« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Hear me now if you DARE! – A Redstate Mormon speaks out!

By: Justin Spagnolo (Diary)  |  October 10th, 2011 at 01:44 PM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

PREFACE
This diary came from a comment in response to the honorable Mr. Rooster aka – The Gamecock of Gamecocks, the DeVine of Redstate, and as such my considered friend indeed.

PRE-AMBLE

The failure of Mr. Jeffress to articulate his response to a gotcha question is most regrettable.  Make no mistake, the object of the media question was to drive division on a potential nominee among the base of Republican voters.  Failure on the part of Christian Pastors that attempt to wear two hats in both the fellowship of their faith and their calling to witness for Christ, while attempting to explain why it is better for Christians to vote for a non-Christian rather than a “false christian” is by very word and deed a judgement pronounced on a fellow Christian, not the Mormon.

It is without a doubt a REAL issue for some, if not many, Christians to vote for someone that does not share their personal faith.  I have always been of the position that YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION on the matter.

But let me be clear… I vehemently DISAGREE with your OPINION.  AND IF YOU’RE WEAK MINDED STOP READING NOW!

{FROM THE VERY COMMENT LINKED ABOVE — With Expansion.}

NOW — FOR THE REST OF YOU YELLOW BELLIED-TURNCOAT WOULD BE DEMOCRATS!!!!

Please ALLOW ME to introduce you to your LOGICAL FALLACY!!!

If you will choose a Christian over a Mormon for Political Office due to THEOSOPHICAL, THEOLOGICAL, DOCTRINAL, differences… Then let me Air the reality of your IGNORANCE.

You DANCE on a MIGHTY slippery slope.

I am NOT defending MITT ROMNEY politically… I am on Record as a Perry supporter, and secondary CAIN supporter… so let’s get that issue out of the way…

But I simply ask you this…

If Mitt Romney is unfit to be your president due to his religion… than WHAT PUBLIC OFFICE is ANY MORMON fit for?

Where do you draw the line?
Is it in the Senate? TOO LATE. 

See (Berkely Bunker – Democrat of NV, Howard W. Cannon – Democrat of NV, Jake Garn – Republican of UT, Orrin Hatch – Republican of UT, Paula Hawkins — Republican of FL, Bob Bennett – RINO of UT, Mike Lee – Conservative of UT, Mike Crapo – Republican of ID, William H. King — Democrat of UT, Frank E. Moss — Democrat of UT, Gordon Smith — Republican of Oregon, Reed Smoot — Republican of UT, Elbert Duncan Thomas – Democrat of UT… etc.)

Is it in the House? TOO LATE. 

(Ron Biship, Jim Hansen, Jim Matheson, Chris Cannon, Delwin Morgan Clawson, John Dolittle, Jeff Flake, Jim Gibbons, Ralph Harding, Harner Budge, Goerge Hansen, Ralph Harding, Ernest Istook, David S. King, Howard Nielson, Wayne Owens, Norman D. Shumway, Richard Stallings, Richard Swett, Morris King Udall, Stewart Udall, Eni F.H. Faleomavaega… etc.)

Is it in a prominent cabinet position in any Presidential Administration? TOO LATE.

(J. Reuben Clark — Undersecretary of State, Angela “Bay” Buchanan — US Treasurer, Ezra Taft Benson – US Sec. of Agriculture, Terrell Bell — Sec. of Education, Larry EchoHawk — Head of the US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Mike Levitt — US. Sec of Health and Human Services, David M. Kennedy Sec. of Treasury, Rex Lee U.S. Solicitor General, Ivy Baker Priest — Treasurer of the US, George Romney Sec. of Housing and Urban Development, Stewart Udall, Sec. of Interior… etc.)

Is it in an Ambassadorship? TOO LATE.

(Jon Huntsman Jr. — Ambassador to China,  Robert S. Beecroft — Ambassador to Jordan, Richard Swelt U.S. Ambassador to Denmark etc. and I know its short, but there’s likely more).

Is it in a Governorship? TOO LATE.

(Many Utah Governors, including the Territorial governor Brigham Young… Both Romneys,  John Evans of ID, Jim Gibbons of NV…etc.)

Is it in a State Legislature? TOO LATE. (TOO DANG MANY TO LIST)

Is it in a Municipal Governmental role? TOO LATE.

(Joseph Smith Jr – Mayor of Nauvoo IL, Delwin Morgan Clawson — Mayor of Compton CA, Brent Coles – Mayor of Boise ID, etc… name a city in UT, probably was once run by a Mormon…)

DO MORMONS FAIL TO QUALIFY FOR MILITARY SERVICE? TOO LATE.

(I dare you to say that to anyone of them! Bruce Calrson — Four-star USAF General, John R. Lasater, USAF Brigadier gerneral, Robert C. Oaks — Four-star USAF General, Brent Scowcroft, Three-Star USAF General & National Security Advisor under Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush – Co-author of Bush’s autobiography, Paul A. Yost Jr – Four-star USCG Admiral, Joseph W. Dailey, 5th Sergeant Major of Marine Corps, John R. Massaro, 8th Sergeant Major of the Marin Corps, MANY MANY MORE, but of note… Corporal Harold Engstrom — Former School teacher – After 9/11 joined the Army… his research and role in Army intelligence led to the capture of Saddam Hussein.)

DO MORMONS FAIL TO BE GOOD NASA Program Participants?

(Ron Dittemore, Director of Space Shuttle Program, Colonel Richard A. Searfoss – Space Shuttle Commander… etc.)

DO MORMONS FAIL TO BE GOOD CITIZENS AND PROTECTORS OF LIBERTY? TOO LATE. 

(President Gordon B. Hinckley – Medal of Freedom Recipient).

DO MORMONS FAIL TO BE GOOD MEMBERS OF REDSTATE? TOO LATE. 

(Yours truly, and others, should they name themselves so be it).

Finally, what this is all about… Have MORMONS FAILED TO BECOME PRESIDENT? 

Yes they have — (Joseph Smith Jr., Fmr US POTUS CANDIDATE, George Romney, Mitt Romney(at least once), Sen. Orrin Hatch, Bo Gritz, Jon Hunstman Jr.(well technically he hasn’t failed yet, but let’s get serious), and possibly someone else, but I’m not sure…)

ALLOW ME TO DRIVE IT HOME FOR YOU

You’re TOO DAMNED LATE FOLKS… NOW IF YOU WANT TO VOTE FOR A CHRISTIAN OVER A MORMON FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS…  THAT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE.

But I think you’re ignorant of the Liberty that our Founding Fathers gave you!!! And in my mind you do not deserve to call yourself a Conservative… because Conservatives espouse Constitutional Protections, which intended to prevent establishing a Church Runned State… Despite the argument that there are denominational differences among Christians… You can’t tell me that we’re not a Christian Nation… at the same time you can not tell me the Founders would reject any man or woman for office by religious test!!!

DEAL WITH IT YOU LACKLUSTER TURNCOATS…

You want to prove to me that you are a Conservative and a GOODLY Christian? THEN SPEAK ABOUT THE ISSUES, SPEAK ABOUT THE POLICIES, SPEAK ABOUT THE OPPOSITION TO LIBERTY…

HEAR YE ME NOW — The Media wants us divided… they see that Romney may be the nominee… and they NEED your soundbites if that is the case… SO THEY MAY De-spirit us into NOT TURNING OUT THE BASE!… Even if Romney doesn’t win, at what cost will the nominee be painted with religious zealotry and bigotry to turn away the Prominent Mormon candidates?… Fair or not, the Media will use it all to their advantage to prevent us from TURNING OUT THE BASE… or Paint us as extremist religious zealots… What will be the effect? I don’t know… but what I do know… We’re all better than this!

LIVE BY THE 11th Commandment… THOU SHALT NOT SPEAK ILL OF ANY FELLOW REPUBLICAN.

And which Prophet, Seer, and Revelator gave us the 11th commandment? Well it was Gaylord Parkinson…

BUT POPULARIZED BY:

Ronald Reagan A CHRISTIAN, and A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THAT TRUSTED MORMONS!!

“Ronald Reagan truly admired the Latter-day Saints. His administration included more members of the Church than any other American president, ever. Three of us, David Fischer, Gregory Newell and I, served on his personal White House staff. Richard Wirthlin was his chief strategist. Ted Bell served as Secretary of Education, Angela Buchanan was Treasurer, Rex Lee was Solicitor General. His White House included Roger Porter, Brent Scowcroft, Richard Beal, Blake Parish, Jon Huntsman Jr., Dodie Borup and Rocky Kuonen, and there were many other Latter-day Saints throughout his Administration. President Thomas S. Monson served on a Presidential Commission on Volunteerism. Others were ambassadors. LDS senators and representatives were held in special regard, and the Tabernacle Choir was his special inaugural guest.” -Stephen M. Studdert, Special Assistant to President Reagan
Source: “President Reagan respected Church,” Church News

Have at it… Speak now your peace to me, Lob what you will at me…

I’ve seen detractors come and go, I’ve seen anti-mormon sentiment in the face of Christian and Non-Christians alike… I’ve seen putrid arrogant hate filled speech directed at people for the cause of their faith… and I think its cowardly and despicable.  HOW PATHETIC CAN YOU BE TO HAVE TO DENIGRATE ONE RELIGION… RATHER THAN DECLARE YOUR OWN BELIEFS WITH CONVICTION!!

I do not believe that all Christians share your views, and I don’t believe that Christians that can’t consciously vote for a Mormon due to their religious practice are mean spirited… It is your opinion.  I have laid out mine.

Thank you for your time. 

Tags: , ,
Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • westcoastpatriette

    But here is what I said and meant:

    Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.

    I hope we are all able to forgive each other before this is over.

    I am sorry you have been so hurt by all the discussion–sometimes reckless and inconsiderate–that has taken place the last few days at RS. Please keep in mind that the dastardly nature of politics in America makes us all behave like beasts at times and for that I am truly sorry, Justin.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I haven’t condemned anyone… I pray for the fools and the righteous!

      Thank you for your kindness… and no, I’m not hurt… But I am ANGRY that some of my fellow Conservatives… are so blinded by what they see as a issue of faith, that they can’t wrap their head around the wholly USELESS arguments made against any Mormon that may potentially become White House material.

      In all reality… I hope this is educational… its not meant to stir division…

      • westcoastpatriette

        we will all come away a little more knowledgeable than we were before. Sometimes, the only way out is through, and at least everyone’s cards are being laid on the table.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          n to the dash t. NO TEXT. NO WHAMMIES.

  • Doc Holliday

    in this thread, and the monster thread. Makes me think back to the countless times libertarian-conservatives said, this is not the days of the Moral Majority, these are the days of the Tea Party, the Constution, and limited government.

    I am no expert, but I thought we already had the Mormon vote, Utah is reliably rock ribbed Republican. And I think Mormons chose that place to get away from government interference in their lives, I could be wrong about that, but they chose a good place.

    Do we really have the time to fight among ourselves? The enemy is over there! Our duty is to smite the enemy.

    This is the last thing I am going to say about the subject. I only made a small handful of posts on the mega thread, that choice was a good one. But when I see allies so completely off topic, so completely unaware of the enemy’s position, I see missed opportunities.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I wrote this diary out of frustration not hurt feelings… by all means… let’s focus on something else much more pertinent to the world of Conservatism.

      As I write this, I’m looking at wallboards at work running CNN… and I see “Religious Battle in the GOP”…

      Congratulations Jeffers!… YOU DONE BROUGHT THE HOUSE DOWN!… Unless my assumption is correct… which is MOST Christians are as petty as the ignorant fools I’m addressing.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        *ARE NOT as petty… No not a Freudian slip.

      • Doc Holliday

        we need every man. I hope you have seen the recent polling, Republicans overwhelmingly has no issues with a Mormon president. The Democrats do not want a Mormon president, only 49 percent would have no problem with it. My guess is more would be against an Evangelical Christian, not fewer.

        I think discussing various religions and beliefs can be a rewarding experience. But there is a time for that, and a time to fight the socialist scurge, the clear and present danger.

        I can promise you this Justin, very few here have something against Mormons. More oppose my self described “libertarian-conservatism” than oppose your religious beliefs.

        One maxim of battle is to focus on the objective that leads to victory. We must ignore those who want to divide and conquer us, and you never know who they are and what their real reason for is for being here.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          I appreciate that…

          No I’m not going to let the detractors keep me down… and not focused…

          And I agree with you… as a former Mormon Missionary that went door to door in Minnesota and surrounding area for 2 years… I learned quite a bit about the differences between Good Christitans, and Doctrine Bashing loudmouths that do the devil’s advocacy.

          I STRONGLY believe that MOST Christians that actually read and adhere to the concepts of the Gospel of Jesus Christ… aren’t bigoted or close minded enough to pick political battles with like-minded Mormons that align politically.

          That being said… I took to a diary to give those loudmouths one good hard look at their ignorance, and challenged them to decide what they really want to accomplish with their “non-Mormon” vote.

          • Doc Holliday

            let them come to the diary, then by their fruits we shall know them.

      • Doc Holliday

        I save ammo and shoot the barrel on time :)

    • aesthete

      Great comments — completely agree. I wish I’d only had the wisdom to participate less in that mega-thread…

      • Doc Holliday

        we all wander into the brier patch from time to time.

  • Kyle-MI

    Saw this article on Yahoo. Really impressed me about the GOP field.

    Now if we can just get the same type of loose unity about entitlement reform.

    • Kyle-MI

      http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/not-going-gop-candidates-won-t-criticize-romney-133633059.html

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        these candidates for all their faults have shown a great deal of sensibility in this regard…

        Now if they could all just focus on messaging the important things in the correct ways!

  • rightwingmom52

    and I’m happy to give you my honest answer. Before I ask, let me say that I agree with you for the most part, and I’ve been clear that my non-support of Romney has nothing to do with his being a Mormon. Rather, it’s that I don’t trust his conservative credentials as much as those of other candidates.

    So here’s my hypothetical. If you have 2 candidates with virtually identical records, policies, viewpoints, experience, backgrounds, etc., except that one is a traditional Christian (in the sense that this term has been used in this discussion) and the other is a Mormon, for whom would you vote? What criteria would you use in choosing?

    Honestly, I would have to give the Christian the slight advantage in the same way that I would, say if one candidate were from the South and the other the North (I’d vote South). I’d be looking for which one would see most things through the same prism as I. Who has the most similarities?

    I sincerely hope you find no offense in my question or position because none is intended.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Frankly, Hypotheticals are just that… I don’t put any stock in a hypothetical question, its nonsense… no offense. :)

      Please allow me to explain why your hypothetical doesn’t apply here… I don’t have a problem with Jeffers, or Christians or anyone else for that matter that chooses to vote for a Christian in favor of voting for a Mormon… People ought to vote their conscience, People ought to vote for the representative that will represent them.

      But that you may know that I’m not a spoil-sport…. I will answer your second half of your hypothetical proposal…

      I would go about the decision in this way, I would weigh the issues of the day, I would attempt to understand what is most important and urgent and needs to be addressed, I would analyze the records and the rhetoric of each candidate to ensure that they would best represent me and my ideals in their office. The equation would require virtues from each candidate such as integrity, trustworthiness, communicative skills of peaceable means, a degree of humility (as much as one could expect from the kind of personality type that runs for political office). Once I feel I have a good handle on their character combined with their skillset and as you state hypothetically they match up? I would then go to the Lord and ask him for guidance to make the decision, as I trust his foresight in knowing WHO will not only best represent me and my perceived ‘best interest’, but will best perform in the office, and carry out the Lord’s purposes. I make no assumptions that the Mormon or the Christian candidate would have any advantage over the other when it comes to the designs of Lord… for he is no respecter of persons. But whom he loveth he chastens, and to those that have faith in him, he is well pleased.

      And once I felt I had my answer… I WOULD BE LOYAL to that revelation, and I would do everything I could to support that candidate until either the Lord says otherwise, or we accomplish the task at hand… and that LOYALTY would go FAR beyond election… I would support that candidate through thick and thin… providing support, and correction where needed throughout their administration.

      But that’s just me…

      You see… my problem, my righteous indignation with some folk is the attitude of “I’d just as soon vote for fat Elvis’ dead carcass to hang out with me on a 50′ island with prevailing downwind in every direction than I would vote for a rotten stinkin’ Mormon who ain’t no damn Christian, screw them and their Joe Smith and their Golden Plates and their Mormon Bible, and their heresies and their no good polygamist, racist ancestors, that beat their wives and children into some brainwashed cult like theology where the Devil rules the roost and their wickedness prevails to the point where they evolved and grew horns and proved that they’re worthless creatures that cain’t understand that the bible is God’s only word, and revelation is dead, and we have no more need for a prophet, and the words of Jewish Christians proves we know more than anyone else regarding the character of God cause we done VOTED on it before at the COUNCIL OF NICEA some 325 years after the Birth of our Lord… Curse MITT ROMNEY — HE’S WEIRD!!!”….

      Get my drift? Christians are entitled to their opinions… I’m entitled to mine… They can correct me as they see fit, and I can correct them as I see fit…

      Long and short… If you refuse to vote for a Mormon solely on the basis that they’re a Mormon… Then you’re a damned fool.

      No offense, but that’s just like my opinion.

      • rightwingmom52

        It’s kinda hard not to get your drift at this point. LOL.

        I’m happy to report that among all the Christians I know (and that’s a good many), I haven’t heard any even bring up the Mormon issue. As I’ve said before, I support others before Mitt, but if he’s the nominee, he has my full-fledged support, and I’ll try my best to spin him as conservative as I can.

        And yes, we agree that prayer is a must, and in fact, asking God for his help in who we support should be a priority on our checklist.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          And thank you for always being gracious and kind and exemplifying the VERY BEST any Christian has to offer…(including the discount Mormon ones ;) )

          If I may say so, I LOVE REDSTATE… as much as there is the tit for tat around here… It is mostly substance…

          If you check out other sites out there and read through the comments… SHEESH… I mean REALLY? ICCHHHHESSSHHH *shudder*…. I don’t think I’d have the patience, or the know how to fight such degrees of formidable ignorance and intolerance of opposing views.

          Don’t get me wrong… there are regular Mormon bashers on this site… and they veil their intent well….

          I do not intend to continue these diaries for diatribe to flush them out… every diary I write usually comes from an internal spring of disgust and lamentation that prophets usually use only when they have something incredibly sharp to say to ears and hearts that have softened under the immorality and void of conscience in our society.

          This isn’t a victim rant, and it never will be, at the same time neither will I allow Christians the right to play the victim card or martyr, either in matters of faith or religious bigotry, and especially not when it comes to Politics.

          I simply expect more from Conservatives… they either believe in the Constitution or they do not.

  • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

    I believe that it’s Mike Crapo, Republican of ID, for Idaho, not UT.

    I have no issues with Mr. Romney’s Mormon faith. I had friends in school who were Mormon. At the other end of the scale, I once prosecuted a lawyer for Welfare Fraud who happened to be a Mormon. The conviction ultimately got him disbarred but that’s because he was a dishonest lawyer, not because he was a Mormon.

    The issue I have is that when a Mormon says “I believe in Jesus Christ” I do not think that he or she is speaking of the same person that I, a Roman Catholic, believe in. I do not say that to attack or disparage but only to define. Please correct me if I’m wrong (my sources are former Mormons; at least one is now Catholic priest). Note: in some circles, the Catholic and the Mormon are in the same boat – - there are still many who think the Pope is the Antichrist and that Rome is the whore of Babylon.

    Again, this distinction is not a deal breaker for me. If Governor Romney is the nominee I will vote for him without hesitation or reservation. It is, however a distinction that must be acknowledged if we have any hope of getting past it and uniting to defeat the current temporary seasonal occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I was aware, must have been a typo as I was writing this…

      As for the “not the same Jesus” argument… I think that’s absurd…

      Do you care to elaborate on that? I don’t assume you are trying to disparage, but you are trying to make a distinction…

      That in and of itself suggests that you may be somewhat threatened that my relationship with my Savior and Lord the very Jesus Christ, he who was born in Bethlehem of the virgin Mary in a stable, the very same who escaped Herrod’s reach to Egypt, and then returned to Nazareth, the same that traveled far and wide to be about his Father’s business, taking upon him the Baptism of John the Baptist, having a dove represent the Holy Ghost, and a voice from heaven stating “This is my Beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Hear ye him”, The very same that ministered to the sinners, preached deliverance to the captives, healed the sick and the lame, and caused the blind to see, the very same that suffered in Gethsemane, and did sweat great drops of blood, the same that appointed Apostles and Prophets and said unto them to “Go ye into the world and preach repentance”, the same that suffered greatly at the hands of Caiaphas and the Sandhedrin, the one that faced Pontius Pilate and did not deny his purpose, the same that was sold to death by the washing of hands by the Roman governor and at the release of Barrabas the theif and murderer, the very same benevolent God that prayed unto the Father to forgive the sins of the ignorant Roman Soldiers carrying out the sentence of a Just and Perfect being, Innocent and Pure, to his final moments until he gave up the Ghost, and then returned 3 days later as he said he would… The very same Savior that was able to forgive sin, and make intercession for all if they will but accept his Faith, and his Baptism…

      Does it bother you that a non-Catholic, or outright a Mormon just may regard his relationship with this Jesus to be as sacred to him as you presumably you consider your relationship with him as sacred?… If so, you seem a little insecure in your own faith. Don’t pretend to make allusions to “Some Mormon I know”…

      Just read our scriptures if your curious… otherwise, remain content in your own scriptures and cannons, and Catechism… what more is there to distinguish if you’re content with your faith?

      • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

        in my own faith and have no problem with you nor am I threatened if you are secure in yours.

        I guess if I had to draw an analogy of how I understand the difference it would be this. An Englishman and a North American both say “I love football”. They are both talking about a sport played with a ball on a rectangular field whose object is to score points. Beyond that, they are talking about two completely different “things” that they call by the same name. Now, analogies are not perfect (if they were, would they be digital?), but that is how I can best explain what I understand to be the difference between a Mormon and a Catholic, Baptist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican or other Christian speaking of Jesus.

        At least when I speak with someone from one of those denominations, I know we are both speaking about the second person of the Holy Trinity, one in being wth God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, and not a separate individual who is only one in purpose with God.

        So, based on the testimony of a number of former Mormons and a variety of resources I consider credible, I believe that Mormons believe in the separateness of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This is what causes many people to say Mormons are not Christians. If I have misstated your belief please let me know and give me some sort of citation or reference.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Really I’m being quite serious… but at least you acknowledge it…

          Yes we do believe that God the Father, the Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are 3 separate distinct individuals and no some schizophrenic xenos-figurative narcissist (forgive me if this seems a little bit heretical or blasphemous, but remember I think your position is the heresy and the blasphemy).

          Here’s the deal from our perspective the Trinity is man’s philosphy mingled with scripture. The Council of Nicea is where the Trinity Doctrine comes from. Not from the Bible… I dare you to find the word “Trinity” in any bible verse that describes the nature of God, or the Godhead… (No I’m not asking you to point to “I and My Father are One… because we see that as purpose… and I’m asking you to point out where any of God’s prophets, apostles, or even Jesus Christ ever used the word Trinity, or 3 in 1, 1 in 3 in the same substance of being).

          Need some parsing material?

          God said, Let us make man in our image, Gen. 1:26
          (what did God mean by “us”, was he talking to his ‘other’ self?)
          (what did God mean by “in our image” was he talking about a painting or a polymorphic figurative creation where typification doesn’t represent him physically, but hopefully in a spiritual form?)

          man is become as one of us, to know good and evil, Gen. 3:22
          (What did he mean “as one of us?”… again “us” and again ‘of’?)

          This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, Matt. 3:17 (see also Matt. 17:5).

          What? You mean the same person announced his pleasure in him self being “omnipresent” in two physical places? You would have to be a quantum physicist that got a degree in psychology to be able to explain that one to me.

          not mine to give, but ? of my Father, Matt. 20:23

          So he’s got to be wearing his other hat before this can happen right, even though he’s talking about the context of a future event?

          not as I will, but as thou wilt, Matt. 26:39

          Doesn’t this seem a bit indecisive if this is the same character?

          baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Matt. 28:19

          An outward ordinance requires the recognition of 3 personalities in one individual?

          called the Son of the Highest, Luke 1:32
          my Father is greater than I, John 14:28

          If they’re the same, then why is there a heirarchy?

          Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove, Luke 3:22

          Two phyiscal bodies? The one being baptized the one descending?

          Son can do nothing ? but what he seeth the Father do, John 5:19

          When did he see the Father do things? Some Security feed in space that he reviews?

          Father that sent me beareth witness of me, John 8:18

          Self-Testimony declared in the 3rd person?

          that they might know thee the only true God, John 17:3

          Is he praying to himself in the 3rd person so we can know him?

          That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, John 17:21

          Now its a block party in one physical being!

          I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, John 20:17

          Surely you don’t mean that his ascension here is in reference to becoming a Father of two people that already exist.

          being by the right hand of God exalted, Acts 2:33
          saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, Acts 7:55

          Now this is just getting ridiculous… he’s now standing by his own right hand, or was it his own right hand that exalted himself after the travail of his soul on earth?

          not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, Acts 17:29

          as in, can’t melt into one great alchemist pot of a singular substance

          to us there is but one God, 1 Cor. 8:6

          Because we have but one father.

          Christ, who is the image of God, 2 Cor. 4:4
          image of the invisible God, the firstborn, Col. 1:15

          Kinda like us? see above.

          I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord, Eph. 3:14

          So we pray to the Father in the Name of the Son… but not to the Son who is the Father?

          dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, Col. 2:9
          Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, Heb. 1:2
          three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, 1 Jn. 5:7

          One purpose… but 3 that bear record “in heaven”… so if the roles are separated by ascension and condescension while on earth… then why is there 3 separate descriptions bearing record in 3 ways, if they’re not 3 separate and distinct individuals.

          Sometimes I wonder how many Christians read the bible as a book, and not as some sort of referential text that is cited to explain the philosophies of mankind…

          If that is your basis for dismissing me from Christianity you’re building your house upon the sand my friend…

          But hey, that’s just like my opinion man…

          One of the differences that I believe we separate on quite distinctively is the doctrine of Baptism… would you like to go down that road to and explain to all the “full immersion” Christians out there why you differ with them? Or is your comment more about telling a Mormon where to go in regards to his blasphemous attitude toward a council of men that came up with a ridiculous* explanation of something they clearly didn’t understand, because they DIDN’T HAVE AN APOSTLE PRESENT to clear it up for them…

          *and by ridiculous… again.. that’s just my opinion.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Look maybe I shouldn’t be so vocal regarding this…

            But don’t assume that because you say you would vote for a Mormon gives you the right to come in here and start talking about doctrinal differences… capice?

            Feel free to return fire if you will, but I’m going to Hinz myself on this.

          • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

            Somehow I expected better than “the word Trinity isn’t in the Bible so the standard Christian understanding of the concept must be false.” Give me a break. Like many others, you misunderstand the Council of Nicea. The Council didn’t invent anything but I won’t waste any more of either of our time on the finer points of Church history.

            You have confirmed for me that you are not a Christian as I (and the rest of the non-Mormon world) understand the term. I don’t think that makes you a bad person or an evil person or anything other than someone who sees the world through a different lens and/or marches to a whole different orchestra. Further, I don’t presume any right to come in here and talk about anything. I was only looking to clarify my understanding of your belief and trying to identify the source of the biggest stumbling block, as I see it, for many Christians considering whether they could support Governor Romney.

            As for my analogy, well I guess I’ll just Hinz myself and be done with this.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I’ve united all Christians on a particular point of doctrine!

            Or have I?

            If you think the biggest stumbling block for many Christians is the Mormon view of the Godhead for Romney, and not Romneycare… than you’ve just proven the very point of this diary… thanks for proving your actual intent.

            Let’s be real right? Ignoring the substance of my answer, but then trying to summarize the argument in a singular view just shows the ineptitude of someone that opens a discussion but isn’t prepared to receive an answer for what it is.

  • dajeeps

    And if there were ever an occasion where one would run, the candidate would have to really push the Jeffersonian spirit before I’d even reconsider. In that sense, religion does matter.

    But for the various denominations of the christian faith, it doesn’t matter so much to me, with the exception of Eastern Orthodox, because it is the effects of their potential policies that make the difference. I except Eastern Orthodox because I am at odds with the doctrine of social justice, especially in government, and if there is any doubt about what the candidate would do in office, I would err on the side of caution.

    Any of them, however, should take into account that they are at least expected to be a leader and quite possibly a role model. In that respect, it is quite understandable if some are more particular about religion than I might be. I respect their right to vote for the candidate of their choice for whatever reasons they choose, and I’m not about to try to dictate to them or hound them for it.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Grow up you mamby-pamby mush mouthed jackwagon!

      Where did I dictate to them that they MUST do anything?

      I declared knowledge for their taking… I do think that your mindset is one of ignorance. Does that hurt your feelings? Cry me a river.

      Muslim or Space Alien… If they represent me better than any other candidate, and they have a record to prove their integrity, and their knowledge of constitutional principles… then NO religion isn’t a factor, not one iota, not for me…

      I mean seriously… who would a Mormon vote for if we’re not Christian, Not Muslim, and Not Democrat if all we did was base our voting on the people we identify as “has faith like me”?

      Defending a person’s right to be ignorant and carry their opinions is one thing… suggesting that I’m dictating to them non-stupidity… well that’s just laughable.

      • westcoastpatriette

        Comical, though.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          no text as the text can really get lost in the whitespace.

      • dajeeps

        and have to act like a democrat labeling someone with an opinion you don’t like with your own weakness. Let me know when you have an intelligent argument and I’d be happy to oblige.

  • conservativecurmudgeon

    in 1982 against the foul UAW-puppet Jim Blanchard was asked (and I’m paraphrasing) something along the lines of, “If you believe in Magic Peep Stones, Golden Tablets with Reformed Egyptian, that American Indians are the Lost Tribe and in King Strang, won’t you believe ANYthing?”

    Headlee (who would have been an amazing, amazing Governor) winked and replied something like, “Jim Blanchard believes shoveling money into Coleman Young’s campaign will save Detroit. Which is a bigger fantasy? Mormonism or Liberalism? Besides, I believe what I believe, and I choose not to question that belief. Isn’t that the essence of faith?”

    Richard Headlee was a great, great man. He dealt with the Mormon “thing” head-on, and left everyone in his wake dumbstruck and flat-footed. He wasn’t condescending, and he would not be condescended to, either.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Thanks for sharing… that is awesome.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    I did not know that.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      and thanks for the Reco’…

      Please let me know if you think I’m crossing the line on any of my challenging comments to others… or if you need me to dial back the religious discussions so as to not waste Redstate bandwith trying to correct others on Mormon Theology and the interpretation thereof.

      I will gladly receive any instruction to the matter on that, I would prefer to err on the side of caution when it comes to the gray areas of site rules.

      • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

        Right now this appears to be an issue. I think you’re fine.

      • mikeymike143

        they are hardworking people with excellent family values.

        that being said, i am firmly opposed to both romney and huntsman as candidates for POTUS, but that has nothing to do with the fact they are LDS. it has to do with the fact they are moderates and i am a right wing conservative.

        i have a couple of close friends that are LDS and i think that this country would be a better place to live if more mormons were elected to office. as long as they were conservative, of course.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          I’ll take an honest conservative of record, integrity, and ingenuity that has a strong moral compass of what is right and what is wrong and a strong skillset for getting things done regardless of their personal theological differences with the rest of the world.

          Honestly is it so hard for people to see that principles of truth transcend labels and categories of epistemological discussion?

          How, What, and Why are endless as time… but the truth that lights the way for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is grand disinfectant for sectarian disagreement and the truth is no religion of man will ever be the exclusive protector of God’s truth… as we simply are incapable of seeing all that God can see let alone experience what our neighbors experience to truly understand what has sealed their faith in testimony… when two are gathered in his name there he is also… WHEN THE WORLD CAN SHARE THE SAME EXPERIENCE AT THE SAME TIME… there shall the Christ be come in his glory to disinfect us of our sins and bring the whole world his truth…

          I look forward to that day with hope for my fellow mankind and much of this politicking willow have been for naught, or but for filth and dross to be bitterly drunken as the dregs of our depravity…

          We have so much to learn and we spend so much time telling others what they do not know rather than sharing what we know and learning from others.

          We don’t need to hate our enemies or despise the ignorant we need to uplift the hands that hang down and speak the truth for nothing else will bring about the peace that passerby all understanding.

          Thanks for you comment and I am sorry for the sermon… I was just rambling.

  • ohiohistorian

    but believe you should also give full disclosure. You missed the most prominent Democrat Senator who is a Mormon. Not only is he a Mormon, he has been recognized by Times and Seasons as the Mormon of the year in 2009. http://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2010/01/times-and-seasons-2009-mormon-of-the-year-harry-reid/
    Is there a reason that etc. in the list came BEFORE Harry Reid? I agree that he might be an embarrassment to a Perry/Cain supporter, but the fact that he is a Mormon should not be neglected.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      The second link in the diary goes to a previous diary of a similar nature where I mention Sen. Harry Reid…

      I had intended to make a special quip about him and was saving it to the end… there are Many, Many more I could have written about, and some that I did were prominent Democrats…

      That church of Jesus Christ of latter day saints is a worldwide church that spans wide political boundaries… this list was to help others understand that Mormons have been active in American politics all along, each individual on the list is recognized for some great accomplishment …

      But in the interest of full disclosure… I pray for folks like Harry Reid… I do see where some people can be an honest person fighting for what they believe even if it is wrongheaded… my hope is that we all can remain civil… you’ll also notice I didn’t mention Glenn Beck… although he hasn’t held political office, or to my knowledge served on any civil citizen or military capacity he is definitively a Mormon and prominently in American politics.

      That list as mentioned above could have gone on to entertainers and other prominent Mormons… but there is a scope to the diary.

      As for dirty Harry… yeah he too is a Mormon… but he also is a Moron.

      See what I did just there? :D

      • ohiohistorian

        You were listing politicians (Glenn Beck is not one, so I would expect that you would not have listed him), but to not list the most important Senator who is a Mormon just surprised me. In interest of disclosure, I have probably spent more time on Temple Square than many Mormons (just on Thursday nights though).

        I also pray daily that Mr. Reid, President Obama, and John Boehner see the light of what they are doing to this nation and that they turn from their current path. To fix our Government, we need to do what we are doing to protest and try to win back our country, but we also need to enlist God’s help. There is a real parallel to be seen between our current times and the Israelites in captivity to the Persians. Except that our captors are among us.

        There is no similarity between Mormons and Morons, but it is acknowledged that Harry Reid is one of the latter. I cannot speak for his qualities as the former. That is not observable by me.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    Plenty of unfit people serve in the Senate and Congress. The fact that they serve in those bodies does not mean that they are fit for the position they hold. It only means that they are eligible to serve in those positions.

    In the middle of your list, your questions morph from “where do you draw the line” to “do Mormons fail to ____”. It is an interesting slight of hand but it is also a straw man. No one has ever made that claim. And your original point does not necessarily lead to the next.

    Mormonism does not make someone fit for office. It does not necessarily make one unfit for office.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Where did I make the claim that Mormonism qualifies people for office?

      Talk about a logical fallacy…

      See you either don’t get it, or you’re the devil’s advocate? Which is it?

      This diary is about how Mormonism should not “disqualify” people for public office, even the office of the President of The United States.

      I’m clearly on record stating that I believe there are better people than Romney or Huntsman to be the President of the United States… but surely you’re not suggesting that all or any of the Mormons I listed were UNFIT for the offices they were elected to, BECAUSE They were Mormons? Or is that exactly what you meant? If so, you’re a bigot, and if that is so, as long as you can live with yourself, I supposed that’s where you’ll be… a damned fool indeed.

      Forgive me if it seems that I don’t take you at your word when you say “It does not necessarily make one unfit for office.”… you see you qualified your “does not” with a “necessarily” which is what I would suggest is an equivocal opt out for reserving the right to deem someone unfit under the very auspices of the originating slipper slope argument.

      As for the sleight of hand business… No it was a segue as what those prominent public servants listed were not publicly elected, but by their fruits they were distinguished.

      Look take my diary, and change the religion… Let’s make it Jews… does that change your opinion? Let’s make it Christians, does that change your opinion?

      Get a clue pal.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        The question you asked is the following: ” If Mitt Romney is unfit to be your president due to his religion? than WHAT PUBLIC OFFICE is ANY MORMON fit for?”

        To answer the question, you listed the offices in which Mormons serve. My point is that such service does not mean they are fit for the office.

        A similar argument would go something like this. “If [Crazy Person] is unfit to be president due to his craziness… than what public office is any crazy person fit for?” Then I list Nero as a Roman Emperor as well as some other famous crazies [possibly Jimmy Carter]. The list itself does not prove your point. It just proves that they have served. It proves that they are eligible to serve. It does not prove that they are fit to serve. [Although I am sure that most of the were - with the exception of Harry Reid and a few others.]

        In my last comment, you could change Mormon to Christian and it would not matter. In fact I will do it for you. “Christianity does not make someone fit for office. It does not necessarily make one unfit for office.”

        It is slight of hand, as well as a strawman, because no one of standing has made that allegation.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Did I attack your character?

          As for your tying together two thoughts… you see, I am happy to point out to you where you got off track. ‘If’ implies a condition to the question, ‘due’ implies the qualifier, and finally the follow up question “WHAT PUBLIC OFFICE is ANY MORMON fit for?” is a rhetorical question of context.

          Did you notice the question directly preceding the list of offices in which Mormons serve? It wasn’t the rhetorical question you identified… it was “Where do you draw the line?”…. and by Where i’m asking which Political Office is it OK for a Mormon to serve even though they’re a Mormon?

          Follow the words.. they form ideas and questions, and stipulate forms of logic.

          Now… please allow me to school you in forms of logic yet again… Your “similar” argument is what we call a logical fallacy of equivocation. — You see the term “crazy” is implicit, suggestive, and subjective in terminology…Logic is meant to be objective, deductive or inductive in reasoning, and requires an aptitude for separation of concepts. All of which your example does not do.

          Now, when you used my proposed alternative you demonstrated just how relevant my point has been all along, and I thank you for inadvertently ceding the point to me…

          In “sleight of hand” logical fallacies the premise that one argument is distracting you from the logic of another argument with other forms of logic and then attempts to suggest that because one form of logic is logical, that the secondary argument must also be logical. This would fall under several logical fallacies such as innuendo, fallacy of composition, fallacy of connotation, fallacy of equivocation (previously mentioned), amphiboly, and so on…

          Now why did i go to such lengths to explain sleight of hand logical fallacies? Because you’re a vain hypocrite… and your Machiavellian forms of argumentation are a shining testimony to your ineptitude to make a coherent argument. Is that ad hominem enough for you? Let me break that down so you understand… instead of foaming at the mouth in front of your computer while reading my comment and thereby causing your head to explode…

          I sincerely doubt you could make such as claim as “no one of standing has made that allegation”… but nonetheless you did… and as such I shall treat it with sunlight and disinfect your brain…

          You do not need someone of standing to make an allegation.
          You do not need someone of standing to determine if your hyperbolic, or incendiary remarks are filled with logical fallacies.
          You do not need someone of standing to identify bigotry.
          You do not need someone of standing to parse the ‘pejorative’ nature of the word “Cult” to know that they have their own personal agenda which provides a direct conflict of interest by defining a categorization of an opposing view.

          You don’t need someone of standing… you just need your brain to function objectively when addressing an idea through logic.

          Was that a demagogue enough? Maybe the “ignorant religious bigots” need to run for the hills as the Mobs and denizens of hate will come after them for my brash and unholy agitation of words!

          Thanks for the fun. Really :D

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I also really enjoyed your usage of “Crazy” for a substitution for “Mormon”…. I’m sure that wasn’t even a Freudian slip at all… no very likely just your conscious association of the two words in your personal lexicon.

            Classy Kipling… Real Classy.

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    The liberty our founding fathers gave us is the ability to vote our conscience based on any criteria we so choose. Thank you for supporting that liberty. I am sure I will sleep better at night because of it.

    I am not sure what all the lecturing and yelling (BOLD AND CAPS) was about since you obviously support that liberty.

    Nonetheless, the condescension and yelling will probably win a lot of people to your cause. Nothing like lecturing someone on something they did not say to make them an ally.

    The only problem I have is that it is hard to smoke a cigar while reading a post with so many strawmen laying around.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      First of all…Bold and Caps are ways to emphasize… if your mind interprets yelling as you read… well then that action served the purpose didn’t it?

      As for the “Lecturing” I think that’s an odd choice of characterization and personification of what you deem our relationship is… Do you consider me some teacher or professor or preacher? Flattery will get you nowhere.

      What pray tell was condescending? Unless you feel its condescending to point out a logical fallacy to ignorant religious bigots? Do you consider yourself as one of these?

      If your only problem is smoking cigars while you make strawman arguments… then I’d say become a Mormon and stop smoking and making ridiculous arguments along side other commentators that have a proclivity to ridicule and criticize and lash out when their feeling get hurt…. ;)

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        No, I consider you a demagogue promoting a issue that has already been thoroughly discussed. The charge of lecturing is not meant to be flattering. Comments like “Hear me now if you DARE” are more befitting a carnival barker than an intellectual discussion.

        Use of terms like “ignorant religious bigot” and “lackluster turncoats” demonstrates a surprising lack of substance.

        Like all demagogues, we must now all bow to your point or be considered bigots or turncoats. I thought conservatism was about thinking and individual conscience – not hive mentality.

        As to feelings being hurt, I am afraid you have neither the ability or capacity to do so. If you think your post might have done so, you seriously overrate your ability to influence – no matter how many bold and caps you use. Perhaps if it was all bold and caps – still probably not.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          You’re perfectly fine setting up more strawman arguments while you light your cigar…

          Clearly if others are able to parse the term “Cult” I believe its quite fitting that I parse the term “Bigot”. Both ‘ignorant’ and ‘religious’ in this context is what we call in the English language adjectives. Did you feel there was a hidden meaning or definition that doesn’t fit? Please tell me how someone that simply WILL NOT vote for a Mormon because in spite of their UNFAMILIARITY with our faith as we both understand it and practice it, and also UNFAMILIARITY with the principle of religious freedom in our constitution… because they’ve convinced themselves that Mormons aren’t fit for the Kingdom of God in Heaven due to what is presumed our erroneous understanding of God’s Truth…. then Yes… I think “ignorant religious bigot” applies here…

          Point to me anywhere in any of my comments or diaries where I suggested you can’t vote your conscience even if you’re an ignorant religious bigot?

          It just really bothers you to know that someone might consider you a bigot doesn’t it? Here’s a solution for you… STOP BEING A BIGOT.

          Now let’s address “lackluster turncoat” which is to say in terms of staying home and not voting or doing a write in vote – should the nominee be a Mormon… Feel free to go looking for a 3rd party or Write-in candidate and attempt a win for POTUS with said candidate…. and should Romney be the nominee, I hope you can pat yourself on the back with all the schadenfreude you can muster while Obama destroys your Country, while you rest on your laurels of dignity in religious bigotry conscience.

          And don’t patronize me… if it didn’t hurt your feelings then why bother commenting about it, and using some piss poor arguments to diminish the accurate portrayal of your thoughts, words, and deeds?

          • gekster

            It is no use debating this guy, he is never wrong.
            No matter the subject, ideas, or whatever, he is never wrong.
            It is like debating with a brick wall.
            You know you are talking loud enough for it to hear, you are making reasonable arguements, but it will never listen.
            It is hard to have a debate with him, because he is never wrong.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            But you’re right, I need to write a 5-7 page paper and this is a distraction. Thanks!

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I have always found it mildly disgusting when people call names safely from behind a computer. It lowers our discourse.

            Have fun with your continued demagoguery.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            See what I did just there :D

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Why no honest discourse? Why all the attacks. Is it because you lack substance and your demagoguery is on full display?

            Let us address your point.

            What am I ignorant about? Mormonism?

            How am I a bigot? You don’t know what I believe. You don’t even know my stance on Mormonism. My comment was about your logic and demagoguery. How is that bigotry of your religion?

            Now, let us see if you can put your big boy pants on and respond with civil discourse or whether you will immediately run to name calling. I am voting for the latter. Try to surprise me slick.

          • acat

            (cheshire grin)

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You both launch into ad hominum attacks and fling insults when challenged.

            I find it not only cowardly but intellectually dishonest.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            We like making friends, which is why we like making coherent arguments.

          • acat

            extend the same courtesy to Mr. Spagnolo.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            You really believe my responses are so inflammatory?

            You may not be ignorant about Mormonism, but you are ignorant concerning the term bigot, and lackluster turncoat, and the principles I’ve addressed with you directly namely how to identify logical fallacies…

            But maybe you are ignorant of Mormonism… Instead of playing the sophist here… why don’t we look at your record… I’m sure acat could google some of your previous comments that we’ve engaged in from months ago on your views towards Mormonism.

            Second… I’m game to see if you’ve changed…

            So… let me ask you… Have you read the Book of Mormon? Or how about the rest of our canon of scripture? Are you familiar with the volume Jesus the Christ by James E. Talmage modern day apostle?

            I don’t believe I ever called you a bigot directly… however i did identify my reasons as to why I would call someone an ignorant religious bigot… and I’ve yet to hear you declare that you fit that criteria… so which is it? Do you fit my criteria? If so, then I think you’re an ignorant religious bigot. But hey that’s just my opinion.

            Since you’re wondering about my physical size… I’d be happy to oblige you with my dimensions. I’m 6’6″ 320lbs, and I’ve lifted cars off the ground… I don’t believe I’m hiding behind a screen as you would suggest… as my LEGAL NAME is available next to my handle… and I don’t hide behind monikers or stupid tit for tat arguments… I’m able to articulate my responses…

            Good luck there Chief.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You claim I am ignorant of Mormonsim and have clips at your disposal. Please produce them. Otherwise, move along.

            As to size, even the biggest man can act small. Any time you want bus fare over, just let me know.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
          • gekster

            After reading these, I am now wondering.

            disclaimer. It is by no means to be implied as an attack just because I wish to know the answer to the ascribed post.

          • acat

            there’s plenty more blue lines to be added.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You gave me the clips, now show me where they are wrong. I have stated nothing that streiff and Erickson have not already said. I demonstrated how Mormon beliefs differ from traditional Christianity – no more, no less.

            Did I misstate those beliefs? Am I wrong to show the distinctions between Mormon theology and Christian theology? Do the Mormons not believe what I said they believe? Did I err in simply stating that I do have a personal religious test? Erickson said the same thing just today.

            Where is the evidence of what I said being wrong?

            I will have to think on the Burr analogy.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            In the 3rd link was your reply to me when I specifically stated your 4th paragraph was misstated… and by 4th paragraph i’m talking about the 1st link.

            Then you got all huffy… and said what you said in the 3rd link…

            Then below the third link I replied to you again with these words:

            “As for Romney, I don?t believe he?s running a ?CHRISTIAN CAMPAIGN?? He?s running a campaign for POTUS. Get over yourself if you can.

            As for the meme ?Mormons are Christians?? well ipso facto?that?s debatable isn?t it?”

            And don’t go lumping in Erick Erickson and Streiff into your pathetic reasoning skills…

            I already replied to Mr. Erickson’s thoughts here if you’re interested.

            I don’t know what you’re referring to when suggesting that you’re merely repeating Streiff… but I would love to see some proof :D

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Forgive me if I don’t take your word for it. Please demonstrate where I am in error.

            Erickson stated that it was possible to have a personal religious test. I stated that I have one.

            Streiff stated the theological difference between Mormonism and traditional Christianity. I did the same. As proof read his original post as I am sure you already have.

            Just because you do not have the guts to call them bigots, don’t take it out on me.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            They have all stated that they would vote for Romney if he gets the nomination…

            As for your error on Mormonism… 4th paragraph of your comment in the first link… every other statement in that comment I agree with… with maybe the slight correction in the 2nd paragraph where you suggested our foundation is in the revelations that Joseph Smith received, and not from the “Christian Bible”… I’m not sure if that was clerical, or if you’re ignorant of the fact that it was James 1:5 of the King James Version of the Bible that inspired Joseph Smith to go to a grove of trees and pray to God to know which church was the true church during the revival period… and he was shocked to see 2 personages God the Father, and the Son Jesus Christ, rather than 1 God with 3 personalities which by the way one would expect a 14 yr old boy would claim given his mother was Methodist, and his Father Unitarian… and that was the creed of his day…. Long and short, the Bible King James Version is a foundational part of our cannon and doctrines…

            but the 4th you grossly misstated Mormon beliefs and interjected your own take on what we believe… specifically when you suggest that we don’t believe salvation comes through faith… yes we have a different view of what faith means when speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ… but you’re wrong in suggesting we don’t believe that our faith in him is not requisite for salvation.

            And again… I don’t remember Streiff, or Erickson attempting to bash with me regarding my faith… Jeffress, yeah he gets it wrong too… but if everyone understood our doctrines, the whole world would be converted… which is why we say we are the one true church… now that may make you angry to hear that… but that’s what we believe… the difference is I don’t go around telling other church going people what you believe, and then misstate your beliefs… I wouldn’t be presumptuous like that… instead I tell people that this is what I believe, if you’re with me, then great, if not, I suppose you’ll have to wait until the Lord gets here to learn why you should have come along with me in the first place…

            See the difference yet?

            I don’t know how to spell it out for you in any clearer way.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            In fact you seem to agree with me on quite a few things.

            If the Mormon church is the true church, then you must agree that the churches which support traditional Christian doctrine are not the true church. I never said one was true and the other was not. I said the two were not the same. A point which you seem to make as well.

            You just stated “? yes we have a different view of what faith means when speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ? ” I said that Mormons rejected the traditional salvation by faith in favor of one by works. What is the different view of faith that you mention?

            You cite one passage of the Christian Scripture and then claim that it is the foundational part of your canon. Yet your canon contradict key teachings of the Christian Scripture. Streiff made the point regarding trinitarianism, which you also seem to agree with in your post. Where am I wrong here?

            I have not bashed you regarding your faith. If I have, then please cite it. I have challenged your assumptions and your domineering attitude toward everyone who ventures to disagree with you.

            Still no evidence that what I said was wrong. In fact, you make my points for me.

            Why does whether or not I would vote for Romney matter in the discussion? My vote is my own and will not be dictated by anyone else. Obama and his supporters claimed that anyone who did not vote for him was racist. Are you now claiming that if we don’t vote for Mitt Romney then we are bigots? See the difference yet? I don’t.

            I will say that four days ago I would have voted for Romney in the general. You and he have raised serious doubts in my mind.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Clearly I have underestimated the depth of grand understanding of Mormon theology… I see now the error of my ways… will you forgive me for not explicitly calling you a bigot…? Would that persuade you to vote for my candidate of choice — Rick Perry? PLEASE DON’T NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY ON MY ACCOUNT… I couldn’t live with that hanging on my hellbound conscience.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Perhaps your rebuttal was hidden under all the snark.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            in the mean time I’ll be praying for you.

          • gekster

            he is never wrong.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Honestly do you think he’s really that stupid? Or is this a purposeful “I’m going to look away when words are painfully obvious” type of thing? or is it he thinks he’s just that coy?

            Talk about “ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth…”…

            He must pride himself on his modern day Nicodemus act… as if I wasn’t explicit enough… I mean what part of “As for your error on Mormonism…” with provided links and specific language isn’t clear enough…

            Does he think other people are going to read this thread and laud him as a champion?

            I mean what kind of weasel plays this sort of game and then goes to bed at night and says his prayers, and assumes that he did his Christian duty by obfuscating completely irrelevant things to prove how trivial and obnoxious one can be without making even one salient point?

            Do you think he has one of those newer new–new translations of the Bible that suggests you should be a pompous ass to other people when you think you’re in the right, even if sophistry is needed to justify the means of deception and guile?

            At some point I predict this idiot will be banned… its just a matter of time before he picks a fight with a mod.

          • gekster

            Obama.

            (and my friends use a small g. I’m not that big). ;)

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            It took me a second to remember the duel. Perish the thought. Why should a man be held accountable for a rash tongue.

            I simply wanted to afford you the opportunity to see the country and discuss the matter in person – between equal free men. I was plainly interested in whether or not you would refer to someone as ignorant and a bigot in person without the electronic medium.

            Sure the bus ticket was one way and the stipulation was that you would tell no one where you are going. But those are simple measures that most travelers observe in their daily lives. Nothing to see here.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            You don’t think I’m good enough for First Class? You’re gonna put a 6’6″ 320lbs man on a bus? That’s not very Christian of you at all :D

            As for your wonderment regarding would I say it to your face? You’re damn right I would… I speak my mind everywhere… it comes with the territory of having gone door to door as a Mormon Missionary trying to share a message of hope, and getting screamed at by someone for wearing my name tag in a store, life threatened by both professed Christian as well as a Muslim, pulled over by police while I was on my bike traveling in the bike lane simply because I ‘fit the description of a breaking and entry suspect’, having doors slammed in my face without nary a word, having people turn their sprinklers on me, being told I’m going to hell in a variety of ways, cursed at, spit on, and having been refused a glass of water in 100degree weather and 99% humidity…

            Now for every bad experience I had, I had hundreds of good experiences that were cordial and friendly… but no, I have no abashed feelings, or any degree of embarrassment to speak my peace to someone online or in person.

            P.S. Thank you for the compliment… I only wish I could be as buff as Hulk Hogan.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            : )

            I am glad you speak your mind. I could do without the name calling and I rather doubt you would do it in person. It does not really help your point or win converts.

            Regardless, I do applaud your perseverance and missionary zeal. I may not agree with the doctrine but I admire the zeal.

            The first class ticket would have to be two way. It is cheaper that way. Even if you only use one leg.

          • acat

            I like the subtle dig.

            In the first paragraph, when you say you doubt that, after Mr. Spagnolo has told you that he speaks his mind, you indicate that he woudn’t do so in person, thus calling him a liar.

            Well played, indeed.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            There is a difference between speaking your mind and doing so in such a way to insult your audience. I have no problem with people who speak their mind. Blunt people can be refreshing. I do have a problem with the other.

          • acat

            It’s one reason why I’ve been observing this conversation with interest.

            You’ve got a pattern, y’see. When your victim doesn’t back down, you start with the intimidation.

            Tell me, have you considered a career in community organizing?

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Let us go back and look at our previous conversation. I believe it was you who ran to hysterics and started with ad hominum attacks.

            All I did was call you out for talking big from the safety of the web.

            Playing the victim card is a little sad isn’t it.

          • acat

            Tell me, are you an ELIZA variant?

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            NT.

          • acat

            I missed the pattern the first two times, but it’s definitely there.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            It appears that this may be a legion of people… an operative group like freentn that can go “round the clock” in internet forums with anon… and the reason I say this, is the left hand is ignorant of the right hand… one response contradicts another, but the sophistry continues and the talking points are specific to the reply…

            In addition to, I think that there is a wide chasm of varying degrees of expertise within the group as the responses seem to be articulated based upon familiarity with a subject. This could spell out college students or organizations that have a large age span.

            I imagine that these group trolls are likely with a group that has a vested interest in both religion and politics, as I remember responding to one of kipling’s very first comments on redstate suggesting they were a troll and religious bigot based upon that comment. They never responded to the charge… and over time got better hiding their veiled purposes…

            It would appear that these types of accounts are coordinated by some archetype… and it may be the result of organized tea parties, or local church congregations that feel they have a politcal purpose to fulfill in seeing a Mormon not get elected, as it may “elevate” the relevance of a competing religion, or possibly even surrogate candidate supporters that may not necessarily be campaign operators, but related through other PACs or fundraising bundler groups… I’ve seen this pattern on the Left as well… and I’ve had friends approach me to come to “meetings” to “organize” on things like this… but maybe not on this specific issue.’

            It may be that they are lefty trolls posing as hard line “Christians” to solidify a debate that doesn’t truly exist between Mormons and Christians…

            I live in Oklahoma and work among individuals with many different denominations, I speak with people in the community with the same differences… I have yet to speak to an individual in person that says, “I WILL NOT VOTE FOR ROMNEY IF HE WINS THE NOMINATION!”…

            So its quite possible in my mind that this conspiracy has a degree of merit… but I’m just postulating a theory that fits the behaviors…

            Notice how these types of accounts NEVER EVER will answer a question that would pin them down as a “I would never vote for a Mormon” but instead they use all sorts of sophistry to dodge a simple question.

            In all honesty I think they lower the standard… but raise the IQ of others… as their constant challenging rhetoric requires the rest of us to build strong patience, coherent arguments, and dismissive sarcasm that will keep us entertained…

            If I’m wrong… then I would have to assume these individuals are closer to Sociopathicology* than they are to Christian Theology.

            *I invented that.

          • gekster

            In honor of freentn, we could call them freets.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Freets… it be.

          • acat

            I was looking more at the usage of goalpost-moving, implied-threats, selective-replies, and weasel-words…. which is why I thought of ELIZA.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Perhaps you would like to demonstrate where I said something that was incorrect.

            Let us use a simple formula so you will not get confused. It would go something like this…

            Kipling said ______.

            He is wrong because of _______.*

            *In the second statement, try to refrain from personal attacks and your mutual makeout sessions. A simple statement would do.

            It might go something like this….

            Kipling was wrong in the saying that the doctrine of the Mormon church differed with traditional Christianity because [and here you should counter something I actually said.]

            gekster and acat may even continue to cheer Spagnolo from the sidelines. I am sure they are would much rather do that than try to make a coherent argument on their own. Have fun and try not to hurt yourselves. I predict venom in 3, 2, …..

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            This is a test… if you are not a bot… spell this word in english with your next reply…

            3LiT3 H@ck3r

            ok… just messin’ with you…

            Kipling said…

            It might go something like this?.

            Kipling was wrong in the saying that the doctrine of the Mormon church differed with traditional Christianity because [and here you should counter something I actually said.]

            What Kipling does not know is that nobody ever disagreed that Mormon doctrine and traditional Christianity doesn’t have differences.

            What Kipling did do was obfuscate Mormon Doctrine as was laid out in the links provided upthread. As well as replies that reference said links that specify what Kipling misstated… because Kipling challenged Justin to show him where he was “Ignorant on Mormonism” upthread… and also directly asked “Did I misstate those beliefs?” to which I replied directly with examples of where your misstated those beliefs.

            Clearly you’re going to dodge this next reply… can’t wait for that…

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            So, let us now adjust the goal posts as you desire. Simply show me where I obfuscated.

            It should go something like this…

            Kipling obfuscated Mormon doctrine by saying _______________.

            He is what Mormon doctrine says ___________________.

            No referrals up-thread. State it in the here and now.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            no text for you!

          • acat

            Kipling said:

            Mormons also distort the doctrine of the fall of man. They reject the doctrine of salvation by faith in favor of a salvation earned by works. The Mormon church also has previously claimed to be the only true church because its leaders continue to receive divine revelations. This pretty much contradicts the belief in the early Christian church that divine revelation in the form of Scripture ended with the death of the apostles.

            Justin said:

            but the 4th you grossly misstated Mormon beliefs and interjected your own take on what we believe? specifically when you suggest that we don?t believe salvation comes through faith? yes we have a different view of what faith means when speaking about the Lord Jesus Christ? but you?re wrong in suggesting we don?t believe that our faith in him is not requisite for salvation.

            Happy to help. Have a nice day.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            He already sold the farm below. According to his post, the traditional Christian view on the fall of man and the Mormon view are not compatible.

            Even in the post you cited, Spagnolo admits that the Mormon church has “a different view of what faith means.” You should really read those things before you cut and paste.

            Glad you could contribute but cutting and pasting. Tomorrow we might work on writing our letters. Stop eating the paste.

          • acat

            I’m the one who doesn’t care which of you is right. Should there prove to be be a god, it’s on him – not you nor me – to sort it out.

            I’m the one who thinks that your decision to fight a sectarian issue in the political arena is the height of foolishness. Even Erickson and streiff don’t appear to believe Jeffress made a wise decision. You have yet to refute it.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You can crawfish if you want to but you made the assertion above that Spagnolo had proven my statement incorrect. I showed that he did not. You then also proved my point with your post.

            You may want to claim neutrality now. I understand.

          • acat

            Since you seem to have misunderstood, let me restate for you.

            I am neutral on the question of what the definition of “christian” should be. What the definition should be is a religious question, and is one reason for all the different “brands” of christianity. I. Don’t. Care.

            I am not neutral on the question of whether a religious subset of the above – are mormons christians? – should be a political issue.

            You, kipling, were eager to pile on when Rev. Jeffress inserted his take on this into politics. I can go back and cite it if you like.

            My view was and is that bringing a sectarian issue into the potlicial arena will serve only to suppress general election turnout.

            You, kipling, have yet to refute this. Instead, you bob and weave and threaten.

            I’m sure you will continue to do so.

            Mew

          • gekster

            he is
            never
            wrong.
            Just like
            Obama.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I recommend you stay away for the first and resume taking the other.

            If I am a well-financed conspiracy group intent on destroying Mormonism and or driving a wedge into the conservative coalition for Obama, why would I not simply lie and say that I am a Romney supporter? If I am such a shadow agency, why would I stop at a little lying to lend myself more credibility in your eyes?

            If you think I have such a nefarious purpose, please feel free to invite a moderator to review our thread.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Why would you pretend to be a Romney supporter? You’re doing just fine as a troll as is…

            I don’t think you’re nefarious ‘freet’… I think you’re misguided.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            So, now I am not a vast conspiracy, I am a single person who projects.

            If you have not noticed, very few are so misguided as to buy what you are selling.

            But take it easy. Use your meds. No need to go Porter Rockwell on anyone.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Given that Porter Rockwell was known for his willingness to defend the Prophet against villainous thugs that meant to destroy him and eventually succeeded.

            Is this another veiled threat?

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Now how is that a veiled threat if you are Porter Rockwell?

            You should really brush up on your own history.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            You don’t get logic,irony,sarcasm,or propriety …

            You do get self righteousness, pious, pomposity,arrogance, and abject failure to articulate a relevent stream of thought… if you aren’t multiple people, then you’re a duplicitous fraud… which explains a lot about your foolish psyche

            Which is why its fun to talk to you…

            Calling me Porter Rockwell is like calling a vigilante Wyatt Earp…

            and just like Porter Rockwell… I’d be happy to be your huckleberry…

            don’t think for one minute I wouldn’t be prepared for your hoity-toity mischief.. online or in person.

          • acat

            All of those theories are much too complex.

            I see no reason to ask a mod in. If you should so desire, since you’ve been complaining about personal attacks, feel free.

            I restrict my mind-altering substances to coffee, but I do thank you for your concern.

            Mew

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            He is the one that posted them above.

            Please come again. Cats are best neutered and declawed.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I think you should apologize and your participation on this thread.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            So now I am the petty one. Earlier today the three of you were stroking each others egos pretty well at my expense. Now you go crying and demand an apology. Please, have some dignity.

          • acat

            Sheesh.

            Mew

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Or were you inviting into your home and suggesting I would rather stay then return? Seems a little presumptuous doesn’t it?

            Maybe you were hoping that you could convince me of the errors of my faith?

            Look no need to get all bravado… I can asure you that I’d rather go to hell with the latter day saints than spend an eternity with you… besides we’d just run the devils out the doors and make a heaven out it…

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The first class comment is not a serious one. Rest assured that I would fly no one first class just to go Aaron Burr on them. Nor am I asking you to stay at my home.

            My point is that your rhetoric via the web is not what it would be in person.

            I did however compliment your zeal. I guess it is a compliment you choose to let lie and instead play the victim card. Funny, you called me ignorant and a bigot yet now you and acat complain of my intimidation. I guess bullies truly do not like to be stood up to.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I’m not the one making veiled threats am I?

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I am making no veiled threats. I am simply stating that both you and acat are too cowardly to hurl insults in person. You do so safely behind your little screens. If you would like to prove me wrong on that point, it is on your own dime.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I understand. Its hard to feel good when you do so much wrong.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You get my point. No need to drive it home. The coward dies a thousand deaths and all that. Please continue to show your lack of courage.

            In the meantime, you might want to work on that rebuttal. Still have not seen that one. Plenty of personal attacks, yes. Rebuttal no. Why is it easier to type the one and not the other?

          • avgjo

            we’d agree on theologically or even philosophically, but MAN, I admire your stick-to-itness with regards to your missionary experiences. I wish more people in my church had that kind of moxie.

            Hats off to you, for what its worth.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Neither you nor Spagnola can point to anything I said demeaning to Mormons. I challenged his rhetoric and his rants. I challenged his logic. In return I am called bigoted, ignorant, and a vain turncoat. Is this where our discussion have gone? Justin is clearly frothing at the mouth and angry at perceived slights. You however are usually more objective.

          • acat

            I’m quite sure that both gekster and Justin can find our little debate on this subject, even if it’s in a different diary.

            I am also quite sure that “demeaning” is found in the ear of the listener, not the mouth of the speaker. That is, it’s not the intent of the speaker that matters.

            (cheshire grin)

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I agree with your point on “demeaning” but as I noted above, you could substitute Christian for Mormon in what I said and it would still apply.

          • gekster

            you are never wrong.

            I didn’t say that you are demeaning to mormans.
            I just said that you are never wrong.

            I didn’t say the words bigoted, ignorant, or vain turncoat with respect to you.
            I just said you are never wrong.

            I guess I can’t say that anymore, because you are wrong in that I never said what you atribute to me.
            You are wrong.

          • gekster

            it is obvious that you saw things in my comment that were never there.
            Maybe that’s what wrong with your comments in this thread.
            You are seeing things that are not there.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            You said that there was no reason to debate me because I was never wrong. Justin had already launched his ad hominum attacks stating exactly those things. Yet, you take me to task as being a brick wall.

            You never said those things. Justin S. had. You came to his defense by attacking me. I responded by pointing out that what he said about me is wrong.

            Why attack me at all?

          • gekster

            I did not defend Justin.
            I just pointed out how pointless it is to debate with someone who is never wrong.
            Again, seeing things not there.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            nt as in new testament of gekster’s awesomeness.

  • aesthete

    If the prospective Republican nominee’s belief in Mormonism will play a large role in your vote in the primaries, or if you are sympathetic to people who do let it play a large role, then could you please write a diary explaining *why* it is a relevant criterion upon which to base your vote?

    No one is questioning your *ability* or *right* to vote based on any criterion that you choose — whether religion or the fluffiness of a candidate’s hair — but understand that your views will nonetheless (and quite rightly) be considered uninformed and illogical by others without making such a case.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I would LOVE to see someone attempt to articulate their reasoning for why its not bigoted to vote based on bigotry…

      Heck, I’d give them the benefit of the doubt… and accept the “its just the way I was raised” argument.

      • porkandcheese

        If Huntsman and Romney are the best candidates that the Mormons can put up for their faith, that’s not saying much about shared values. Furthermore, you are trying to turn weak if nonexistent support for nonconservative candidates into a civil rights issue and with all the tact and eloquent persuasion of a Paultard. The differences between Mormons and Christians have been hashed over many times — here’s a quick recap.

        1. Golden tablets — not much different from clay tablets, but rather redundant
        2. God and Jesus in the flesh
        3. Getting your own planet / polygamy — Romney’s grandparents moved to Mexico, so don’t tell me it’s an old or bogus issue
        4. Pre-mortality and divine will
        5. The comments of Joseph Smith himself

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Mike Lee

          .

          1. Prove the book of Mormon’s origin came from the imaginations of a 24year old that had no formal education.

          2. Explain to me why a 14yr old boy raised by a Methodist and a Unitarian would come up with the idea that he could pray directly to God after reading James 1:5 from the bible, and went to him with a question regarding which church he should join… and instead walked away from this event knowing 2 things. A. He saw 2 personages in a glorified physical form that appeared to share the image of man that declared themselves to be The Father and The Son. B. That he should join no church as the doctrines of Christianity had become corrupted by the philosophies of men.

          3. Planets are created by Gods, not reserved for exalted men to drive off the used solar system lot… As for polygamy… its only an issue for people that like to condemn Abraham, Issac, and Jacob… what’s bogus is your disingenuous characterization of the eradication of polygamous practices over a period of time once the Official Declaration 1 and 2 were presented and sustained by the body of the church.

          4. Take up pre-mortality with Job for the Lord knew him BEFORE he was FORMED in the belly. Divine will is greater than the short-sighted perceptions of man, but evermore our God has given us liberty to think and act for ourselves, as he wants us to become like him.

          5. Sir, I know Joseph Smith, and you are no Joseph Smith. Which comments bother you the most? The witty and charming ones, or the ones where he expounded on matters of death and sin as one having authority from God?

        • aesthete

          Today, in 2011 America, how does this stuff matter? So what if Romney believes the golden tablets story — how does this affect his position on anything? (Ditto your other questions.) Christianity is premised on the existence of a God turned flesh turned savior turned zombie whose invisible apparition we’re supposed to petition to forgive us of our sins. Whether it’s true or not (and I believe it is), it’s pretty bonkers, and if you heard someone describe their own religion that way, and they didn’t call it Christianity, you’d be out there calling them unfit for office, too.

          I’m not turning a single thing into a civil rights issue — I have no peer when it comes to disliking Romney. Since caps are all the rage on this thread, lemme put my point above in all caps so that the hard of hearing can understand — YOU HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO VOTE FOR THE CANDIDATE OF YOUR CHOICE. WE HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT AND CIVIC DUTY TO SCOFF WHEN YOUR RATIONALE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH HOW A CANDIDATE WILL PERFORM IN OFFICE, AND EVERYTHING TO DO WITH YOU NOT LIKING OR AGREEING WITH HIM ON A PERSONAL LEVEL. Get it? Make an argument using their *records*, not irrelevancies.

          • porkandcheese

            You can vote for Obama, because he’s black. The most successful grassroots organizer in Iowa worked in a hair salon and voted for Humphreys, because his mother was a client. You can likewise vote for a candidate who shares your religious beliefs. That is what Jeffress was saying. Romney doesn’t like it, since he is missing out on a whole audience he could be pandering to. But Mormons are not Christians. Now you are poaching among our flock. You can believe what you like, and no one will condemn you for it. There is no religious test. But you do not share our values.

            1. Mormons believe our churches were flawed. We liked them just fine.

            “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”

            Unless some 24 year old comes along, worshipping false idols, and fancies himself a prophet.

            2. God didn’t even appear to Moses as a human. Christians believe He is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent.

            3. 1 Timothy 3:12 (also 1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:6)

            A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

            ?For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh? (Gen 2:24)

            Finally, God?s disdain for polygamy is seen in its consequences. The Old Testament clearly reveals the familial strife and temptations that accompany the practice. Solomon is the quintessential example of one whose legacy of faithfulness was compromised because of his polygamous behavior. Despite his world?renowned wisdom, Solomon?s peaceful and prosperous rule ended in idolatrous scandal and civil strife, for ?his wives turned his heart after other gods? (1 Kings 11:4)

            It was far from endorsed in the Bible. To your other point about “the Official Declaration 1 and 2 were presented and sustained by the body of the church” — has anyone said Mormons still practice polygamy? It’s weird that that is the reason Mitt’s father was born in Mexico, but it’s also beside the point. It was never the ideal for Christians, and we certainly don’t aspire to our own planet.

            4. God might have known Job or any of us, but we didn’t all hang out and know one another. Jesus was not the firstborn but the only born of God. That goes back to the Trinity question.

            5. “Sir, I know Joseph Smith, and you are no Joseph Smith.”

            Neither witty nor charming, but douchey.

          • aesthete

            I’m a Christian, and I do not believe that Mormons qualify as orthodox Christians. I have severe disagreements with the doctrines which Justin supports above, and I have no intention of pretending otherwise.

            However, you’re still not answering my question, put in caps above: how, specifically, does Mormonism have a negative effect on a candidate such that you would not vote for one? You’ve listed lots of reasons of varying quality for why Christians shouldn’t convert to Mormonism or assume that Mormonism and Christianity are the same thing, but you’ve given none for why it is an impediment for a candidate. Answering that question, rather than debating the strawman in your head, would be a productive move in furthering the conversation.

          • porkandcheese

            Values voters want to support a candidate who shares their values. Instead of saying that although Christianity and Mormonism are different but can agree on some things, Mormon candidates are trying to consolidate support by attacking evangelicals for not accepting their faith. To me, they are trying to weaken their opponents support and maybe pick some off for themselves, and it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with politics.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Or were you just simply looking to threadjack and flame in the comments section?

          • porkandcheese

            You only wrote it so you could attack Christians again after threadjacking in several other diaries.

          • acat

            and somehow Justin’s the one who threadjacked?

            Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

            Mew

          • aesthete

            “Values voters want to support a candidate who shares their values.”

            “Black voters want to support a candidate who shares their skin color.”

            “College voters want to support a candidate who shares their hipness.”

            “Jewish voters want to support a candidate who shares their hunger for world domination.”

            (Just kidding about that last one… everyone knows that Jews are more into drinking the blood of Gentile children. World domination is more of a Freemason thing, really.)

            But seriously, if there is no difference in terms of final outcome, why does the above matter? If it is a matter of values affecting final outcomes, then why won’t you make a case that Mormonism would adversely impact negative outcomes such that a reflexive vote against a Mormon candidate makes sense?

          • porkandcheese

            It’s a supportive vote for the most electable Christian in the race. Romney wants to court the Christian vote, so he is saying he is a Christian. He is not. Neither is he middle class no matter how much he tweets about Subway sandwiches and flying coach on Southwest.

            “Jewish voters want to support a candidate who shares their hunger for world domination.” Really? Evangelicals stand with Israel.

            “Black voters want to support a candidate who shares their skin color.” They want to support a candidate who can relate to their experience, and I am hard pressed to name another group that has been enslaved and segregated in public besides blacks. Mormons forbid blacks from priesthood, but worse.

            “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218)

            In 1963, Look magazine interviewed, at that time, the leader of the LDS Church; Joseph Fielding Smith. Concerning negroes, Smith stated:

            “I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. ‘Darkies’ are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church” (Look magazine, October 22, 1963, 79; emphasis added).

            Smith also taught that “Negroes” were inferior to other races:

            “Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was place upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning? we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our Negro brethren, for they are our brethren–children of God—notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness” (The Way to Perfection, 101-02)

            And, as previously quoted, Smith stated that

            There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages… The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 66)

            Mormons believe Christians are members of “the great and abominable church” that was built by frauds and imposters after the death of the first apostles. The true church and true Christianity simply went out of existence, except for its American Indian interlude, until it was rediscovered and reestablished by Joseph Smith in upstate New York, and its claims will be vindicated when Jesus returns, sooner rather than later, at a prophetically specified intersection in Jackson County, Missouri.

            Christianity is inescapably doctrinal but it is more than doctrines. Were it only a set of doctrines, Christianity would have become another school of philosophy, much like other philosophical schools of the Greco-Roman world. Christianity is the past and present reality of the society composed of the Christian people. As is said in the Nicene Creed, “We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.” That reality encompasses doctrine, ministry, liturgy, and a rule of life. Christians disagree about precisely where that Church is to be located historically and at present, but almost all agree that it is to be identified with the Great Tradition defined by the apostolic era through at least the first four ecumenical councils, and continuing in diverse forms to the present day. That is the Christianity that LDS teaching rejects and condemns as an abomination and fraud.

            For missionary and public relations purposes, Mormonism is an “add-on,” a kind of Christianity-plus, but that is not the official narrative and doctrine. A closer parallel might be with Islam. Islam is a derivative of Judaism, and Christianity. Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad in the seventh century claimed new revelations and produced in the Qur?an a “corrected” version of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, presumably by divine dictation. Few dispute that Islam is a new and another religion, and Muslims do not claim to be Christian, although they profess a deep devotion to Jesus. Like Joseph Smith and his followers, they claim to be the true children of Abraham. Christians in dialogue with Islam understand it to be an interreligious, not an ecumenical, dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue.

          • SoFiMil

            THOU SHALT NOT STEAL

            I suspected as much with Pork/Cheese and several other posters, and just did my first check, and verified this.

            To all Red Staters: I was going to make this comment earlier, but now’s a good a time as any. PC, Kipling, and other bigots cannot speak without a teleprompter. Here is how to distinguish them from good Christians who reject LDS doctrines. They don’t know what they believe or what Mormons believe. Compare their crib notes to Justin, Ann, and if I may say so humbly, my own comments defending our faith. (The following will not be theological in nature). Justin, Ann, and I speak from the heart, while the bigots are completely incapable of doing so, but need their notes to refer to.

            Proof that what PorkandCheese “says” has been said before – I checked every paragraph that wasn’t referenced already and got a hit in Google.

            http://www.irr.org/mit/neuhaus.html

            PC even stole whole cloth the following sentence: “In 1963, Look magazine interviewed, at that time, the leader of the LDS Church; Joseph Fielding Smith…” from this website

            http://christiandefense.org

            You’re next, Kipling.

          • porkandcheese

            Then I declined to drag others into it. Though they published it online so that information could be distributed.

          • SoFiMil

            Of course it can be distributed. But you must attribute.

            Don’t justify your disgraceful, unethical, and illegal behavior.

          • porkandcheese

            Which I didn’t need to attribute. You just chose to distract from them, because exposing the racist past of Mormonism made you uncomfortable.

          • SoFiMil

            it was already on the internet so I can do whatever I want.

          • SoFiMil

            REPENT!!!

          • SoFiMil

            THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESS

            You did not have the website’s interest in mind when you did not attribute. Rather, you were *only* thinking of your selfish self.

          • gekster

            Thou shall not bear false witness against thy nieghbor.

            Basicaly, as I tell the kids, don’t tell a lie to get someone in trouble.

            It does not aply here, as he is not doing that.
            (if he is, I did not see that)
            That does not take away if he is lying or not,
            just not in the context of the Comandment.

            (just wanted to explain, as I have no dog in the seminary)

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Why do you keep yapping at the heels? You are not contributing anything. You just want to egg SoFilMil, Spagnolo, and acat on so you can see a fight. Show me one comment you have made in this thread that contributed anything to the discussion.

            In your own comment you admit that the “bear false witness” comment does not apply but you throw it in there anyway.

            Besides, the charge of bearing false witness has nothing to do with the charge of plagiarism. Neither you nor SoFilMil has shown that the charge was false.

            Now as to my post, it is pretty ridiculous to charge someone with plagiarism when they use ” ” around the things they quote.

          • gekster

            Just explainig something to someone, and you take offense at that.
            Get a life. Crawl out of the basement and get some sunshine.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I missed your great contribution.

            I am sure someone will say something in minute and then you can yap around them to second their comment.

            Hey, I know. Instead of substance why don’t you compare me to Obama again. That always seems to work. Yap. Yap. Yap.

          • gekster

            And how is explaining a comandment cheerleading.

            When you think you are the smartest person in the room, it just shows how dumb you are.
            yap yap yap.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            [Follow @vladimirrs at http://www.twitter.com.]

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I am not the person you “expose” in your posts. Anyone can google but the success of the search depends upon the criteria you use.

            If I was you I would remove before the individual you name seeks legal recourse. My comments are my own and you seek to smear others without foundation or cause. You disgust me and now you open RedState to potential legal action by releasing personal information that is not only erroneous but should be private.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            ["You're" is the proper contraction for "you are". - Ed.]

            Well my apologies to that Guy cause you’re certainly not representing anyone well…

            As for legal action against redstate or myself that also sounds like a veiled threat.

            That information is public and I found all of it in the public domain by using google. I haven’t violated any laws… although admitted its rude of me to make allusions that are quite groundless and presumptive.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The information is public but the attempt to credit those individuals with my remarks is slander. It may raise problems for them and the institutions you cite. You have no knowledge of who I am. Contact Mr. Erickson if you want that information.

            The threat is not from me. It comes from the innocent individuals you have falsely attributed my work to in your post. You had better hope the attribution does not come to their attention.

            Remove the post before you foolishly cause problems for the whole community.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            And I’ve already admitted that this was me just guessing I didn’t attribute anything you have said with what they have said… as clearly you aren’t this person right?

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I do not represent Redstate, I do not work for them and my comments are my own.

          • kipling

            You have used RedState to pursue a personal disagreement beyond the bounds of proper discourse. Ask the moderators to remove. In the meantime you can correct your post and apologize to the people you tried to smear.

            You do not have to apologize to me but have the decency to leave outsiders out of our discussion. I am sure they do not like to be called bigots and worse when they have not said anything.

          • gekster

            You’ve already informed the mods, and they have taken notice.

            Just how much blood do you want for coming to a diary and trying to show the auther you are sooooo much smarter than him.

            1 pint, will 2 be enough. How much do you need.

          • APA Guy

            I already tried to talk kipling off the ledge…to no avail

          • kipling

            He has done a hit job and now ran away.

            He has attempted to expose people with whom he disagrees. He has accused others of the things he accused me of and attributed my comments to them. He did so in an attempt to injure them in some vain attempt to expose me.

            If it is allowed to stand, then who is next. Will someone google your screen name and then drag whoever he finds into the arena?

            It is not acceptable. I only ask that it be removed.

          • gekster

            You just can’t let it go.

            If you find information on the internet, then it is not too private, is it.
            It’s not like opening up someones mail.

            Don’t reply, the mouse pointer is twice the size of the scroll bar, and I am done with this thread.

            Why don’t you find someone else on another thread that you can show you are smarter than them.

          • APA Guy

            I’d back away and chill for a bit…this was out of line.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            ‘Kipling’ has repeatedly for over a week misstated Mormon doctrine, misquoted others, has repeatedly ignored correction, and has used slur, and has typed libel… not to mention he has used metaphors to make personal threats, and by all means, he’s been trolling around looking to turn the discussion of this diary into a theological debate.

            When ‘Kipling’ dodges direct questions, misrepresents others, and babbles on about what is ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ he is proving both is ignorance and arrogance.

            My original comment that he’s trying to paint as some “grand abuse of privacy” and he continues to go on about how I ‘misrepresented’ him and the names of the people in my comment… I apologized to those ‘innocent’ people… if they even exist…

            I could be completely wrong about “James H. Pruitt”… and whether or not he “attends” that church… I’m not sure if his mother’s name is Elisabeth, or if he’s named after his Father, or if I’ve properly characterized his attendance to the institution named… and if I was wrong… I would have had to have been COMPLETELY wrong… and if I was… then I don’t see how I’ve injured anyone.

            As for “Kipling” I think he doth “protest too much”…

            The first breadcrumb I found was a link in his very own profile that he has since taken down…that leads to his personal blog on townhall.com

            So I’m curious… when a child plays with fire, they get burned, but when Kipling plays with fire, he gets to claim:

            He has attempted to expose people with whom he disagrees. He has accused others of the things he accused me of and attributed my comments to them. He did so in an attempt to injure them in some vain attempt to expose me.

            Then watch me sit back and ‘chill’ as you stated, and enjoy the show of his protestations.

            Let this be a lesson to idiots and bigots of ‘Kipling’ nature: Do NOT assume you are as anonymous as you think you are.

            Feel free to speak freely, but don’t assume that someone won’t make it personal when you make it personal.

            As far as the original comment goes… I’d be more than happy to have a moderator ‘blot’ it out if it would make ‘Kipling’ feel better… but I don’t see that I’ve made any violation… but I suppose I’ll have to live with the consequences of my decision too…

          • aesthete

            I’m with you, man (well, besides the doctrinal stuff not relevant to the site), but IMO your case is stronger without revealing personal identities where it is clear that the other person desires anonymity. I’m definitely not your father or moral superior in any way… but I encourage you to give some thought to possibly apologizing for attempting to make public that which kipling clearly does not want publicized. Just some friendly advice from a fellow Browncoat :)

          • aesthete

            BTW, there’s a candi-bot in need of a good thwacking…

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Oh and …. DONE.

          • aesthete

            Nice thwacking, btw.

          • gekster

            He’s another one who is never wrong.
            After helping him to get a diary posted, I some what regret doing that.
            I choose to just ignore him now.

          • aesthete

            Just ask my ex-girlfriends… :P

          • Doc Holliday

            .

          • gekster

            you do know I was talking about ryan, don’t you.
            (or there an inside baseball joke I am not getting)

          • aesthete

            My bad.

          • Doc Holliday

            no way I am going to read all this lol.

          • aesthete

            that you were being malicious… or geks either, for that matter.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            “Kipling” if you’re out there and listening…

            I apologize for making you feel so uncomfortable.

            If a MODERATOR reads this, please if you will blot out this comment as it offends my fellow commentator ‘Kipling’.

          • SoFiMil

            Your link’s not working.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Now we may return to our regularly scheduled thrashing of Obama and the democrats

          • Bill S

            If you or anyone else EVER pulls a stunt like this again, you will never post here again. Understood?

            If Steve had not already edited those posts, I would have banned you already. That kind of crap is unacceptable.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Nothing more to see here folks

          • kipling

            That right. If you don’t agree with Spagnolo you are an idiot and a bigot. And he will do a google search on any information he can find and then post that information to the web. He will mention your family, you employer, your school, and even your church. It does not matter if the information is correct or not. He will post anything if a vain attempt to intimidate.

            I think it was Alinsky who urged his followers to personalize your target and then attempt to isolate that target.

            Beware, a chill wind now blows over free discussion here at RedState.

            [Why hide that little gem in your text? Be bold and lead with it. I see you have stopped hiding under your rock for now.]

            gekster, you dropped a pom pom.

          • westcoastpatriette

            …

          • Bill S

            Let’s all move along. If it happens again, I can assure you that the offenders will have bought themselves a permanent ban and any other punitive actions I can think of.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I never intended to intimidate you… in all honesty I would prefer to be your friend and ally. I know words do mean things to different people. I am sincerely sorry if you have been slighted in anyway by my words.

            I know you will never reconcile your religious beliefs with mine. My hope is you can forgive me for the snark and sarcasm as well as the exposure of your theoretical identity or your real one as I sincerely don’t know if anything was accurate. It was more a childish prank than it was meant to cause any undue embarrassment.

            Im not going to demand any apology from you, but I will ask for a truce on the attempts to represent Mormon beliefs as you will just have to accept that all your cutting and pasting doesn’t give you authority on the matter.

            In the mean time know that we can both agree that neither Mormon candidate this cycle represents conservatives nor do they or will they ever represent you personal faith

          • kipling

            I have no intention of reopening the discussion or revisiting the topic.

            Thank you for removing the posts.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Spagnnolo is attempting to drive others from the public square by threatening to release person information and openly slandering others. His google search has designated someone specifically and he now attempts to tie them to my comments. Please remove the posts and stop the attempted intimidation.

            The comments are my own and do not come from Dr. James Pruitt Sr. or his son or someone named Patricia. Nor can they be associated with either of the institutions he cited. Spagnolo is attempting to harm these individuals and those institutions by associating them with me.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I am sure RedState policy is to not allow the intimidation of others by threats to release their personal information.

            Erickson can provide you with the correct information if he so desires and feels legally free to do so.

            Otherwise you need to have a moderator remove your erroneous post and you need to desist in this course of action.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            Lets not ignore your language inthis thread…

            I for one am dropping any conversation with you going forward..

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Contact a moderator and have the post removed.

            If you have nothing to fear than google up a fun number for the person you accused and inform him of you efforts.

            I would recommend you just quietly take it down and move along.

          • porkandcheese

            On point.

          • SoFiMil

            Not blaming into, but the Coreolis Effect takes over along with some Escher optical illusions. I physically can not follow the line back up to the person you replied to. I’m out of this thread, too. If it makes you feel better, you win. Somehow, though, I don’t think that’s enough for you.

            No matter. Cheers.

          • SoFiMil

            Now take your ball and go home.

          • SoFiMil

            What about the sections you didn’t use quotes when you should have?

          • powertothepeople

            to make them look foolish then by sacrificing your own self respect on the alter of tattle telling and foolish replies.

            They have made it very easy to do, yet you go this route. Not too mention the fact you are doing your faith no service by representing it this way. Just stick to facts and the rest will fall into place not too mention all this time wasted on this subject had distracted everyone from the sites real purpose.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            No texting

          • SoFiMil

            I’m always open to correction.

          • SoFiMil

            Hey, ever heard of Cooks Source (sic)?

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooks_Source_infringement_controversy

    • avgjo

      (BTW, I’m not endorsing the view that one should vote against Romney for his being a Mormon. However, there are certain religions/philosophies which, if held by a candidate, would preclude me for voting against them. I believe that the thought process of those in question could be similar, so I’ll explain mine.)

      I think this whole issue boils down to whether or not one can separate his religion/worldview from his actions as an office holder. And i think the answer to that question is dependent on how deeply those religious/philosophical convictions (if indeed they are convictions) have taken root. If they are so embedded that the potential exists for them to govern his every action or thought, then the system of belief should be examined. I don’t believe it is unreasonable to suppose (as many do) that King Philip II’s strident support for the Catholic Church played a role in his determination to invade Protestant England in 1588. The same is true of the fervor of Mohammed’s apparent belief which fueled his conquest and spread of the religio-political system of Islam.

      Now it might be objected that the systems of government of those examples would allow for such expressions of worldview/religion, while ours does not. And by the letter of law, ours does not. However, all sorts of things are done in our government that are not of the law. You don’t need me to cite all sorts of unconstitutional things being engaged in by the current administration. I believe that that is an expression of Obama’s worldview which, like most of his liberal cohorts, is a relativistic, ends-justify-the-means sort of philosophy. If Obama is religious, I imagine it would be in a nominal sort of way; q.v. his actions and words regarding abortion. This philosophy would explain his apparent willingness to flout the will of the people and the Constitution in furtherance of a ‘greater good’. At minimum, it is reflective of a lack of convictions that the letter of the law should be supreme in making decisions of governance. So if we grant that the Constitution and law is not a complete bulwark against libido dominandi, an assertion which history supports, IMO, then we should look at other potential bulwarks against it. Among these are religion and or philosophy. What parameters is the potential president/officeholder operating in?

      Now, I have had several good friends who were/are Mormon and whose behavior was virtuous, exceeding many in my own church. Many of them seemed to have deeply rooted convictions about right and wrong, which to me indicate that such a Mormon would be trustworthy and self-governing, two essential traits for a good president. While I have serious theological differences with them, I feel this disclaimer is important to convey that I have no dog in this particular fight. But I do sympathize with the idea that one must take the religious/philosophical convictions of a potential office holder into consideration.

      • aesthete

        And hey, for the purpose of discussion, I’ll just pretend that each and every Mormon, and each and every Muslim, and each and every Christian, acts in 100% accordance to the doctrines that they espouse. Now, I would like someone from the anti-Mormon camp to explain to me what actions or beliefs on the part of the Great Mormon Horde disqualify them from holding office as opposed to an orthodox Christian?

        Eschatological beliefs don’t count, since there is nothing in them that applies to today’s Earth in either religion.

        Polytheism vs monotheism also doesn’t count, because again, has nothing to do with political views.

        Joseph Smith’s fraudulence, or lack thereof, is similarly irrelevant: what Joseph Smith did or did not do is completely irrelevant to modern politics.

        In fact, all of the areas where Christians are rightly divided on doctrine with Mormons are areas that have nothing to do with public policy at all, and anti-Mormons haven’t made a case to the contrary at all. They haven’t even tried: above, getting porkandbeans to answer one simple question is creating multi-paragraph posts that can’t be construed as being answers to my query in the slightest. Kipling hasn’t tried to justify his rationale for doing so, either. All of the anti-Mormon posters have succeeded in making RedState a forum for elementary theology, but they sure haven’t made the connection to politics.

        • porkandcheese

          When you can’t or won’t get my name right. Your question was a rhetorical one anyway went to ascribe bigotry to someone who will not support a candidate who happens to be a Mormon, just like this whole cockamamie diary. YOU DARE TO REFUSE TO SUPPORT HARRY REID BECAUSE OF HIS RELIGION?!! THEN YOU ARE A DEMOCRAT AND A HYPOCRITE! It’s the most retarded thing I’ve ever read on the interwebs.

          • aesthete

            Some people have it.

            Others do not.

            I have been asking a perfectly reasonable question which you have not answered.

            My motivations are irrelevant. I could, for the purposes of discussion, be a horrible bigot against Christians, and be simpatico with Mormonism. It doesn’t detract from the reasonableness of my query. My question was not rhetorical. This is evinced by my asking you multiple times, in various ways, to answer it. I’ve never called you a bigot, or ascribed same to you — go ahead and check, I’ll wait. I also highly dislike both Romney and Huntsman, and have considered not voting for the former in the general election — if you paid half as much attention to what I actually write as you do to your strawman version of same, you would know that. Now, for the sixth and final time, I ask: what relevance do the differences between Mormons and Christians have to the 2012 Presidential election, such that you won’t vote for a Mormon?

            PS: I’ve never said your name on this thread, so maybe you might want to pay closer attention to who has said what in this thread.

  • gawken

    when he wrote they “never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

    Brilliant diary. Kudos!!..Well said, and long overdue..

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      I should wonder as well…

      Thanks for the kudos!

  • keonemichaels

    Religion aside, Huntsman and Romney are the 2 best candidates on the Republican slate IMO.

    • ceili_dancer

      .

    • ceili_dancer

      …

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      A horse walks into a bar, and the bartender says… Hey, why the long face?

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    To make your task easier here is the post you cite. Please point our where I am wrong.

    Mormon Doctrine is Incompatible with Christianity

    Joseph Smith organized the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on April 6, 1830 in Fayette, New York.

    Smith claimed to have been lead by an angel to a set of golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon, published in 1830. Smith also claimed to have visited with the risen Jesus Christ. After the initial visit, Smith continued to receive revelations from Christ. These revelations ? not the Bible of the Christian church ? provide the foundations for the Mormon beliefs. For example, on July 12, 1843, Smith received a revelation that allowed polygamy.

    ?Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body and that man?s destiny is to evolve to God-hood.? The Mormon teaching is: ?As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become.? I am pretty sure that contradicts classical Christianity.

    Mormons also distort the doctrine of the fall of man. They reject the doctrine of salvation by faith in favor of a salvation earned by works. The Mormon church also has previously claimed to be the only true church because its leaders continue to receive divine revelations. This pretty much contradicts the belief in the early Christian church that divine revelation in the form of Scripture ended with the death of the apostles.

    The Mormon church also supports proxy-baptism for the dead and celestial marriages. We have yet to do those two ceremonies at my local baptist church.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      “They reject the doctrine of salvation by faith in favor of a salvation earned by works. ”

      That’s a misstatement, and incorrect.

      “These revelations ? not the Bible of the Christian church ? provide the foundations for the Mormon beliefs.”

      That’s a misstatement and incorrect.

      “We have yet to do those two ceremonies at my local baptist church.”

      That is an obfuscation, of course you don’t practice those sacred ordinances, you don’t have the authority or the faith to do it.

      “For example, on July 12, 1843, Smith received a revelation that allowed polygamy.”

      That’s a misstatement, God commands, he doesn’t ‘allow’.

      “Mormons also distort the doctrine of the fall of man.”

      That’s a misstatement. The fall of man is an individual issue, the Fall of Adam is his transgression, not mine. We don’t ‘distort’ the doctrine of Original Sin, because we don’t believe in the doctrine of Original Sin.

      “The Mormon teaching is: ?As man is, God once was: as God is, man may become.? I am pretty sure that contradicts classical Christianity.”

      Debatable isn’t it? Even if its not up to debate by you, its still being debated isn’t it?

      “Smith claimed to have been lead by an angel to a set of golden plates from which he translated the Book of Mormon, published in 1830.”

      Well he didn’t just claim it happened, it actually did happen… but I understand why you would be threatened if that event did occur… and I understand that you seem to think that the usage of “claimed” is debatable…

      See how you “misstated”?

      You don’t see me going around suggesting that “Baptist’s believe this doctrine, and it’s peculiar to me, because I disagree with Baptists, but I will imply that it is incorrect”… Guess what, I think your beliefs are incorrect, if not more so than you think my beliefs are incorrect…

      What happens when an immovable object collides with an unstoppable force?

      Grow up you lunatic.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        You claim several are misstatements and incorrect, but you do not state the Mormon doctrine that I have supposedly misstated. Forgive me if I do not take your word for it.

        Other statements you seem to agree with. The traditional view of original sin is that the fall of Adam carried over to all humanity. You claim that it is his alone. How is that not a distortion of the traditional view of original sin? Perhaps, you prefer the word correction. Either way, the two are not the same.

        I am glad that you agree that traditional Christianity and Mormonism are not compatible.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          Its not a ‘distortion’ its a rejection. Original sin is a lie … from our perspective Adam and Eve made a choice to keep one commandment while breaking another … how else could they have remained innocent and multiply and replenish the earth… the choice they were given between knowledge of both good and evil and remaining innocent was presented by Satan… their choice led to their fall and banishment from the garden of Eden, but our first parents persevered in this lone and dreary world and maintained the second commandment… by having children and raising up righteoues heirs as well as wicked ones… each child being born innocent and growing in wisdom and stature and in favor with God and man… some keep themselves separated from the world while others deceive themselves and aspire to the honors of men by ever learning and never coming to the knowledge of the truth… the seek vanity and puff themselves up on their philosophies on Scripture but dare not do what every faithful man of God has done since Adam’s fall… which is to pray to God the Father in the name of the Son for their own endued blessing of knowledge from on high received by the spirit of prophecy which is carried to hearts of men by the power of the Holy Ghost…

          So like I said we don’t accept responsibility for Adam’s transgressions we see the magnanimous blessing the God of Heaven and Earth provided each of his children… my faith,hope, and charity was made possible throught Christ’s atonement for the sins of all mankind and his grace is sufficient upon the grounds of repentance and baptism to qualify for the Kingdom of Heaven as he laid out in the Bible … but to gain exaltation one must rely on his grace after we have done all that we can do…

          But we all know you’re just going declare victory because we ‘distort’ Original Sin… but how can we distort something we reject? You may not agree with us but don’t accuse us of distorting something we consider incorrect to distort something it has to exist… now if you were to claim we create falsehoods… at least that would apply… but only to your faith… not mine… its just beyond you to believe others might have an informed opinion that differs from yours… when it comes to matters of faith though I would stake my salvation on the fact that I am right… you on the other hand will likely try to argue your way through the gates with faulty notions and sophistry from the Bible saying Lord lord and he shall say depart I never knew you as you never prayd with the intent to know the truth… but rather took to spinning webs of deceit while ignoring the halted and maimed and widows and orphhans while avoiding the doing portion of the gospel unto the least of them what you would do Christ…

          Vain hypocrisy isn’t becoming of any professed Christian or Mormon

      • porkandcheese

        Christian here knowing not to bet on the serpent.

        • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

          no-text.

          • porkandcheese

            NT

          • SoFiMil

            : )

    • SoFiMil

      You make it sound as if the LDS church has backed off its claim of divine origin, as it (your words, you know-it-all) previously claimed to be the only true church.

      Uhm, not really. We still do, and are not ashamed one wit about it.

      Please cite your reference fir the belief in the early Christian church that divine revelation in the form of Scripture ended with the death of the apostles.

      I noticed you just cut and pasted your above comment from a comment you previously shoved in my face.

      Kipling – you are a boorish little man.

      • SoFiMil

        I wasnt offended by what Rev. Jeffress said. And yes, Romney is playing the aggrieved soul.

        This should end now. Leave it alone. It’s over. Forgive and forget. Do not let this eat at your soul. (I’m not being snide.) Please don’t insist on having the last word. It’s not healthy for you.

        And I apologize for things I said am truly sorry. My bad.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Please see the Montanus heresy (170 – 200 A.D.), the Council of Nicene (300s), and the whole history of the Christian canon.

        • SoFiMil

          Bewildering hypocritical.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            The point is that you do not. You base your belief on the writings of Joseph Smith. That makes the doctrine of Mormonism and traditional Christianity incompatible, which is exactly what I said.

          • SoFiMil

            Never ever.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            If I am wrong, then please demonstrate that fact.

            Otherwise I think we are done here. You have really been done since the beginning.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            Glad you have learned your lesson.

    • SoFiMil

      NT

    • SoFiMil

      THOU SHALT NOT STEAL
      .
      ?Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body and that man?s destiny is to evolve to God-hood.”

      http://mb-soft.com/believe/txc/mormon.htm

      *Kipling, hopefully you won’t get a “next time” but if you do, make sure to take the quotes out before you copy/paste from another site who did attribute and use quotes.

      Other bigots, you will be found out as well.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        A pretty pathetic attempt at slander.

        The actual quote comes from the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (2nd edition) edited by Walter A. Elwell (p. 792-794). The key indicator that I was not claiming the work as my own is the inclusion of ” “.

        So far you can not refute anything that I have said. So now you resort to challenging integrity and calling in the moderators.

        Nice threat to anyone who disagrees with you. Perhaps you would like to go running to your mother as well.

        • SoFiMil

          You lie just as bad as your colleague porkandcheesepuff. And what about the other “original” thoughts that didn’t have quotes? I don’t waste my time with your kind, and couldn’t be bothered to site the rest of your willful negligence.

          Way to avoid the real issue.

          Page 792-794 of the 2nd edition of some dictionar? Ate you serious? Get a life, grow up, and think for yourself.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            My point is that Mormon doctrine and traditional Christian doctrine are incompatible. That is not an original thought. It has been the position of Christianity since the birth of Mormonism in the 1830s.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            I can agree that Mormons and Christians have extremely different views when it comes to salvation and exaltation and the doctrinal differences are great and grand. Doesn’t however excuse you from threadjacking and turning a political blog into a theological debate forum… despite our religious differences we both believe Rick Perry would be the best President in 2013….
            Prudence.

      • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

        Shocking, I know.

        The sad part is that he refutes nothing I said and now attempts to smear me by putting quotes around a quote.

        Please advise. I have walked away from the discussion but he now issues threats of banning and screams bigot for disagreeing with him.

        • SoFiMil

          You are a fool.

          • gekster

            And the fact that they are always right makes then the fool.

          • SoFiMil

            Your timing and delivery are empecible, gekster. Good night.

            Good night moon.
            Good night mush.
            Good night to the lady whispering hush.
            Good night, kipling.

            *US court rulings allow for extensive use of copywrited material to be used without attribution or compensation when used as satire.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            See gekster. I told you not to worry that someone would make a comment you could yap around.

            Your timing is predictably. How many times have you said that now?

        • SoFiMil

          Best chance at survival, better pull out my non-apology apology.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I have retracted nothing and issued no apologies. There is no plagiarism. You have clearly lost the issue and now seek to do “whatever it takes” [your own words] to try and punish [shut up] people from disagreeing with you. As gekster would say, that reminds me a lot of Mr. Obama and his tactics towards opponents.

            Either deal with the original issue or stop harassing people with personal attacks and smears.

            If you have a problem, make an official complaint to the moderators and stop trying to moderate from the sidelines.

          • SoFiMil

            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.
            Kipling is never wrong.

          • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

            I think we are done here. You may continue but I am not going to respond to such nonsense. You can demean yourself if you want but I refuse to join you in it further.

        • SoFiMil

          Depends on what the meaning of “the” is, er *is*.

          Kipling is never wrong.

  • hoosierchristian

    BETTER A MORMON THAN A DEMOCRAT!

    • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

      And it just might work.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        If Romney is the nominee, and your choice is Romney or Obama for president…or a write-in or unnamed 3rd party candidate… Will you vote for Romney?

        • porkandcheese

          Than Romney with a Democrat senate.

          • SoFiMil

            boo hoo

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            A GOP Senate with Obama as president = 4 more years of regulatory hell, no repeal of obamacare, a depression and a nuclear armed Iran that gets more ‘sanctions’.

            SO if you’re all for the collapse of our economy, government funded abortions, and another world war… by all means support Obama over Romney….

            OR make sure Romney isn’t our nominee by SUPPORTING a better candidate rather than engaging in conversation that is pointless

          • porkandcheese

            Or reforming entitlements or rolling back regulations except for Wall Street or appointing conservative justices. He is just telling you what you want to hear like he did when he was elected Governor of MA, the only elective office he’s held.

          • acat

            Had you not strayed into a holy quibble, we’d agree.

            Mew

          • SoFiMil

            “..” “..” “..” “..” “..”

            5 Cats!

          • reggie182

            P n C,

            Is it the case that Romney made a myriad of promises while running for Gov of Mass and then promptly set out to violate them after being sworn in? Does he have a record of running as a conservative and then subsequently governing as a liberal? Mass was his home state and in order to be politically viable he had to modulate his positions. That was just a political reality.

            And if Romney intends to appoint “David Souter” types to SCOTUS, then he certainly has pulled the wool over Robert Bork’s eyes, who has endorsed him for President twice, and is currently on his legal advisory team.

            I also don’t buy that you will get a Democratic Senate should he be the nominee. If the conservative base votes for him then of course they will vote for the Republican candiate in their state. If the conservative base does not, he won’t be elected, and you’ll get four more years of BHO.

            But another term for Obama would not be preferable in any case. He’s a lock to make nightmare selections to SCOTUS, and even with a Republican Senate, they will eventually be confirmed. We’ll have to live with that for many years after Obama has gone back to Illinois.

          • David123

            I don’t like Obama and Sotomayer

            There may be a better Republican primary candidate that Romney, but Romney, Bachman, Cain, Santorum, and Perry are all way better than Obama.

          • acat

            I question Mitt’s commitment to conservative principles when the road gets rough.

            Specifically, after 2012, the Dem Senate caucus will be leaner and much more ideologically left. I am concerned that Romney will see that, will want to avoid a fight, and will nominate more centrist justices.

            The makeup of the Supremes will change quite a lot over the next 8 years – we need a POTUS who will nominate strong conservatives like Roberts and Alito, not a waffler who will appoint useless moderates or worse.

            Mew

          • David123

            There is some risk that Romney won’t nominate originalist judges. However, his judicial picks are certain to be better than Obama’s. Also, Romney’s association with Bork is a good sign for picking good judges.

            I take issue with P&C’s comment prefering Obama over Romney and not even considering the judge angle.

          • acat

            because they know how to fight for an issue. I don’t see that skill set on Mitt’s list, association with Bork included. (after all, Bork lost that fight)

            As for Pork and Cheese, I’m pretty convinced it’s someone elses’ sock puppet.

            Mew

  • hoosierchristian

    The fact is that many conservatives (and far many more Republicans at-large) are not Christians. So what? While it is fitting and proper for Christians to prefer to elect Christians over non-Christians, all else being equal (and the same holds true for other faiths, including atheism), I would rather be in a foxhole with a conservative Mormon than with a liberal Christian. That’s not a betrayal of my religious principles either. It’s simply a recognition that liberal Christians have a demonstrably stubborn way of misapplying the Christian ethos to a worldview, whereas fundamentalist Christians are going to find far more in common with the average Mormon where worldviews are concerned.

    A man’s religion does – and should – play a part in his worldview. It should be a considerable part of the basis of that worldview, in point of fact.. Mormons aren’t advocating transforming the federal government under subjection of their church hierarchy (as, for example, Islamic theology preaches and practices). As a Christian, of course I’d rather a devout Christian be my candidate, but not at the expense of having the best candidate. That said, Romney is not the best candidate this cycle and I cannot support him for a host of reasons; his religious beliefs, however, are not among them.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      something that others may do well to understand.

      • porkandcheese

        Mormonism is not Christianity.

        • acat

          why it is a good thing to make this into a political issue.

          Mew

        • APA Guy

          nt

  • http://jhpruitt.blogtownhall.com/ kipling

    I am sure you three will work up your courage while I am away.

    But, I think I am done. Spagnolo has already proven my point in his last post.

    Have fun and be sure to talk nice about me when I leave. I am sure, as gentlemen, you will surely not resort to character assassination when someone is not hear to respond. I am sure we will find out.

    • acat

      I’m sure you’ll find something to “discuss”.

      Mew

    • SoFiMil

      I’ll give you a pass in this one. Have a good evening.

  • pathfinder1941

    Geesh!

  • acat

    with a GOP Senate.” The problem with your foolishness is threefold.

    First, a GOP Senate still includes the Maine Twins, Scott Brown, McCain, Graham, and most importantly, McConnell will still be in charge. In short, it’s hardly a hotbed of conservative thought. The Senate is insufficient, therefore, to hold the line.

    Second, to win control of the Senate will take winning what, 4 seats? There are far, far more Dems who won running against Bush who are up or retiring. I don’t see a way the Senate *doesn’t* flip.

    Third, I don’t much care for Romney, but I’ll take the trio of cheap folding suits of Boehner, McConnell, and Romney over any other non-GOP combination.

    Thank you, porkandcheese, for finally revealing your colours.

    Mew

    • SoFiMil

      \\..//

    • acat

      Not sure what went awry.

      Mew

  • westcoastpatriette

    ..

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    did get the principle right at one point when he said:

    NYT excerpt

    He also said that he believed Mr. Romney is a ?good, moral person,? and that he would endorse him over the president.

    If it comes to that, he said, ?I?m going to instruct, I?m going to advise people that it is much better to vote for a non-Christian who embraces biblical values than to vote for a professing Christian like Barack Obama who embraces un-biblical values.?

    End excerpt

    Faith may inform our values, but as to picking candidates and making choices, in is values, principles and policies that govern most all Evangelicals, even those like Jeffress who dabble in identity politics, they don’t really mean it. I have long known this. I get tickled when the Left tries to re-write the history I saw in the 70s-90s when Evangelicals left my then Dem party for the GOP over economics and national defense more than social issues.

    God bless

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Again, Thank you for your words, Again, I state You are a Southern Gentleman and a Scholar… I deeply respect your opinions, and appreciate your open candid guidance.

    I agree whole heartedly… my paragraph on Jeffress may need some editing…

    The point I was making there, is that He failed to see a gotcha question… and gave them the SOUNDBITE that they needed, then attempted to do damage control… WHICH LIKELY WON’T Be Printed far and wide by the MSM…

  • cwfoster

    I see Mormons that exemplify Christian values, and I see Christians that only seem to call themselves that (The “Reverands” Jackson and Sharpton have yet to mention the Gospel that I’ve ever heard). I’ve seen character assasinations of Glenn Beck simply because of his LDS membership. OK, allow me to weigh in.
    I’m not going to judge whether LDS is ‘Christian’ enough to acquire salvation, I’ve never studied the Book of Mormon, and frankly, don’t intend to. The founding fathers said that our Government was designed for a GODLY people and wholly unsuited to the governance of any other kind. In the late 1700′s early 1800′s (bear with me, I know the facts but haven’t the time right now to look up the exact dates) a court in New York refused to hear the testimony of an atheist, because they felt they couldn’t swear him in in any manner that would make him feel COMPELLED to answer truthfully. If you are a Christian, you know that regardless if you ever get caught in a lie, God knows. If you are a Buddhist, you know you may get away with the lie, but karma will catch up to you. Ditto with Shintoism, and almost any other religion on the planet. The exception to this rule is Islam, but to go into that would require an entire blog entry of it’s own. Islam isn’t a religion, it’s a legal system and a government wrapped up in a religion, and doesn’t allow for equality of any other, ’nuff said. Glen Beck hasn’t been proselytizing for LDS, he has simply been calling for America to turn to God. He doesn’t mention Jesus, but if you turn to Buddah, you STILL believe SOMEONE is ‘keeping score’ somewhere. THAT is what is important to the country. I personally believe that if you aren’t right with God by acceptance in the shed blood of Jesus, you are lost, but I can’t bring you to that, the Bible says that only the Holy Spirit can reveal that to you, I can only put it before you and allow the Spirit to work as you allow Him to. All that being said, I can’t support Romney, not because he’s a Mormon, but his turning on Perry over Perry calling Social Security a Ponzi Scheme, when Romney himself called it a criminal enterprise in his own book show a total willingness to abandon principle for political reasons, and haven’t we had enough of THOSE Republicans? We need to rid ourselves of the ones we already have!If Romney gets the nomination, I’ll hold my nose and pull the lever for him, just like I did for McCain, But… just ONCE more, before I die, I’d like to vote for someone I think believes in what I do, both religiously and conservatively, and for my money right now, that’s a former Baptist Associate Pastor who has an ironclad background in financial turnarounds. He may have briefly started taking the bait over the stupid rock non-issue, then I think he saw how stupid it was and dropped it. He understands that the way to move up is not by attacking other Republicans, but attacking Obama. A month ago, people were saying he was unelectable. With the front runners committing fratricide providing the DNC with soundbites to use in the general election, the unelectable ones will be the ones who detroyed each other, instead of allowing us to see who most favorably contrasts with OBAMA, not each other!

    BTW I would much sooner vote for Glenn Beck for President than either Romney or Huntsman, and I understand in spite of Huntsman being a Mormon, Beck was disappointed that Christy stayed out.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/10/09/pastor-jeffress-mormonism/

    He was basking in the glow of his own ego and he ought to repent! We self-proclaimed Christians (incl Mormans! smile) are in the forgiveness business. He needs to save the cult theology for inside the walls of the church or ecumenical conferences where no one is offended.

  • snowshooze

    But that was an opinion piece.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    He was being honest about his feelings…

    I just think he’s “wrongheaded”… and it led to his equivocating non-rational back-peddling…

    To me there is no offense with his words, its what his saber-rattling does to the mass of ignorance out there that can’t seem to logically parse a double-edged sword of words.

    And in all sincerity… for those that say the mean-spirited despicable things… I will follow the instruction of my Lord and Savior:

    Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

  • whitfox3

    The problem is, that it’s basically inconsistent to say:

    “HOW PATHETIC CAN YOU BE TO HAVE TO DENIGRATE ONE RELIGION? RATHER THAN DECLARE YOUR OWN BELIEFS WITH CONVICTION!!”

    when being true to one set of beliefs requires denying another. Many people despise Mormon doctrine as damaging to the soul, and therefore vile. Nobody here has any capability to change that. And if we’re for freedom of religon (something very important to us minority religious groups), we really shouldn’t be asking for such change.

    But as you’ve pointed out, that hasn’t stopped political candidates before, and there’s no reason it has to stop them now. People are voting for public servants, not clergy. If a candidate is trusted to do good things, people will vote for him regardless of religious choices they disagree with.

    But part of that trust-building process is showing respect for people’s religious opinions. You certainly don’t have to agree with religious opponents, but they should feel safe that their interests will be represented. If we’re really interested in party unity, that’s the point to press, not doctrinal differences that can only divide.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    ?HOW PATHETIC CAN YOU BE TO HAVE TO DENIGRATE ONE RELIGION? RATHER THAN DECLARE YOUR OWN BELIEFS WITH CONVICTION!!?

    Why spend so much time commenting on the as you put it… “damaging to the soul, and therefore vile” doctrine of Mormonism Theology… When you could get on a soap-box and declare REPENTANCE to your fellow Christians for their VANITY AND HYPOCRISY?

    I think its rather a question of priorities isn’t it? And if you prioritize something less important over something of greater importance… than yes… I believe YOU’RE PATHETIC.

  • Doc Holliday

    but it seems to me the real mistake was speaking before a “values voters summit” and having a pastor introduce you. Certainly the pastor can not be blamed for his true theological beliefs. Certainly he can’t be blamed for answering a direct question.

    It seems to be Republicans ran the risk of this because they feel the need to reach out specifically to people who use religion to make political decisions. AND, and remember I said AND, having a strong minded theologian introduce you.

    The error was made by the Perry team. But I think this issue is overshadowing the fact that Perry and Romney are running faltering campaigns. Perry is in worse trouble than Romney because Perry has yet to even say WHY he is running and what he stands for.

  • whitfox3

    what’s of religious importance? Preachers who believe that a doctrine is false may feel obligated to warn against it, and parishoners may wish not to support it in any form. Condemning them may be consistent with your beliefs, but it will not win over people.

    If the goal is to get more voters for Mormon Republican candidates, pick a better method than trying to quiet a doctrinal dispute that’s been going on for decades. It’s neither realistic or necessary. It can even be counterproductive. I have no problem voting for a Mormon. I would have a problem voting for anyone who I think would exploit public office to advance the LDS.

    Again, it all comes down to candidates earning trust. Given that Obama managed to get elected despite Rev. Wright, I have a hard time believing LDS membership is a big obstacle here. Let’s not make it bigger by blowing the situation out of perspective.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    As a Mormon, I think your doctrines are incorrect… Read the Book of Mormon and our cannon of scripture, then you’ll be on the right track ;)

    as for this being an issue of earning trust… I agree whole-heartedly…

    I didn’t suggest I’m the authority on the subject… I offered my opinion…

    TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT CHUM! :)

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    And no… I didn’t condemn you… or anyone else in my diary… suggesting your words or actions are pathetic is not a condemnation… thin skinned a bit?

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’m sure this will create a firestorm, but…

    If I were to consider a candidate’s faith in my decision to vote, I’d be more likely to vote for a Mormon than a Baptist. The reason for this is, the Mormon is less likely to use government as a vehicle to further social engineering based on his faith than the Baptist. It’s rather ironic too, since Baptists tend to lean further towards separation of Church and State than other Christians.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I’m looking more and more to the CAIN train… but I want to see if Perry absolutely implodes by tomorrow at the Debate…

    I want to see this back n’ forth business end… I want to see just one candidate show me that they’re above the fray, and they will pick up the standard and bear the truth of Conservatism, and describe the war on morality through libertine politics of the left.

    I don’t need a preacher… I need a Conservative that is able to Lead our country with dignity, integrity and trustworthiness founded on the same principles that are laid out in the doctrines of our CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES… Give me an individual that will preach Repentance to the captives of Constitutional sin!!!

  • aesthete

    (No Text)

  • JSobieski

    It should result in intensified efforts at unity as a result.

    The bad thing is that independents see this stuff, and consider us to be out of our minds.

    Ultimately, I think it will make the nominee a strong candidate.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    of identity politics then yes, Perry should not have allowed it. But it is also quite possible that he assumed Jeffress had more sense that to get all delighted with the sound of his own voice in this context and could have been blind-sided by it.

  • Doc Holliday

    It would however, be risky for all the other candidates to implode too soon. Cain has his flaws, he is one hot mic away from a major gaffe. I think the debate will answer once and for all if Perry has any chance.

    I think Perry just assumed it was down to him and Mitt, I think they both thought that way. The mud slinging this weak got on both of them and made Cain look great. I think Romney and Perry will have to audition on Tuesday for the person who is best to defeat Obama. If they just keep focusing on each other, Cain might just end this thing quickly.

    Sure, the big money is afraid of backing Cain, hell I am too. The party would be better off with a few strong, vetted, candidates; men who can make each other better at this game.

  • lineholder

    I’d love to see any and all of them shoot for the moon in presenting to the American people why Conservatism is the way to go. Get over the PC stuff and just go for it. Raises the standards across the board.

    BTW, thought you might like this…fits in your comments about who the enemy is.
    http://townhall.com/columnists/luritadoan/2011/10/10/obama–the_numbers_dont_lie

  • chbroussard

    This is the type of crapola that gives Christians a bad name. I’m Catholic and know that there are many that have reservations about my religion. Most Protestants don’t understand why we have a Pope, why we go to confession, and why we don’t (or at least are not supposed to) eat meat on Friday. Maybe I don’t understand why the Church of Christ doesn’t allow dancing. But do these differences make us any less Christian? I don’t think so.

    Every single Morman that I have had a relationship with over my lifetime has been a most upstanding person…from my 4th grade teacher, to one of my high school boyfriends, to the woman who took care of my baby while I worked.

    This is such a non-issue and sinks us down to a level that should be an embarassment to us all.

    And I would add one more thing to your list, Justin–

    DO MORMANS FAIL TO MAKE GOOD ENTERTAINERS–
    What about Donny and Marie? I have always admired the whole Osmond family.

    This is detracting from the real issues facing this country. Romney is not my first choice for president, but it has nothing whatsosever to do with his being a Morman and I will be voting for him if he wins the nomination. Shame on you Rev. Jeffress for dragging us into the dirt.

  • Doc Holliday

    the link failed but i found it anyway.

    we have so much ammo here, all we need to do is focus on the true opponent.

  • lineholder

    ^

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    thanks in advance.

  • lineholder

    (regarding your last comment)

    But I think we will also have to be consciously aware of the MSM’s spin at all times. Maybe even defuse it if we have a chance to.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Conservatives of all stripes need to stop giving the MSM ammunition…

    If I were advising Jeffers, I would have told him to say…

    “Listen, you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand the doctrinal differences I have with Mitt Romney and any other Mormon in theological discussions… do I need to tell people to vote their conscience? Sure… Folks, vote your conscience… If the MSM needs to read between those lines… good luck with that!”

  • lineholder

    You can take that approach if you need to.

    http://www.bookerrising.net/2011/10/americas-woe-under-obama-numbers-dont.html

  • lineholder

    We’ve got a winning case in front of us if we approach it the right way. I don’t have any doubts about that.

    The MSM is going to try to disrupt that in any way that they can. Just defuse it. Play a little “Barney Fife” and Nip it in the Bud!

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    We love to dance… didn’t you see “Other Side of Heaven”?

    As for Entertainers… that’s a WHOLE ‘Nother list.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts… but by all means… Let’s focus on “We know who’s ‘ass’ to kick!”… and by ‘ass’ I mean Donkeys… of the Democrat flavor…

    (there were no animals harmed in the making of this comment)

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    hence my concession to ‘candle. What Jeffress should not have done is engage in a theological discussion in a political context.

    It is especially unsettling since his backtrack showed what I have always known about “my people” (Baptists, Protestants, Evangelicals in general), ie that values and issues will decide who they vote for, and not identity politics. IP is for the Left.

    That Jeffress tried to play that game in front of those voters is a low moment for him and hopefully his last moment outside his main job of leading the lost to Christ and pastoring the body.

  • aesthete

    …the one with Ann Hathaway in it?

    *raises hand sheepishly*

    The movies I watch while on dates *grumble*

  • chbroussard

    the Protestant Church of Christ not allowing dancing, not the Morman church.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I hope Pastor Jeffs will safely return to his flock, and continue his message regarding the good news of our Savior!

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    John Groberg…subject of the movie… Mormon… And you may remember that scene where they’re dancing at some BYU social…

    I only saw that one once on a date myself… I wouldn’t exactly recommend it to others… but it was worth a one time viewing.

  • runner12

    the all caps or maybe some of the language that is used. You may have not liked Jefress’ statements and I am sorry they hurt you. But I do not see how this helps anything. His may have been ill-timed, but it does not take away his right to think and speak for himself.

    BTW, I actually heard the man on MSNBC today while I was at the gym. He is quite intelligent and defended himself well against Matthews ( this surprised me quite a bit). Matthews even gave him begrudging respect at the end, which also surprised me. He is not a yokel, no matter how much people may disagree with him. I was glad to see him walk back the cult comment a little, though he could have done more.

    I do not agree with everything Jefress says, but I must admit it concerns me to see him demonized and made into something inhuman because his statements may have offended some.

    Why should any Mormon care what he thinks anyways? If you believe him to be wrong in his statements than why be upset about it?

    Please let’s put this thing to rest, agree to disagree, and move on to defeat Obama.

  • aesthete

    and the other option on the menu was “The Notebook”, so I consider myself fortunate. Still… @ the director, if you have a movie with Ann Hathaway in it, the formula for a successful movie is simple: less tribal people and Mormonism, more Ann Hathaway making a skirt look good :)

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    You’re damn right I am angry. But not at Jefferson or Christians that refuse to accept Mormons as Christians… I am angry at the yellow-bellied turncoat would be Democrats that would refuse to vote for a Mormon… and in my view a sit at home or write in campaign against the GOP nominee is a vote for the Democrat.

    Now if you want to avoid that discussion then move along.

    My disagreement with Jeffers is his obvious vanity circuit for saying incendiary remarks… Huntsman is wrong he isn’t a moron he’s a ln intelligent calculated preacher that put priority on his 15 minutes of MSM fame to be the next outspoken Pat Robertson of politics than avoiding the collateral damage of his very informed opinion which is in my mind wrongheaded.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    but hey we don’t judge… judge not ‘n all… :D

  • aesthete

    I’m more of a sci-fi/action geek when I watch movies, and a sci-fi/drama guy when I watch TV. I watch other stuff only on other peoples’ recommendation, and the shows/movies that I watch volitionally tend to be of the introspective variety (think Twilight Zone), or have good character development.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    of Joss Whedon’s ‘Firefly’ series and we’ll be BFF’s…

  • aesthete

    That answer your question?

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    “We gotta go to the crappy town where I’m a hero!”

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I really can’t add anything to that or qualify it.

  • acat

    Zoe: Preacher, don’t the Bible have some pretty specific things to say about killin’?

    Book: Quite specific. It is, however, somewhat fuzzier on the subject of kneecaps.

    Hmm. Wonder if I could find a browncoat in the right size for halloween.

    Mew

  • acat

    I’d probably agree with your decision, but for a different reason … Mormons appear to have much more internalized “God helps those who help themselves” self- or community-reliance.

    I was looking for a way to say this yesterday, your post above was the mote it needed to crystalize, so I thank you.

    Mew

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    That was the record scratch noise…

    I think I know what you’re saying, but I’m not sure its so easy to distinguish the difference between “Mormon” and “Baptist” here…

    Remember, Harry Reid is a Mormon and he punched through Obamacare behind closed doors and with every dirty trick he could pull through Senate procedures… and Jimmy Carter is a Baptist, fmr Southern Baptist Convention, now a part of the New Baptist Covenant… and he deregulated the Beer industry and the Airlines…

    Oranges > Grapfruits > Kumquats… where’s the Apple?

    I’m just kinda wondering what you’re basing this on… I presume its on Social issues… like E/Os for HPV Vaccines with an opt out instead of an opt in? or Abortion laws? Marriage laws? Legislating in the bedroom kind of thing?

    I’m not trying to put words in your mouth, but I am quite curious where you were going with that.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    I’d say those like me (reformed Presbyterian types) would completely disagree with the phrase, God helps those who help themselves, yet would be among the most charitable with family, friends, and neighbors. It’s simply our duty. The rest we leave to God.

    I would say, rather, God helps whom he decides to help, whether we help or not, though we are the means by which he accomplishes His purpose.

  • aesthete

    “Politely.”

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Mal: Girl knows things. Things she shouldn’t. Things she couldn’t.
    Jayne: What, are you? are you sayin’ she’s a witch?
    Wash: [sarcastically] Yes, Jayne. She’s a witch. She has had congress with the beast.
    Jayne: She’s in Congress?
    Wash: How did your brain even learn human speech? I’m just so curious.

  • acat

    Let me adjust your vision a tad.

    It’s not about the belief in the deity in the phrase, it’s about the work ethic.

    Mew

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    We believe in the “handshake” in helping people become self-sufficient… but we don’t assume that God won’t help people who can’t or won’t help themselves… He certainly loves all of his children, even the “naughty” ones…

    But by all means, how can a person become like their Father in Heaven as we are commanded in Matthew 5:48 to “be ye therefore perfect, even as my father which is in heaven is perfect”… if all they do is think about their rumbling belly?

    Pure religions in James is spelled out clearly… we don’t hold back charity, but we may put some conditions of repentance as a part of continuation of welfare… those that need spiritual correction, or maybe just a simple attitude change… will receive food for their bellies, and clothing for their backs, but they’ll also receive a heaping dose of “you’re better than this, so why not act the part?”.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Harry Reid and Mitt Romney suck at politics.

    Mike Huckabee sucks at politics AND religion, because he uses the former to try to further the latter.

    There’s a difference between allowing your faith to advise your politics, it’s quite another to try to use politics to further your religion. I hope the distinction is clear, I’m not sure if I could say it another way and be any clearer.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    My work ethic comes from my belief in God.

  • acat

    I simply point out that, on a percentage basis, I expect more Mormons to know how to give an honest day’s work for their wages, and how to rely on themselves – that whole “food for a year” thing, than Baptists.

    How to know how much food you should have on hand

    That said, I’d put the Amish ahead of just about any other sect in this area.

    Mew

  • Tbone

    I have a good friend and business associate of 35 years who is a Mormon. If we both end up in Heaven, that will be God’s decision, not my job.

    I also dated a Mormon girl in high school. She was hot. She was fun.

    I like Mormons.

    My problem with Romney is that he is too liberal and untrustworthy.

    In fact, I think I’ll see if I can find Jennifer on Facebook. See ya.

  • explodinghead

    I have good friends that are Mormon, they are some of the nicest, most moral people you could ever meet. I have no problem with Romneys faith. I just don’t like Romneycare, and some of Romneys views on global warming etc.

  • acat

    behind other tests that, for me, include:

    “Is candidate provably anti-abortion?”
    “Is candidate provably anti-firearms-restrictions?”
    “Is candidate demonstratably in favor of smaller government?”
    “Is candidate anti-red-tape, pro-growth?”
    “Is candidate opposed to public-sector unions?”
    “Is candidate pro-death-penalty?”

    This is a sampling of the suite of litmus tests I use. I’m usually disappointed at some point – frequently, it’s because I reject the anti-death-penalty component of the “pro-life” movement. I can, however, live with warehousing those who cannot fit in society if it means I get someone who opposes abortion.

    Mew

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I quite understand now where you’re coming from on that… thanks for the clarity.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    And that’s why I won’t be voting for him in the primary. Should he get the nomination though… I’ll hold my nose and vote for him… then I’ll take a long shower, and begin praying a whole lot for him… hoping that he will repent of the evil of Romneycare.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)
  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Very well said… and your points are spot on…

    When you exclude a candidate because of their religion, that’s bigotry.
    When you exclude a candidate because of their idiocy, that’s just common sense.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    The differences rooted in our respective understanding of the infinite gulf between your “become like” and “you therefore must be”, which produces rather the announcement “you and I are far worse than we can imagine, but there is one who raises the rotten corpses of rebels into grateful sons”. But there is no argument here that Pelagianism also provides a strong motivation to be–as has been multiply attested in recent threads–the most moral, friendliest, helpfullest, work-brickellest, sweeter-than-apple-pie types of people one can find. While the contrast between these motivations is clearly seen in their irreconcilable fruits of attribution–ie “we’re better than this” vs. “solus Christus”–it seems that they can also produce, for a time at least, a shared understanding that … the choice of the next President of this Republic is best weighed on matters analyzable in the light of common grace alone.

  • acat

    River: The human body can be drained of blood in 8.6 seconds given adequate vacuuming systems.

    Mal: See, morbid and creepifying, I got no problem with, long as she does it quiet-like.

    Mew

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Simon: Are you Alliance?
    Early: Am I a lion?
    Simon: What?
    Early: I don’t think of myself as a lion. You might as well, though: I have a mighty roar.
    Simon: I said “Alliance”.
    Early: Oh, I thought?
    Simon: No, I was?
    Early: That’s weird.

  • acat

    Otherwise someone’d come by and say something about hijackers.

    Mal: Now this is all the money Niska gave us in advance. You give it back to him, tell him the job didn’t work out. We’re not thieves… well, we are thieves, but the point is we’re not taking what’s his. We’ll stay out of his way as best we can from here on in. You’ll explain that’s best for everyone, okay?

    Crow: [stands up] Keep the money. Use it to buy a funeral. It doesn’t matter where you go, or how far you fly, I will hunt you down, and the last thing you see will be my blade.

    Mal: Darn. [kicks Crow into Serenity's engine intake]

    [Cut to another henchman being placed before Mal]

    Mal: Now this is all the money Niska gave us in advance?

    Henchman: Oh, I get it! I’m good. Best thing for everybody. [desperate grin] I’m right there with you.

    (this, by the way, is a good model for how the GOP ought to begin negotiations regarding the repeal of Obamacare etc. in 2013…)

    Mew

  • http://www.marklaiminger.org Lammo

    to disagree with one another in a separate part of this thread, please know that I am 100% with you on the above statement.

  • runner12

    tone. The vast majority of people here on RS, including myself, have stated that they would vote for Romney if he were the nominee. Third parties or write-ins would only guarantee Obama a second term.

    Even Jefress himself said that he would vote for Romney in the general if he were the nominee. As to him being a ” media opportunist” no one can assert that with certainty. That would require someone to know the man’s heart and only God knows the hearts of men.

    I have no idea why he made the statements he did at the time that he made them. He asserts he was pounced on by the media and that he gave his honest opinion. I have no choice but to believe him at this point, even if I do not agree with everything that he said.

    I just think we all need to take a deep breath, acknowledge that differences of opinion exist in this arena, and then focus on defeating Obama.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Mal: This is my scrap of nowhere. You go on, find your own.
    Saffron: You can’t just leave me here on this lifeless piece-of-crap moon.
    Mal: I can.
    Saffron: I’ll die.
    Mal: Well, as a courtesy, you might start getting busy on that, ’cause all this chatter ain’t doin’ me any kindness.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I’m not angry at Jeffress… did you read my comment?

    However, Jeffress gleefully articulated his response on several circuit shows like Anderson Cooper, Kyra Phillips, John King, Alex Witt, Fox n’ Friends (previously in the news for Mitt not being Christian)…. notice how the more right leaning anchors didn’t bother interviewing him again to “clarify” his position, nobody like O’Reilly, Hannity, (certainly not Glenn Beck)?

    He got played like a fiddle. He gave Anderson Cooper and lefties exactly what they wanted. I particularly disagree with MANY of his statements…

    His original comments didn’t bother me they don’t make me angry as you suggest, his opinion doesn’t bother me, but when Anderson Cooper is able to peel you like a banana and get you to show that your religious definitions of a cult eliminates Mormons, Buddists, Hindi, Muslims from salvation , and that Catholicism isn’t quite a “Cult” but they’re simply not in alignment with “Christian History”, but you can “accept Obama’s claim on the Savior” because you can’t judge his heart, and you haven’t spoken with him personally, but you can’t support him politically because he takes “unbiblical positions”… then you’ve dug yourself in to a cognitive dissonance issue…

    Now HOW do I know that he was in it for the fame? Because he proudly POSTED every single interview on his YOUTUBE Channel, and cut out the parts of the interview where he came off as a pompous weasel.

    See for yourself…

    Like I said before… Jeffress may be wrongheaded about his definitions of CULT, and his positions on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints… but at least his bigotry ends when it comes to defeating Obama should Romney become the nominee.

    What Am I angry about? The idiots that can’t end the bigotry, and determine that we’re better off with a Mormon in the Whitehouse than a Christian Communist…

  • runner12

    me. That may not be how you are intending to portray yourself, but you are.

    I will admit that all of the media appearances he has given look suspect, but I stop short of claiming that this was all for his 15 minutes of fame. I just can’t say that because I do not know the man.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    n.t.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    See: Ephesians 4:13-15.

    but whatever, you’re a blessing to others with your thoughtful response.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    no text here please n.t.

  • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

    If you’re game for a second attempt at parsing, the first sentence should have begun: The differences being rooted in our respective understanding of the infinite gulf between your reference to ?become like? and ?you therefore must be?, which produces rather–on the sola Scriptura side–the announcement etc.

  • runner12

    to me and some other posters on tbis thread would gather that you were angry and/or offended, even when no offense was intended.

    That is not projection, it is spelled out all over the world-wide web. I am sorry if anything I said was offensive, I honestly meant to engage in a civil discussion.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    You invent a tone in your head from my words… that’s your brain working… not mine…

    How exactly are my words telling you I am angry at you? Did I explicitly say you anger me? Or are your subconsciously admitting that you’re one of those people that would prefer a Christian Communist in the Whitehouse rather than a Mormon if that becomes your only choice?

  • runner12

    Secondly, read how attacking your last question is. I have repeatedly said that I would vote for Romney if he were the nominee on this thread and in other places.

    I would never pull the lever for Obama under any circumstances, even if Ron Paul gets the nomination! And that is saying a lot.

    I am honestly tired of this subject, it seems to have brought out the worst in everyone.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Attacking? No. It was rhetorical.

    If you think I’ve brought out the worst in you take that up with the Lord… If this is your worst… you’re a saint… me personally… I don’t believe this discussion has even begun to bring out my worst
    … but hey I’m just another sinner that is in need of forgiveness

  • runner12

    NT

  • runner12

    And no I am not a saint :) .

  • runner12

    That posted before I could finish. I meant to say that I am not a saint :) and I have never claimed to be. What I meant by the worst is 635 comments of argument when we have O in the WH. It began civilly, but in some threads totally disintegrated.

    I would rather everyone just agree to disagree on some things and move on.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I don’t intend to distract people from our common problem, on the contrary airing this now is the right time… 600+ comments is a testament to the fact that religion is still more offensive than politics… but such is when it comes t something so close to.our heart and so.far from our wallets.

  • acat

    Mal: She is a mite unpredictable. Mood swings, of a sort.
    The Operative: It’s worse than you know.
    Mal: It usually is.
    The Operative: That girl will rain destruction down on you and your ship. She is an albatross, Captain.
    Mal: The way I remember it, albatross was a ship’s good luck, ’til some idiot killed it.
    [He turns to Inara.]
    Mal: Yes, I’ve read a poem. Try not to faint.

    Mew

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    Zo?: Where’s River at now?
    Mal: In her room, which I’m thinking we bolt from the outside from now on.
    Wash: That a little extreme, isn’t it?
    Jayne: Anyone remember her comin’ at me with a butcher’s knife?
    Wash: [reminiscently] Wacky fun?
    Jayne: You wanna go, little man?
    Wash: Only if it’s someplace with candlelight.
    Zoe: Sir, I know she’s unpredictable. But I don’t think she’d harm anyone.
    Jayne: Butcher’s knife?!
    Zoe: Anyone we can’t spare.

  • blcartwright

    I would trust that others who are honest when proclaiming themselves to be faithful people would do the same. (John Kerry excluded).

    I would worry about a Liberation Theologist or a Muslim as president because their faith quite likely could cause them to make decisions that run counter to what I believe is the best interests of this country. I would find it hard to trust them.

    As an evangelical Christian, I have profound theological differences with Mormonism. I believe they teach a fatally flawed concept of salvation.

    However, I can not think of anything that would make me believe that a Mormon president would not be acting in my best interests, as an American and a conservative.

  • blcartwright

    ObamaCare and Cap ‘n Trade must be dead and buried. Those are the issues I don’t trust Romney on, which has nothing to do with my faith or his.

  • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

    I wholeheartedly agree… I sincerely hope that Perry wins the nomination… I like Cain, but I have serious reservations that I don’t believe Cain has answered for me… I think I’ll get to that later in another diary…

    As for your worries regarding Liberation Theology and Muslim religious views… as I stated to Erick, I don’t see this as a “religious test”… primarily as these religions are unlikely to produce conservative candidates…that would best represent conservatives.. although as you state you can’t trust them to make decisions in the best interests of the country, I would make the point that there is a long history in both of these “theological” religions that can not separate the man-made political tenets of their theology from the manifest destiny of their theology.

    Mormons are quite clear on the matters of rendering unto Cesar that which is Cesar’s… and have been for a very long time. As clearly laid out in our canon of Scripture D&C Sec 134 (written in 1835):

    1 We believe that governments were instituted of God for the benefit of man; and that he holds men accountable for their acts in relation to them, both in making laws and administering them, for the good and safety of society.

    2 We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of cconscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

    3 We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

    4 We believe that religion is instituted of God; and that men are amenable to him, and to him only, for the exercise of it, unless their religious opinions prompt them to infringe upon the rights and liberties of others; but we do not believe that human law has a right to interfere in prescribing rules of worship to bind the consciences of men, nor dictate forms for public or private devotion; that the civil magistrate should restrain crime, but never control conscience; should punish guilt, but never suppress the freedom of the soul.

    5 We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that all governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

    6 We believe that every man should be honored in his station, rulers and magistrates as such, being placed for the protection of the innocent and the punishment of the guilty; and that to the laws all men owe respect and deference, as without them peace and harmony would be supplanted by anarchy and terror; human laws being instituted for the express purpose of regulating our interests as individuals and nations, between man and man; and divine laws given of heaven, prescribing rules on spiritual concerns, for faith and worship, both to be answered by man to his Maker.

    7 We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy.

    8 We believe that the commission of crime should be punished according to the nature of the offense; that murder, treason, robbery, theft, and the breach of the general peace, in all respects, should be punished according to their criminality and their tendency to evil among men, by the laws of that government in which the offense is committed; and for the public peace and tranquility all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment.

    9 We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

    10 We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members for disorderly conduct, according to the rules and regulations of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has bauthority to try men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world?s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them. They can only excommunicate them from their society, and withdraw from them their fellowship.

    11 We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same; but we believe that all men are justified in defending themselves, their friends, and property, and the government, from the unlawful assaults and encroachments of all persons in times of exigency, where immediate appeal cannot be made to the laws, and relief afforded.

    12 We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

  • acat

    Dr. Caron: I have to be quick! About a tenth of a percent of the population had the opposite reaction to the Pax. Their aggressor response increased beyond madness. They have become?
    [A crash is heard in the background, now closer]
    Dr. Caron: [sobs] Well, they’ve killed most of us. And not just killed? they’ve done things?
    Wash: [Realises] Reavers… They made them.
    Dr. Caron: I won’t live to report this, but people have to know. We meant it for the best? to make people safer.

    Mew

  • acat

    Mal: You wanna tell me how come there’s a statue here, lookin’ at me like I owe him something?
    Jayne: Wishin’ I could, cap’n.
    Mal: No, seriously, Jayne, you want to tell me…?
    Jayne: Look, Mal, I got no ruttin’ idea. I was here a few years back, like I said. Pulled a second-story, stole a lot of scratch from the magistrate up on the hill. But things went way south. I had to hightail it. They don’t… put you on a pedestal in town square for that.
    Mal: Yeah, ‘cept I’m looking at some fair compelling evidence says they do.
    [Simon is just staring at the statue]
    Simon: This must be what going mad feels like.