PlanetBoulder: McCain a “dinosaur”? What is that suppose to mean? That he is the oldest candidate? True, but he has been the most active campaigner in New Hampshire and elsewhere; and have you seen his 95 year old mother? What you call “dinosaur” can also mean experience, which McCain has.

Phil Byler on January 7, 2008 at 9:12 PM

I heard somewhere that if McCain won he would be older going into office than Reagan was when he left. Somewhere around 72-73 years old. The only credible knock on Reagan when in office was his age and possible deteriorating health towards the end. You don’t think that will be used against McCain constantly if he got the nod in the general election?

You do not get to Romney by the process of elimination. It is not a matter of running a gauntlet. Romney has been running negative as much as anyone, and Romney simply does not have the experience and knowledge when it comes to military matters, national security and foreign affairs that a Commander in Chief should have. In contrast, John McCain has the endorsements of former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig; that’s called having recogniuzed experience and knowledge

McCain gets an “F” in my book over something just as critical as Iraq and that is illegal immigration. If he was in lock-step with Ted Kennedy in their plans for amnesty for illegals, which he was last year, then he flunked out badly in my opinion of being the next President. I want someone who will represent American citizens as our next President, not illegal immigrants. The only major dispute that has turned me off with Bush after being a longtime supporter of his over the last 8 years is illegal immigration and I don’t want to elect a “clone” with the same ideology on this issue to take his place and shove amnesty down our throats for the next 4-8 years.

Tom Tancredo endorsed Romney because of the remaining candidates, his stance was strongest.

Joseph Smith is not on the ballot.

Buy Danish on January 7, 2008 at 10:03 PM

Oh, Buy Danish, you are soooooo naive….

the Mormons are bankrolling Romney to go the distance, and keep enough delegates to force a brokered convention.

Then Joseph Smith, who has been biding his time in L. Ron Hubbard’s time machine/hyperbaric chamber installed by Xenu under the Nauvoo Opera House, will be revived, and ride into the convention on a white horse and be declared the nominee by acclamation.

Mormons. Is there nothing they CAN’T do?

Darn. So much for that Christmas wish.

Stupid Santa.

Here let me help you understand, if you think the essence is wrong then you can’t read.

Gee, thanks so much for helping! Yes, sadly, it was my inability to read that forced me into a career in medicine. The shame!

I will ask again, now that you called be basically a liar. Where did I misquote?
…either correct me or apologize. What I stated was fact, that is what the two-faced Joseph Smith said.

You asked if your quotes were accurate, and insisted they were. Obviously, they were not.

Misquoting scripture and putting words into Joseph Smith’s mouth that he never said constitutes “accurate” quotes, in your book? You want to misquote, twist, and manufacture quotes from Joseph Smith, and claim the “essence” is still true, even when you’re caught red-handed?

Is your real name, by chance, Dan Rather?

You have no credibility here.

r2b,

Here’s a ****newsflash**** for you!:

Joseph Smith is not on the ballot.

I ask you: who was right for years about Iraq, first in criticizing the “light footprint” strategy as leaving too few troops to do the job and then in supporting General Petraeus and the surge when the Democrats were declaring defeat and Republicns were either hedging their bets (like Senator Lugar) or staring at their shoes (like Romney)? Iraq presented a test case of who really knows his stuff, and that person was shown to be John McCain.

You do not get to Romney by the process of elimination. It is not a matter of running a gauntlet. Romney has been running negative as much as anyone, and Romney simply does not have the experience and knowledge when it comes to military matters, national security and foreign affairs that a Commander in Chief should have. In contrast, John McCain has the endorsements of former Secretaries of State George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Lawrence Eagleburger and Alexander Haig; that’s called having recogniuzed experience and knowledge.

EyeSurgeon on January 7, 2008 at 3:49 PM

Here let me help you understand, if you think the essence is wrong then you can’t read. There were many changes to the D & C’s so let’s use the most recent.

Revelation through Joseph Smith, Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded on July 12, 1843. History of the Church 5:501-7.
And if he have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.
63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified.

Now if you think “he” means everyone but Joseph Smith, then I stand corrected. But if he includes Joseph Smith (and that is who we were talking about) then you stand corrected.

You are right about the other quote, it was not Smith that delivered the message, but another apostle speaking for God. It was given by another “prophet”, but still considered the word of God. So you are saying that that quote should be struck from Mormon history, and that it is inaccurate? Or are you saying I attributed to the wrong man, therefore it is what? Not right, is right? Was the quote (not the attribution) correct? Is it Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 13-14) or not?
So you are saying both my quotes are not part of Mormon history, that the essence of what I quoted is wrong?
Joseph Smith is not a he, or a him, and that because I mis-attributed the quote to Smith and not another Apsostle then my premise of Smith and Young were denying the law was wrong?
Here is the ultimate question, all of you Mormon’s are dancing around…posed by CSDeven (not by me)…was Smith and Young breaking the law, while pronouncing they would follow the law.

You guys can dance…

I’ve been for Mitt from the beginning. He’s had his moments of downfall(aka MLK march, possible flip/flop) but he seems to be the most qualified, if nothing else, candidate for the job. And he may be the only one that can beat out McCain in the coming primaries. Research his business record. He’s amazing.

NDConservative on January 7, 2008 at 6:28 PM

At first I was a Thompson guy, but his numbers dwindled so much it’s ridiculous. McCain is a dinosaur and way to compromising to Dems on issues like illegal immigration. I like Huckabee’s social values, but his leadership that great and communication skills are not very clear and concise. I like Guilianni, but I thought he about dropped out of the race in the past few weeks and hasn’t impressed me lately. That only leaves Romney, who seems to be getting ganged up and pounded on by everybody, but keeps coming out smelling like a rose.

He reminds me of the saying:
“the tall nail get pounded down”

It’s almost like he’s running “a gauntlet” or getting a “baptism by fire” from the other Republican candidates who constantly keep going after him in mass. As I remember from history, Reagan constantly got treated this way because he stood for something different when he was trying to get nominated as the Republican candidate and he came stronger than ever. Hopefully, if Romney survives this “battle royale” between him and the other candidates, the Democrats won’t stand a chance in the general election.

“Romney can follow on military matters, national security and foreign affairs, but does not have the knowledge and experience with which to lead concerning those critical subjects. Saying, as Romney did, that he did not say anything in support of the surge in Iraq when John McCain was out front and vocal because he (Romney) was governing a state was substantively quite weak.”

Romney is not the answer.

This is going to be an interesting election to say the least if it is Romney versus Obama. It may come down to a choice of voting for labels (Obama) vs. values (Romney).
Here’s a little support for my argument.

The Faith of the Centurion

Matthew 8:5-13
5. When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help.
6. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed and in terrible suffering.”
7. Jesus said to him, “I will go and heal him.”
8. The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed.
9. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
10. When Jesus heard this, he was astonished and said to those following him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.
11. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven.
12. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
13. Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! It will be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that very hour.

I am a Fred supporter. However, Romney looks really good lately and he is coming into his own as a candidate. Maybe a Fred/Mitt ticket would work well.

Let me ask you straight up, and we will see how honest you are. Were my two quotes (Doctrine and Covenants 132:62-63 and Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, pp. 13-14) accurate?

No, they were not.

Both of your quotes regarding the Mormon Church are inaccurate.

Quote 1: You have misquoted the Doctrine and Covenants, inserting Joseph Smith’s name where it does not exist in the original, and leaving out part of verse 63. The correct quote is here: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132http://gospelink.com/library/doc?scrip_doc_id=1563

Quote 2: Joseph Smith never said this. You are quoting from a talk given by Jedediah Grant, not Joseph Smith. Please check your references before just grabbing them out of an anti-Mormon pamphlet and repeating them here.

Let me ask you straight up, and we will see how honest you are.

Are you honest enough to admit that both of your quotes are inaccurate?

Vanceone on January 7, 2008 at 3:47 PM

You state:

*sigh* Right2bright, if you had even LOOKED at your quote from the Doctrine and Covenants, you will note it does not mention Joseph Smith in your quotation; it is more general

I quoted:

And if Joseph Smith have ten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him

How did you miss that? “sigh” nothing could be more obvious…look at the name Joseph Smith does that resemble Joseph Smith?

Remember what this is about. CSDeven quoted Smith as saying this:

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

Now focus, Smith was not obeying, honoring or sustaining the law. He was taking child brides, more than one, he was marrying women that were already married (forget about the “sealing” ceromony, he had sexual intercourse with them)
He wrote he would follow the law, while he was breaking the law, you don’t get that? I think you do. And it scares you, or you would admit the obvious.
I don’t care who the new prophet is, if what I said applies to Kimball, doesn’t it apply to the current president? No, or yes. Can they, by edict of talking to God, not follow the law like Smith and Brigham Young?

I call you that because I’ve corrected you on that before–I’ve TOLD you that Kimball died back then.

No, you have never told me that, that was the first mention of Kimball, instead of Hinckley. The last (and only)mention of Kimball (by me) was when he had the revelation to allow blacks the same identity as whites. Nice try in changing the argument.
So now back to what the post was really about…
It is obvious that Smith, while posting his “we will follow the government”, was in fact breaking the law and was well aware of it.
So, CSDeven little statement, is wishful thinking. The Mormons will follow what the president says to follow…remember, you were the one who said you would give up your 14 yr. old daughter to the LDS president if he said he spoke to God and God told him to “take” your daughter (of course you would ask God and feel it in your heart to make it right). Even you would break the law…
So breaking the law is wrong, unless the Mormon’s do it.

Both of your quotes regarding the Mormon Church are inaccurate.

Quote 1: You have misquoted the Doctrine and Covenants, inserting Joseph Smith’s name where it does not exist in the original, and leaving out part of verse 63. The correct quote is here: http://gospelink.com/library/doc?scrip_doc_id=1563

Quote 2: Joseph Smith never said this. You are quoting from a talk given by Jedediah Grant, not Joseph Smith.

As for Joseph Smith disobeying the law: Until the Reynolds case in the late 1800’s, it was an open question whether or not a religious edict under the first amendment allowed a law to be disobeyed. That was long after Joseph Smith was killed by your spiritual forefathers.

And you STILL haven’t the faintest idea who the current LDS leader is; you keep referring to Spencer W. Kimball, who died in 1985. You are over twenty years behind, moron. I call you that because I’ve corrected you on that before–I’ve TOLD you that Kimball died back then.

I am sure glad that I don’t judge Lutherans based on the major one I know of: right2bright. If I did, I’d conclude very easily that Lutherans were a bitter, self-righteous pharasitic bunch who know everything, or think they do. The kind of men who would kill you as soon as look at you.

But Lutherans are good people; I don’t know how right2bright manages to stay in that denomination. They preach about “loving your fellow man” and he or she clearly has no love at all.

They are all flawed!

The only two left are Ron Paul and Mitt Romney. Only one of them is sane. The other could be one of the brightest men we have ever seen in a campaign. Do you think he would embarrass his party or country by anything he says or will do? He’s flawed people. So what? Go look at this record not his past rhetoric running is MA! He is not conservative enough for you? His words ring hollow? Then why does Judge Bork support him on judges? Why does Tancredo support him on immigration? Why does the National Review support him overall? … He is certainly winning me over from the rest and his efforts last night are sealing the deal. Stop moaning about the past–the libs are going to kill us if we don’t start supporting ideas for the future.

true true indubitably true

in your usual dishonest attempts to bash the LDS faith.
Grow up.
Vanceone on January 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I will ask again, now that you called be basically a liar. Where did I misquote?
Let’s live up to your faith, and either correct me or apologize. What I stated was fact, that is what the two-faced Joseph Smith said.
You accused, now back it up. In fact you have often made that accusation, and when I challenge you, you fall silent.
You do not represent your faith very well…I can see why you support Mitt.

In my view, Romney can follow on military matters, national security and foreign affairs, but does not have the knowledge and experience with which to lead concerning those critical subjects. Saying, as Romney did, that he did not say anything in support of the surge in Iraq when John McCain was out front and vocal because he (Romney) was governing a state was substantively quite weak.

having the substance and policies to back it up.

Tim Pancoast on January 7, 2008 at 1:09 PM

Maybe you can answer…which policies? The policies that he adhered to before he ran for president, or the policies he says he believes in now.
And if it is the present policies, what gives you the faith that they won’t change again in another 6 months…because they are what you want to hear?