anti-Mormon tracks to minors.

By their fruits shall you know them. Period.

Dude, just because someone thinks you’re wrong, doesn’t mean he has homicidal designs on you.

Sorry Mormons, look beyond your community and recognize that reality.

Maybe start with some research on a Mormon Elder named Elijah Able.

But there really isn’t a point to reply to you anymore. There is absolutely nothing anyone could say that would convince you to leave off attacking my church. You refuse to answer how LDS beliefs are relevant to tax policy, etc. You smear anyone who disagrees with you, such as Bad Candy, regardless of whether they are LDS or not.

I cannot stop you from posting your anti-mormon screeds. Your sheer devotion to bashing another religion than your own is impressive, though I cannot help but be reminded of Saul when he held the coats of those stoning Stephan. Again, you avoided the plain question I asked you: whether being a Mormon is grounds for disqualification for office holding. You tried to make it specific to Mitt, but that is not what I asked. Since you cannot answer simple questions, you are exposed as a hypocrite and a liar.

So that’s how I’m going to treat you. I don’t have the time, patience or desire to engage in the spirit of contention with you. That’s the work of Satan, though I note you are very, very familiar with it.

So from now on, I will not answer your screeds; I will just note that every time you print yet another one of your attacks on the LDS church that you are an anti-mormon and therefore, have an agenda and are as trustworthy as CAIR. I will then invite people with honest questions to ask them, so I can refer them to a source that does not have an axe to grind, such as you.

And you can continue on your Don Quixote mission: tilting at your private windmill of the evil Mormon Bogeyman. I feel sorry for you that this question of Mormon doctrine consumes your waking hours as a Lutheran. I have no idea why you wish to persecute the LDS church, but you do.

Tell me, will you hold Hillary’s coat as she outlaws the LDS church again? Or would you prefer to stone us yourself? Or agitate for the extermination order to be restored–I bet that would make you smile, wouldn’t it?

Now, as for leaving the Republican party: How, exactly, would the Dem’s treat us worse than right2bright’s gang? Yes, they have horrible views, but I bet if we ran a bunch of LDS as Dems (not like Harry Reid, but actual LDS as Dems) we’d get a lot of votes, too. Look, it’s not like I’d want to leave the Republican party; but we are being driven out of it by right2bright and companies fanatical Anti-mormonism. It’s like dealing with a 9-11 truther–no matter what you say, they are convinced Mormons are evil, and they will fight to the death to shove that down everyone’s throat.

As we have seen, the Mormon Church was racist and discriminated against blacks. Their theological justification for it is irrelevant. They still have yet to apologize for it, and in fact, don’t appear to regret it at all. At least the Southern Baptists have the honesty and the common sense to admit that their position on slavery was wrong.

BTW, now that the “Negro” is off the hook, it’s amusing to listen to some Mormons speculate whether Bigfoot is actually Cain (or the descendant of Cain)…

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 11:41 PM

You are one sick puppy. Do you write bad porn novels when you’re not obsessing over prophets and writing bad blog commentary?

Quick! Who said this?:

I would support him. He’s a great looking guy, and he has bucks…

Answer:

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 10:35 PM!

Vanceone has repeatedly told you that he is not here to discuss his religon, but what do you do? You come back to me with a screed about prophets. And to think you pretend to be an innocent babe who isn’t out to divide us over Mitt’s religion.

Words fail me.

I answered the door on more than one occasion for an LDS missionary, as a minor, and he started right in. Didn’t ask for parents permission, etc etc.

Plus which, the WATCHTOWER is left all over the place for anybody to pick up. You sure you want to throw that stone, csd?

TexasDan on November 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM

They don’t talk anti-anyones religion when they come to your door. They will not hold a lesson on the front porch. The message they bring would offend an atheist, not a Christian.

Buy Danish on November 21, 2007 at 11:09 PM

Back to your name calling. It is alway dangerous to take on another persons argument. Look at the post stupid and you will see I was rresponding to one person. But if you want to jump in a day late, fine…you little stalking vixen.
I have already proved you to be a liar…and that is caught in your craw.
Actually if you want, I could pull a couple out that have called Christianity a cult. Want to go for the bet?
$500 says I can pull more than one post from more than one person that Christians are a cult.
I write a check for $500 to a charity, and send it to HA, and you do the same. If I can’t find more then one quote of Christians being called a cult, then a charity gets my check. If I do find a couple by different posters, then your charity gets the check.
If I am such a “charlatan” then that is easy money for a charity.
As they say…put up or shut up.

Can’t respond to your idiotic remark about his religion and the ability to lead. Read my other posts and you will get it. You are embarrassing yourself.
I am sorry that you feel for Vanceone, those quotes from his prophets are very disturbing. If I mis-quoted any of the Mormon prophets, could you point those out? Funny Vanceone challenged me, and when I used Mormon doctrine and Mormon quotes, he became very quite…shhhh, don’t quote the prophets, except when they are quoted by Mormon’s. If a false prophet was leading me, it would be disturbing…but I don’t follow modern prophets, they seem to fall short of the biblical requirements of being 100% accurate.
Although, I have a feeling that you think Mitt is your Prophet…he is sexy, do you think of him at night? Do you think he talks to you? Do you hear him in your sleep? Sometimes does he ask you for advice, you know in your head you hear his voice, and do you answer him? He wants you to talk to him…he likes you…you are very special to him, does he tell you that? When he gives his speaches, doesn’t he look at you? He is talking to you…Hear his voice…

First he says (emphasis mine):

No, they just come onto blogs and call Christians a cult, or call ministers whores for taking money. They teach that the Christian religion is abominable.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 8:37 AM

A very observant and savvy commentator comes on board to say this in response:

Times in this thread Mormonism is referred to as a cult: 3
Times in this thread the rest of Christianity is referred to as a cult: 0
Dude, there are all sorts of valid criticisms of the LDS church, but to say they come online and demonize you as a cult member is full on crazy.
e-pirate on November 21, 2007 at 9:37 AM

How does R2b try to weasel out of this?:

Actually I was speaking, and he knows that, to one individual who has called Christians those names. A cult, Ministers as whores, bigots, etc.
If you want, I can go back and pull the archives. This individual has a habit of personally attacking, not just general statements.
right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 9:55 AM

So THEY is just ONE INDIVIDUAL!

Phew, it’s a good thing that e-pirate came along to straighten this out, because if not for his (?) pointing out out a discrepancy to r2b, I might have been convinced that Mormons habitually refer to Christians as whores who belong to a cult!

What do I know? I’m not a Mormon! If R2B, who is an expert on Christianity, Mormonism, and Mitt Romney makes a statement it must be correct!

/SARC.

What a freaking Charlatan.

Oh, and just by responding to him we are to believe that I am “stalking” him. Yep, the fact that I call him out time and again for making blatantly false statements is “stalking” according to his rules. Indeed he has instructed me not to respond to his comments, but alas, I am not very good at following directions from R2B.

Vanceone,

I understand completely why you feel the way you do, and I say that as someone who has nothing to do with the LDS Church. I am disturbed by some of the comments that are made here, not only by right2bright, but by some who somehow think that it makes sense that whether or not one observes the Nicene Creed has some relevance to tax policy, national security, the SCHIP program, government spending, entitlements, how to deal with a nuclear Iran, and so forth.

I doubt very much that you are prepared to jump ship to the Dems since their policies really do seem to be in conflict with my understanding of Mormon values, but I don’t blame you for not feeling welcomed by some.

I also don’t see you as a whiner who “plays the victim card:” at all, and I think your comments were very reasonable and thoughtful.

Does being a Mormon disqualify somebody from being the president?
If so, can they still be a Senator? Mayor? Any elected office at all?

e-pirate on November 21, 2007 at 10:14 PM

I will answer you the same as I have answered on all of the other blogs that did not deal with his religion.
I think Mitt, if he ever decided to be truthful, and actually do the work that he “says” he will do, that is if he would prove with works that he is no longer flip flopping then I could support him. I said they should relegate him to a cabinet post or VP, until he can prove that he means what he says. He has had, in the past year, different positions on: Taxes, gun-control, abortion, immigration, and others. If I knew he really believed what he is saying now, then I would support him…but then every candidate would be a great candidate, they all are “born again conservatives” during election. His inability to lead with conviction is what he is weakest at. That may be related to a religion that uses the “burning of the breast” to determine right from wrong, or it may be is just not a strong leader.
I didn’t avoid it, because I have posted it a dozen times. Mitt is weak, he needs to be seasoned, to find out what he really believes…separate the campaign from the true beliefs. If he can live a conservative political life for a couple of years, I would support him. He’s a great looking guy, and he has bucks, just no consistency.
Did you understand that? Plain enough?

You posted a dozen times that you “responded to csdeven’s challenge that he threw down” or something like that, so here’s another one:

I’d like you to answer Vanceone’s earlier question which you’ve continued to avoid:

Does being a Mormon disqualify somebody from being the president?
If so, can they still be a Senator? Mayor? Any elected office at all?

It’s not “second class” at all.
Vanceone on November 21, 2007 at 5:01 PM

And finally, we will wrap up your, um, misguided statements.

“I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was more correct than any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.194).

Well, Joseph Smith thought it was second to the Book of Mormon, and every Mormon president/prophet since has thought so. (and I think you know that too, which is why I said, it is tough to get a straight answer from a Mormon”
The most schooled old testament translaters, consider the Bible to be the most accurate, and stands the test of time and study. Yet the Book of Mormon is more accurate? If you want I can list dozens of examples of mis-statements in your book, a perfect text.
So now we have prophets who don’t stand the test of the bible.
Book of Mormon that is the most perfect, but has imperfections, but Smith says it is perfect from the word of God. So now God is imperfect.
You have had a bad night my friend.

right2bright on November 21, 2007 at 12:26 PM

Where in any of those quotes did they say it was their inferiority that kept them from the PH?

“seed of Cain,”

“the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed.”

“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer”

And three times you refuse to see the reference to Cain. THAT is why blacks were denied the PH. They then said that they subsequently became an inferior race. But that inferior race was still allowed to be a member. The SBC kept them out because they felt they were inferior. That and that alone.