Sunday, July 27, 2008
|
|
The Conservative Guide to VP Picks
|
|
Posted by:
Matt Lewis at
11:37 AM
|
We're getting close to having a "veep" pick, so it occurs to me that it might be good to officially let the McCain folks know how conservatives will likely receive certain picks.
Note: While I don't pretend to speak for all conservatives, my guess is this list will represent the opinions of most movement conservatives.
Note: While I could write about the political arguments for these picks, I have instead chosen to put together a list based on political philosophy. For example, Tom Ridge may make sense politically (he's from PA) -- but not from a conservative philosophical perspective (he's pro-choice) ...
-Gov. Bobby Jindal - He would excite conservatives.
-Gov. Sarah Palin - She would excite conservatives.
-Gov. Mark Sanford - Conservatives would appreciate this pick.
- Former Gov. Mitt Romney - Most conservatives would appreciate this pick.
-Sen. John Thune - Many conservatives would be excited by this pick. He would certainly not be offensive to conservatives.
-Gov. Tim Pawlenty - Acceptable, but not exciting.
-Gov. Charlie Crist - Barely acceptable. Certainly not exciting to conservatives.
-Former Gov. Tom Ridge -- Unacceptable. Deal-breaker.
Because of McCain's advanced age -- and the fact that Bush left us without a successor -- my guess is that a GOP VP pick will be perceived as even more important than ever.
Note: This list includes candidates whom I believe have a realistic chance of being selected. But there are certainly more names that have been mentioned. I did not include Mike Huckabee, which will surely anger some. This is because I honestly do not believe he is seriously being considered. He would obviously be very acceptable to social conservatives, but unacceptable to most fiscal conservatives.
So what did I miss? Agree or disagree with this??
Update: What about Bloomberg? My take is that this is an unacceptable pick, as it makes him the successor. Philosophically, Bloomberg is a bad conservative pick. But is he a great political pick???
|
|
|
you tube clips of rommney,thought may be theres more to him , boy was i wrong ,undoubtably the worst flip flopper in modern history , he takes pandering to an all new low, he'll pander to any group out there! just google romney and prepare to be amazed , i also watched the pro romney clips and they did not help him the sooner he goes back to corporate raiding the better |
|
PC writes: 'You don't remember the special moment when Huck was pressed repeatedly for his answer of why he raised 500 mil in new taxes? Brilliant! Taxes is hope! Who knew? But unfortunately, Folks who want to hear that sort of thing are in the other party.'
ME: I've tried explain that to you. You get back to me when your ready to have conversation. I'll respond.
|
|
An additonal matter does have to do with policy.
What is policy which could be called "populist"? To my mind the way to understand that concept is, again, "in distinction" with its opposite.
So, what am I saying about the opposite of policy which is populist? Well, of course it is difficult to define --in reality-- but easier in the abstract.
Again, as with politicking (in the abstract) policy which is populist, is policy which benefits all the people, and not just a designated elite.
In reality, you get a dispute.
So, for example, anti_NAFTA forces say those trade policies benefit multinational corporations --specifically large investors, but not the people, in general.
NAFTA proponants will say it does benefit the people for various reasons.
Anti_NAFTAs will say that as part of the larger "free" trade mentality -- NAFTA is (at least in part) responsible for shipping highpaying low skill/no skill jobs overseas and forcing the workers into jobs paying half (or less) of what the worker used to get.
For example, a worker at a TV factory used to make 15-20 dollars an hour making TVs, VCRs etc. His company moves to China, and he now works in the Wal~Mart electronics dept. making $9 dollars an hour selling those things.
So, the policy benefitted the elite, not the people across the board.
It gets complicated, of course. But, the principle is, should the gov't be making policy which helps the citizens, generally, or the GDP only? |
|
I think any young conservative, and I include Mitt Romney in that group, should stay as far from the McCain ticket. Win or lose, being that closely tied to McCain will put an unremovable stain on any who would do it.
McCain is my father's democrat. My dad was a long time railroad, union man who was a blue dog democrat. He would have never voted for Obama but would have loved McCain. That's how far we have drifted - the democrats are now the socialist party and the republicans are the old democrats. It's time we send them a message that we are not drifting any farther left. McCain is no conservative. |
|
He has now gone beyond merely supporting Huck to worshiping him, and in the process, he has become impervious to reason, fact, and history. And folks say the Romney supporters are over the top! Heh, heh.
Pro, it's not worth it - taking your points and re-refuting them one by one. Especially when HUCK IS NOT IN THE RUNNING FOR ANYTHING, ANYMORE. He's toast. He's bad for the GOP and he will never have a shot at elected office again.
No one is going to forget his plethora of dealbreaking actions, statements or ethics violations. Just recently he was found in violation of lying about a portrait - he said it was a donation from the artist, even when he had the list of donors who paid the artist for the darn thing! He knew he was lying. He would not reveal the donors until he was forced to under the threat of legal action.
We know who he is Pro, and we rejected him. He doesn't meet the minimum requirements of simple decency and integrity. And talk about Huck's populism all day long if you want to, most of us really, REALLY don't need or want another "I feel your pain!" Clinton clone. We want someone who can get policy back on the right track. Huck has no record of doing that.
You don't remember the special moment when Huck was pressed repeatedly for his answer of why he raised 500 mil in new taxes? Brilliant! Taxes is hope! Who knew? But unfortunately, Folks who want to hear that sort of thing are in the other party.
|
|
http://scaredmonkeys.com/2008/08/03/barack-obama-chickens-o ut-of-town-hall-debates-against-john-mccain-what-happened-t o-debate-mccain-any-where-any-time/
Bravely bold Sir Obama
Rode forth from Illinois.
He was not afraid to die,
Oh brave Sir Obama.
He was not at all afraid
To be attacked in nasty ways.
Brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Obama.
He was not in the least bit scared
To be called a Muslim.
Or a leftist too,
And a celebrity.
And Britney too.
To be called a Paris Hilton type,
Clearly a racist sterotype
Brave Sir Obama.
And Rove sent men to aide McCain
They called Barack chicken
And yellow
And scared
And then Obama cried its foul
And ran around like barnyard fowl
"That's... that's enough debate talk for now lads,
*** there's dirty "cynical" work afoot*** ???."
Brave Sir Obama ran away.
("No!")
Bravely ran away away.
("I didn't!")
When campaign danger reared it's ugly head,
Obama bravely turned his tail and fled.
("no!")
Yes, brave Sir Obama turned about
("I didn't!")
And gallantly he chickened out.
****Bravely**** taking ("I never did!") to his feet, Obama beat a very brave retreat.
("all lies!")
Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Obama!
("I never!")
|
|
Now, the distinction I'm making between a populist, with a lowercase "p", and a Populist, with an uppercase "P", is one of means vs. ideology.
Very few American populists are also "Populists". They don't have an *ideology* of whatever the people want that's what I'm for.
IOW, small p populists are simply anyone who uses populistic rhetoric --in distinction-- from rhetoric targeted to and through the elite.
So, I'm arguing there can be, and will be, leftwing populists, and rightwing populists.
Thus, one sense of populism isn't an ideology, its a method of politicking.
To further the clarity of the distinction, NON_populist politicking, is politicking to the elite, and through brokers.
When Reagan went "over the heads of the MSM (brokers) and "straight to the people" he was engaging in a form of populist politicking.
When candidates go through media, think tanks, special interest associations, labor unions, business groups, community leaders, celebrities, other politicians, they are politicking to and through the elite.
When they speak directly to the people they are engaging in a form of populism --viz., populist politicking.
more next post... |
|
It has a lemon sauce, nice and yellow.
Obama is afraid of McCain, hence the reason he will not debate him in a townhall (even though Obama said anyplace, any time, he would take on McCain).
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/08/03/its-official-obama-ru ns-from-town-hall-debates/
As poster "David" so elequently stated here previously:
Brave Obama ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Obama turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Obama!
|
|
Akennas writes: 'Sorry - to me, "populist" is a four-letter word. Populist=demogogue=cult of personality=mob rule=death of the rule of law. Say "populist", and I immediately think of Huey Long.'
ME: I think that is an unfortunate conclusion on your part --as well as that of many on the right. It fails to give the matter sufficient nuance.
Let's look at it with logical distinction. All, demogogues are populists, but not all populists are demogogues.
A demogogue, in the main, appeals to fear and pride --fear of those who would undermine that which the group is proud of.
For historical example, the perception that Jewish mongrels were pretending to be true Germans.
To my way of thinking, a demogogue typically asks for special suspension of the rules and for trust of the people to dispense with the identified threat.
The founding fathers feared a demogogue and so developed the separation of powers we so cherish.
A populist appeals to the people (like a demogogue would) but an AMERICAN populist --who respects our constution, and laws-- does this appeal in a non_demogogic fashion, generally.
more next post... |
|
Akennas writes: 'Yes, he is a very skillful politician. That is why I call him Clinton Lite...'
ME: Mike Huckabee is his own man. He's not in Clinton's mold, but he does have personal and personable political skills. Something Mitt sorely lacks.
And, he is student of Ameican pop culture, and American political culture --of American culture period.
He has a little Clinton, a little Reagan, a little FDR, a little JFK --great populists, all. And, a little Elvis, a little Jeff Foxworthy, a little D.J., a little talkshow host, and a little sportscaster and little Billy Graham.
He has assimilated all of these ways we Americans communcate with each other on the mass level and synthesized them into a political conversational rhetoric unmatched this season, maybe ever.
One, writer (NYT, I think) said that Huckabee doesn't electrify a room, like Obama does, he warms it up.
Yet, he knows how to deliver a message of gravity and profound moment --something often missed by those who think he is all about one-liners.
The Dallas Morning News noticed:
'...In 1997, when Little Rock Central High commemorated integration's 40th anniversary, Gov. Huckabee delivered a magnificent speech about race, justice and reconciliation that left many in the audience weeping.
It was a profound and profoundly moving address, and it revealed an unusual gift for leadership. Plain-spoken and eloquent, Mr. Huckabee strikes us as decent, principled and empathetic to the views and concerns of others β an antidote to the power-mad partisanship that has led U.S. politics to a dispiriting standstill...' |
|
PC writes: 'Also Pro There was a lot of concensus among pundits, commentators that Romney did win many of the debates.'
ME: Yes, like I said, when you score the debates by what plays to those in DC and Manhatten --the chattering classes and the policy wonks.
Presidential debates are notoriously hard to score, because of this factor, and the other factor of alternatively scoring them as to how the debates play in Peoria.
PC writes: 'Huck got his clock cleaned by Romney more than a few times...'
ME: By the policy-wonk/pundit standard John Kerry probably cleaned George Bush's clock EVERY time! But, while Kerry was playing to the media types, Bush was playing to the people at home sitting on their sofas.
PC writes: '...and especially when he stammered repeatedly when asked about why he raised taxes. He finally came out with the taxes gave Arkansas children hope. Another huge gaffe.'
ME: I don't remember the particular incident. I don't have cable TV. But, I watched most of the debates, or portions of them, online after the fact.
But, as to the subtance his point was every dollar of revenue was put to good use. By hope, I'm sure, he is referring to the court order to equalize school funding.
Education = hope. That is the point.
Funding education is a good use of tax dollars, that is the connection. |
|
Clinton and Huckabee have the same corruptibility factor, but with Clinton it is women and with Huck it is money.
So, Pro, I'll take the "too perfect" Romney any day of the week.
Not only does Huck have a questionable record, but questionable character.
|
|
PC writes: 'You must be kidding I didn't hear anyone say Huck won at the time, and I don't care if they did. I watched all the debates and a lot of commentary after.
So what if a few said he won. Most didn't.'
ME: You have bear in mind few things.
Sure, commentators at Faux News didn't think he won, they were anti_Huck from the get go.
But, anyway, there are two ways to score debates. One, is what pundits think --i.e. think themselves, and what they think other pundits think.
And, the other way is to score them by trying to assess what the public will think.
McCain sometimes comes off as a straight-talking patriot, sometimes grumpy old man. Rudy comes off as authortiarian and petty.
Huckabee comes off as human (with faults, but humman), Romney as a virtual human (too perfect, sickeningly perfect) --an android if you will --like Data from Star Trek TNG.
Those that score Huckabee according to how they think voters will react to the debate score him higher than those who use the pundit/policy wonk standard. |
|
I didn't hear anyone say Huck won at the time, and I don't care if they did. I watched all the debates and a lot of commentary after.
So what if a few said he won. Most didn't. |
|
PC writes: 'Pro I never heard a commentator say Huck won.'
ME: I just made three (actually four) posts --in this thread-- on the subject where two commetators said Huck won. Why not read them?
The debates
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 2:05 PM
The SC debate Huck pt 1
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 2:19 PM
The SC debate Huck pt 2
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 4:18 PM
Huckabee big winner:
Saturday, August, 02, 2008 5:04 PM |
|
There was a lot of concensus among pundits, commentators that Romney did win many of the debates.
Huck got his clock cleaned by Romney more than a few times, and especially when he stammered repeatedly when asked about why he raised taxes. He finally came out with the taxes gave Arkansas children hope. Another huge gaffe. |
|
|
I never heard a commentator say Huck won. I said I thought Rudy and Romney won all the debates - in the begining and as the field narrowed. Mac was horrible, repeating the same old lines that barely related to the questions, Fred was lackluster in all but 1 debate, Huckabee had some folksy lines, but rarely displayed anything but the most superficial understanding of the issues. Romney and Rudy were the only ones able to display depth of knowledge combined with skill in message delivery. |
|
PC writes: 'Pro It's time for you to be a gracious loser.'
ME: Yes, Huckabee didn't win the nomination --that is obvious.
The point is, your contention about Romney winning all the debates is NOT obvious --not at all obvious.
In fact, many commentaters (not Huck supporters) concluded that Huckabee either won several of the debates, or did very well in them.
Your anti-Huck attitude blinds you to seeing his remarkable skills. Many of his strongest crictics acknowlwdge his skills and the folly of misunderestimating him.
This may prove to his great advantage in future races. |
|
|
It's time for you to be a gracious loser. |
|
January 31, 2008
Schneider: The night's big winner: Huckabee
Posted: 07:34 AM ET
'Huckabee, I think, stood out in this debate as the one who made sense, talked as ordinary people do, and rose above politics. They may have scored. He connected.
And thatβs a problem for Romney, who would like to become the alternative to John McCain among conservatives who oppose the Arizona senator.
But he has very tough competition from Huckabee, whoβs forcing people to re-think his run at a time when he was supposed to be out of the game.
But this has always been the way heβs worked: Romney uses money to stay competitive. Huckabee has debates.
I donβt think McCain made many gains β and I think he may have caused people to re-think the race. I donβt think this was his strongest night, not because he was under attack. But because he wasnβt a straight talker. He talked very much like a politician. He was making a lot of charges at Romney β some of which, like the timetable charge, seemed very questionable.
A couple of Romneyβs answers were quite good, particularly on the Iraq timetables issue. I donβt think he did himself any harm. But I think the one who really helped himself was Huckabee.
All in all: Huckabee gained ground, McCain probably lost ground, and Romney didnβt help or hurt himself β although he did effectively defend himself. McCain sounded petty β and thatβs not the McCain voters know and like.
But to the extent that Huckabee may have made any gains from his performance, Romneyβs got bigger worries out of tonight than the Arizona senator.'
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/31/schneider-t he-nights-big-winner-huckabee-2/ |
|
cont....
'Here's what I said on November 28, the night of the YouTube debate, the night that catapulted Huckabee to his huge lead in Iowa: "Was this a seismic night? I'll give that one a big yes. Tonight heralded the arrival of Mike Huckabee as a force in this race. Not a spoiler, not a wildcard, but a force."
Although fewer people watched last evening's festivities, tonight was even bigger for Huckabee. For the first time, it was not only possible but easy to imagine Huckabee as the leader of 300 million people. He combined this newfound authority with his old standbys of off-the-charts likability and a deft way of tapping into aspirational politics.
In the race for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee is going to be tough to beat.'
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/CampaignStandard/2008 /01/barnett_a_big_night_for_huckab_1.asp |
|
PC writes: 'To my mind, Romney and Rudy won all the debates.'
ME: Barnett on Huck's SC debate performance:
'1) Mike Huckabee: Huckabee deftly parried Thompson's aggressive and spirited attacks early in the debate. It was a battle on terrain that was unfriendly to Huckabee, and Thompson attacked with skill. And yet Huckabee got out of the exchange unscathed.
The exchange with Thompson came early in the debate, and Huckabee was just getting warmed up. For the first time in this campaign, Huckabee looked like a credible commander in chief when the conversation turned to those Iranian speedboats. His normal joviality vanished, replaced by an appropriate gravity.
Then he got even better. He seized on a characteristic piece of Ron Paul idiocy to give a spirited speech defending America's commitment to Israel. Again, he looked credible as a commander in chief.
But this was also an extremely shrewd piece of politicking. Conservative foreign policy types obviously loved it as did pro-Israel people. But Huckabee's core audience of conservative Christians, a much larger segment of the society than either of the other two groups, adored it also.
Mike Huckabee's an exceptional politician whose package of skills is often sold short. He's a lot more than an affable dispenser of one-liners who only knows how to play to the home crowd.
For people who might be inclined to dismiss Huckabee, compare his response to Thompson's adroit offensive with McCain's blundering into the climate warming thicket. These two are the likely finalists, and one of them is much better at politics than the other...' |
|
PC writes: 'To my mind, Romney and Rudy won all the debates.'
ME: Here's Dean Barnett (Weekly Standard) had to say about Mitt's SC debate performance:
'Mitt Romney: The stakes were highest for Romney. He came into tonight's debate with a harsh, looming deadline. If he doesn't win in Michigan next Tuesday, he's pretty much done. Fred and Rudy at least don't have their respective final exams until South Carolina and Florida.
So it was an odd night for Romney to go invisible and say hardly anything original or inspiring. This was Romney's most lackluster debate performance of the entire campaign, and it came at a time when he could least afford it. If the guy who showed up in New Hampshire on Sunday showed up tonight, maybe Romney could have rallied. He still might, but this debate won't be the reason.' |
|
To my mind, Romney and Rudy won all the debates. Huck had a couple good moments, but was caught without a good answer on taxes, even lying, and othe things. Then he whined that he wasn't getting enought air.
I thought Romney should not have backed off and played nice so much. I think he was criticized and he decided to tone it down. But he was excellent overall, and that was the main reason conservatives started thinking he was the one. I think if you review the debates, you'll see that Romney was the best. He's going to be great against the dem VP.
I think Romney did the only thing he could do with his religion issue. He refused to be dragged into answering every doctrinal question, no other candidates were asked to do that. He told us that he loves his faith, that he/Mormons are Christian, and that a religious test for ofice was unAmerican. He was right on all three. His speech was brilliant and got more people on board. And it earned him an award from a religios freedom group, (Cantebury something?)where he was able to go and make a follow-up speech which was as brilliant as the first. |
|
Now, there you have some points, although I don't think Mittcare was a bad thing. Healthcare was coming in Mass whether Romney liked it or not, so he did the best he could under the circumstances, he kept it private. He wrote an assessment of it the other day with suggestions for what he thinks need to be improved. After he left, they did alot of things he would never have advocated. That's just the way it is, and he can't really be blamed for that.
I find the argument about raising all that money with nothing to show for it completely ridiculous, and it shows that people against Romney really have to dig. All politicians raise money and spend it to campaign. Romney was an unknown, he had to build name recognition. Huckabee made good use of the MSM and unpaid preachers across the country, which I think was a little on the edge, but he had no other way to go because he couldn't seem to raise any cash. At least people believed in Romney enough to donate. He raised more than any other GOP guy even before he added his own money. And you know that the vote against Mac was being split 2-3 ways, none of them could have sealed the deal against Mac. Its funny that folks are critical of Romney over this. He can make more money any time he feels like it, I think he knows exactly what he's doing. The money was well spent, because now everyone knows him and he is likely going to be chosen for VP. Everyone acknowledges that he is already the frontrunner for 2012. Good investment. |
|
Everyone knew that many more people signed in favor of Romney than against. But it doesn't really matter because Mac got the message from Romney fans loud and clear. The ad helped Mitt far more than they would have ever dreamed. That's the funny part. It FLOPPED. It was hilarious. It laid bare the desperation and foolishness of the signers.
You may not oppose Romney for his Mormonsim, but the signers did. Just look up the names, they almost all have a history of anti-Mormon efforts. That's why the ad stunk to high heaven. They used a bunch of lies about Romney that have been debunked time and again as cover for their real problem with Romney. It was pathetic.
Mac didn't appreciate it too much, he basically laughed at the effort, and dismissed them.
Kudos to him for that. The same group is at it again, only this time they were more open about their reason. Mac isn't going to be bullied by the hostage-takers this time either. He doesn't give a rats rear end what they think. |
|
I have plenty of reasons to oppose Romney: on policy matters, there's MittCare, promising government handouts to industry, his waffling on Free Trade (he seemed to me at first for it, then he started the nonsense about "Free Trade if it's Fair Trade), his opposition to tax reform of any kind, whether the Fair Tax or a flat tax; see? Those all have to do with economics (supposedly Romney's strong suit), and I haven't mentioned anything about the LDS church.
In the area of pure politics, it's troubling that Romney raised and spent all that money, and had the support of big name conservative radio and tv personalities, and then couldn't do any better than he did against the two guys who he should have been mopping the floor with. In the debates he played it safe, not wanting to offend anybody, apparently. He didn't get mad when false accusations were thrown at him. The only people he inspired were those already predesposed to being inspired by Romney.
And finally, he totally mishandled the issue of his faith. Perhaps he just isn't the best spokesperson for the LDS church; he makes it seem that the LDS church is populated by rich NE wimpy faux-conservative types who schedule playdates with their Liberal buddies. He should have ditched the suit, wore overalls to the debates (camoflauge, preferably), and had photo shoots of himself hunting bears with nothing but a bowie knife.
Then he should have talked about how the LDS church is an American religion, founded by Americans in America; emphasize how the persecution by the Federal Government makes Mormons natural Conservatives, that sort of thing.
No, I don't oppose Romney for his Mormonism. There's too much else wrong with him to worry about that. |
|
Thank you for your continuing effort to show the diminished reasoning power of the average Mittwit.
You write: "I can see that you missed the whole lesson from the anti-Mitt petition."
Maybe you can teach us Huckabee fans another lesson. We'll start a petition that McCain pick Huckabee as his running mate, saying something along the lines that we'll sit out the election if he doesn't pick Huckabee. You Mittwits can sign it, putting all the reasons why you don't think McCain should pick the Huck. We'll compile your names with ours, and present McCain with a list of 9 million or so petitioners who want Huckabee as his VP.
You got nasty emails because you were signing a petition to keep Romney off the ticket, then putting in messages saying you support Romney for VP. The authors of the petition obviously thought you were either pranksters or persons with the thinking capacity of a pile of dead bugs; you therefore had to be whacked on the knuckles, rhetorically speaking, in order to get your attention sufficiently to inform you to NOT SIGN A PETITION WITH WHICH YOU DO NOT AGREE. |
|
BM: Mitty clamming up IS disturbing in the way secrecy ALWAYS is.
GB: Romney made no secret about being a Mormon or that he believed its tenets. As a candidate for the President of the United States it was and is inappropriate to have to defend or expound personal religious beliefs. And frankly it is unAmerican to require it.
It is not the job of a Candidate for President to have to defend his religion and it is inappropriate to even suggest that he should.
Article 6 of the Constitutions forbids a religious test for public office. |
|
You have said that Mormons arent Christians.
You have stated that we dont believe in Christ but believe in Joseph Smith.
If that isnt trashing...
You have said that Mormons arent capable of rational thought.
For starters....
I do recall your statement that the founding Fathers were Christian, not Mormon, so therefore Mromons couldnt be President becasue this is Christian country.
By the way, the founding father werent Catholic either. So what does that say for you? |
|
I never said religion isnt a factor.
The problem is when Fundys dont think one is a Christian, or not Christian enough because others dont believe the same things they do.
It is apparent that Mormons are religious.
There is no need for candidates to contrast and compare the doctrines of their religious denominations. It has no place in politics.
Unless you think Transubstantiation is an appropriate topic for politics and that Guliani should have to expalain the history of the doctrine and give scriptural basis for his thoughts.
|
|
when did I trash the LDS faith? If I said things that were not true, you have the obligation of showing why they were not true. Accusations (such as yours)from thin air are meaningless. |
|
The concept that the most Core and Fundamental of One's Moral, Ethical and Sociological Beliefs and Philosophy of Life should have NO bearing on Politics simply enlarges my idea of the Possible,
BG.
later
mick |
|
in a candidate's life, there is no reason to discuss it. However, if religious beliefs influence a candidate's decisions, then those beliefs are vitally important to voters.
By the way, I have never accused anyone of being an apostate to the Catholic Church. Apostasies come and go, the Church remains. I find no threat to me in the Protestant churches or in the LDS. However, I fear for the souls of simple people who are ignorant of the teachings of Christ and His Church.
It is an interesting question. Is it better to be non-religious or to be LDS? Of course those are not the only two choices. |
|
I dont need to distort your faith to feel good about my faith.
I dont feel any need to discuss your faith.
You have never once discussed your faith.
All you have done was trash mine, that's all I need to know about your faith.
By the way, just because you are the way you are, I see know reason to equate all Catholics as being like you.
I grew up around Catholics, nice people, Catholics.
|
|
I get to go play ball with my son, See ya on the blog, GB. I will also be on the Coulter thread tonight or tomorrow.
Bg--It's just a thought for ya, but the real problem here is that sporting a "your bigoted against me" tude rarely fosters Trust. Neither does "I shouldn't have to answer that, you shouldn't ask."
Mitty believing in The Angel Moroni is no more threatening then the Candidate who believes he saw a UFO goofy but not necessarily as Sinister, say as the Tri Lateral Commission or The Skull and Bones Society. Mitty clamming up IS disturbing in the way secrecy ALWAYS is. Saying "Yeah sure, I believe that and this and this odd stuff but a I also believe" and emphasizing here are my Reagan Creds, is way more effective then "I ain't gonna talk about it." Again something you guys don't seem to get. Taking offense seems a higher priority than gaining trust to you. In that you act JUST like the Ragheads of CAIR.
JOE: sounds Heavenly to ME! If my wife was there and willing!
The Big Mick |
|
See, it all comes out, the fundy Evangelicals claim their way as the true way, that you are an apostate.
You claim that the Catholic way is the only way an that all others are apostates.
Mormons believe that an Apostasy took place and a Restoration was needed.
So who cares?
It doesnt need to be discussed in politics, when our nation is having problems.
Being a Catholic, Protestant, or a Mormon should have no bearing on politics.
The fact is religion shouldnt be a factor, as you claim, now, but you constantly play the hypocrite and bring it up.
|
|
both Roman and Greek. Why do not you tell us why you made that stipulation as to whether the apostles' successors are Roman or Greek? I am sure you, like Mitt probably, are hiding something. I hope someday you learn to say what you mean. |
|
why do you not answer peoples' questions? Could you, like maybe Romney did, have something to hide? |
|
Which succoessors, Roman or Greek?
The Protestants aren't traditional Christians either then.
|
|
do you know what spirit is? |
|
people cannot believe Catholic teaching unless God gives them the grace to believe.
I suppose, because you have no answers, you want me to explain why the Catholic faith has remained true to the teachings of Christ so that you can distort my words into some kind of LDS principle.
By the way, why do you think the Father has a human body? |
|
I do commend you guys for your familiarity with Scripture.
Course that loses a little since your articles maintain Scriptural Authority only where "correctly" translated.
GB--"whosoever believeth has eternal life." "he who hears and believes does not come into condemnation (judgement?) but is passed from death unto life." "But to him who worketh not, but believeth his faith is counted as righteousness."
Again an old arguement from AD 60 on and better done by Theologians smarter than you or I on both sides.
Though your reaction indicates I really got you with the Thief. Is there a Scriptural Record that the Samaritan Believers of John 4 were ever Baptised? Arguments from silence are sooo iffy.
BG--the end of part 3 I had to edit:
Trust MUST be EARNED, Mitty had the opportunity, he blew it, you haven't helped.
Not that it makes a bit of dif, I ain't votin for Mac the knife anyway and would choose Hunter and Jindal over Mitty in 012 for other reasons besides. Not the least of which is a refusal to vote for ANYONE The People's Republic of MASS elected. Mitty COULD have changed that around though, or his partisans. They didn't, you blew it. That does not constitute a "theat" anymore than it did when Barry G got senile and went Postal on the "threat" of Christians to Conservatism. My vote has to be EARNED, BG, you guys, is it your Theology of Authority at work, seem not to GET that.
The Big Mick |
|
passed down by the successors to the apostles.
After you have studied Catholicism for any significant length of time, you will not have to ask that question. |
|
|
I will answer you on your blog. |
|
Claiming what is and what isn't "traditional Christianiy" is too broad.
Why should anyone believe Catholics?
Rather, why should anyone believe any of the popes stories. |
|
What is "traditional Christianity", and who are currently "traditional Christians".
The Catholics, the Protestants. The Pre Creedal Christians or Post, Eastern or Western orthodox, Coptic...?
Claiming what is and what isn't "traditional Christianiy" is too broad.
Why should anyone believe Catholics? |
|
The scriptures I showed make reference to what one must "do". That belief promotes fatih into action.
No Mormon believes, nor is it taught that they can earn their way to heaven by keeping the commandments.
Mormons are taught to keep the commandments as best they can and trust in His Atonement for redemption.
Just as Christ grew from grace to grace, we believewhen we are obedient to Christ as He was obedient to the Father, we have His spirit with us, then we too grow from grace to grace. We are not capable of earning salvation and rely soley upon Jesus Christ.
We also believe that if a man doesnt have charity, which is the pure love of Christ, his faith and his devotion are in vain.
|
|
Christian or not, the LDS teaches many things that are contrary to traditional Christian teachings.
Why should anyone believe Joseph Smith's stories? |
|
|
|
So Jesus went to paradise too? "With me", his words, ya know? How about "went and made proclamation to the Sprits now in prison." Is that Hell, or Ghenna, or Sheol or Pardise?
Is "paradise" the same or different from "Abraham's bossom? Are both different from heaven? Remember the OTHER guy was in "torment of fire" more like "where the fire is never out" of Jesus' teaching not the grey place of departed Spirits of the Hebrew Sheol. How about "where I am there you will be also." How about "I AM the God of Abraham--God of The LIVING!" "Are they not all ministering Spirits sent out to render aid"..."their angels constantly behold the face of my Father IN HEAVEN is it?" "There is neither marrying nor giving in Marriage but all are like the ANGELS in HEAVEN!"
If Paradise ain't heaven can I settle for paradise? What's the Virgin Quotient there?
The Big Mick
|
|
Saying that Mormons arent Christian isn't good enough either.
Anyone can say that.
|
|
Render unto Ceasar what is his and render unto God what is His.
The evangelical leaders that threaten politicians to choose candidates based upon their religion make a mockery of Him who said: My Kingdom is not ow this world. Just like the Pharisees.
It's that simple, stop being a fundy Pharisee. |
|
How come you skipped Ephesians?
Like Eph 2:8-9 for example....
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. |
|
quoting scripture provides little proof for anyone's faith. That is why there are approximately 30,000 churches that claim to be scripture base and yet disagree on doctrines. Anyone can interpret the Bible. That does not imply anyone's interpretation is correct. |
|
Got to admit, BG, you is nothing if not tenacious. The center of your response has not changed from the original Mitty partisans of months ago. "You don't have the RIGHT to ASK! And ASKING is Bigoted!"
So OK, keep repeating your non-rebuttal, rebuttal, if it makes you feel better. Doesn't do a damn thing to convince ME, but you never gave a damn about THAT anyway, right?
But here's the deal, what IS "un-American" is AUTHORITY! The whole foundation of Americanism is that "divine right" is confered NOT by some Anoited King or Priest, but FROM the Creator TO EVERY INDIVIDUAL! The "Priesthood of every believer" taken into POLITICS! Sombody on pointed out our FOUNDERS' INFLUENCES were in turn Influenced by Arguments of the ENGLISH REFORMATION!
THAT'S why Mitty was in the SAME HOLE as JFK! Americans wondered where THEIR THEOLOGY of AUTHORITY would LEAD! JFK was able to earn America's trust, his war record helped.
Mitty is NO JFK!
Once you bought into the Doctrine of GRACE BY GATEKEEPER, whether in the RC Apostolic Succession, or Joe's "Restored Priesthood" you establish lines of Authority that make people wonder how far, and in what directions they run.
I've GOT to believe the man who has the most power over me has got NO OTHER OBLIGATION to ANY Authority other then the JOINT one we share to God. NO OTHER HIERARCHY!
Say what you will, the basic Theological Tenent of Mormonism is an ALTERNATE HIERARCHY of AUTHORITY, from the Revelation by Moroni on down.
Thus TRUST, HAS to be EARNED!
|
|
and where to the Irish go? Paradise? Some pub in Dublin which never closes and where your credit is always good? With rounds of golf and salmon fishing every now and then.
|
|
Huck said that if some northerner came down to the south and tried to tell them what to do with the rebel flag he'd tell where to put the flag pole.
If some fundies tried to tell me that Iβm not Christian enough to run for public office of the United States of America, that my personal faith in Jesus Christ isnβt good enough, and that somehow makes me less worthy as an American citizen. Iβd tell him where to stick his cross.
|
|
Listen pops, read what the Bible actually says about the thief on the cross. The thief went to PARADISE not HEAVEN!! Get it.
Clue here pops Paradise isn't Heaven. Three days later when Jesus was resurrected He said to Mary "touch me not". Why? Because He had not yet ascended to Heaven. Sorry pops, the thief didn't get to heaven.
Oh and can you show me a single verse that clearly and plainly says that Baptism isn't required? Or do you have to go thorough all sorts of contortions to get it?
But hey, you can believe the words of Paul in a fraction of Romans, and a fraction of Galatians and a fraction of Ephesians and ignore all the rest of the Bible if you want.
Some people really get a kick out of gambling.
But hey, you go for it pops |
|
If you want to beleive that only belief is required for salvation, that is great.
I dont think that lip service alone does it. Great.
Matt. 7: 21
he that doeth the will of my Father.
Matt. 7: 24
(Luke 6: 47) heareth these sayings . . . and doeth them.
Matt. 23: 3
whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do.
Matt. 23: 23
(Luke 11: 42) these ought ye to have done.
Matt. 24: 46
(Luke 12: 43) Blessed is that servant whom his lord . . . shall find so doing.
Matt. 25: 40
(D&C 42: 38) as ye have done it unto one of the least . . . ye have done it unto me.
Luke 6: 46
why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not.
Luke 8: 21
which hear the word of God, and do it.
Luke 10: 28
this do, and thou shalt live.
Luke 10: 37
and do thou likewise.
John 2: 5
Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it.
John 3: 21
he that doeth truth cometh to the light.
John 7: 17
If any man will do his will.
John 8: 29
I do always those things that please him.
John 15: 5
without me ye can do nothing.
Acts 1: 1
all that Jesus began both to do and teach.
Acts 2: 37
Men and brethren, what shall we do.
Acts 10: 38
Jesus . . . went about doing good.
Acts 16: 30
what must I do to be saved.
Rom. 7: 15
that do I not, but what I hate, that do I.
1 Cor. 10: 31
whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.
Gal. 6: 10
let us do good unto all men.
Philip. 4: 13
I can do all things through Christ.
Col. 3: 17
whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord.
Col. 3: 23
whatsoever ye do, do it heartily.
Heb. 13: 16
to do good and to communicate forget not.
James 4: 17
knoweth to do good, and doeth it not.
2 Pet. 1: 10
if ye do these things, ye shall never fall.
Rev. 19: 10
(Rev. 22: 9) See thou do it not.
Rev. 22: 14
Blessed are they that do his commandments.
|
|
most politicians can and will answer questions about what they believe, religous or other beliefs. If they do not know how to explain the beliefs of their religion, they admit it.
Other politicians are like Obama, the last thing you are going to find out from them is what they really believe.
If I had been Romney, I would not have wanted to discuss LDS beliefs either.
|
|
Quoting you now "Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned."
So where is the "he who is baptized not shall be damned."?
"Matt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved."
Endure in what, BG? Belief maybe?
Frankly I've always thought the "Original Teachings of Jesus" argument to be a hoot!
Paul writes BEFORE the Gospels. The Gospels were written FOR people ALREADY MADE BELIEVERS by PAUL's TEACHING! Finding a false dicotomy or divergence there is damn silly.
The Big Mick
|
|
If you dont think authority is necesary, great.
Why do you feel it is important for a politician to tell you how he feels about every point of doctrine of the denomination he belongs to?
Especially when you can research it for yourself at the denomination's web site.
Why pick out Mitt Romney?
WHy not ask all the Catholic politicans questions as to why they pray to Mary and to explain why or why not it is Biblical? Or praying to Saints for that matter.
Like I said, its retarded and you know it. |
|
I can see that you missed the whole lesson from the anti-Mitt petition.
Their point was to get folks to sign it, thinking that everyone agreed with them to oppose Romney and they had to lie about his record to drum up a reason to oppose him when the real problems was his Mormonism.
But what happened is that so many people were outraged by it (Mormon and non-Mormon alike), and so disgusted by the divisive nature of it, and so wanting Romney for VP that they flooded the site and voiced their desire to see Mitt as VP!
Then the site had to start removing those names and comments. And they started sending nasty emails to people who contacted them to disagree with the ad, (I know, my sister got one and forwarded it to me, it was over-the-top anti-Mormon, what a shock, not.)
That was and still is their whole problem with Romney, of course, his religion. His record has nothing to do with why they oppose him. They haven't chosen to single out any other person.
It's crystal clear, cav and you guys are having a very hard time keeping up the charade of opposing Romney for any other reason. |
|
Take it up with Luther, Wesley, Calvin and the Thief on the Cross, GB. Or with Jesus, "he who believes." It's an old argument, well trod.
Believe what you want, I stand in the Protestant Tradition of Sola Fides, and the Wesleyan Tradition of "think and let think." "If in anything you are otherwise minded, God will reveal that to you also, only let us keep living to that standard we have attained."
The Big Mick
|
|
Nobody's tried to "define your religion for you" simply hold you accountable for EXPLAINING its teachings, and for the face value of those teachings. Nobody "trashed your religion" either. What I trashed is YOUR and MITTY's and his partisans', ATTITUDE toward your religion, and criticism OF that attitude!
What I have consistently held you accountable for BG is your "bigot, bigot, bigot" Mantra defending Mitty's Ali Shuffle. You don't what to hear what bothers me and why that sinks Mitty, fine, but you don't get to call ME a bigot for that.
As for: "I don't get bent out of shape because the pope says that only Catholics go to heaven."
There's been a loop hole for the Proddies since VAT 2.
"I dont think that only Mormons go to heaven." That's the implication of the Face Value teaching of YOUR 13 Articles which YOU regard as SCRIPTURE! You don't believe it, fine, but I'm not a bigot for taking YOUR teaching at face value.
"I dont get the fundy bitter attitude, seriously."
What fundy bitter attitude toward what? I trash Ah Huck(you)'s Faux-Conservative MORE than I trash Mitty, and wouldn't vote for either for Prez anymore than I'm voting for Mac the Knife.
I told you it was Mitty's stonewalling and his partisans "bigot" cant that sunk him, you don't want to deal, don't.
"I dont get that Mormons aren't American or Christian enough to run for public office."
Nobody said that either. What I said was I don't TRUST the sombeech because he stonewalled and his partisans beeched.
"Its retarded, and you know it."
What's retarded about requiring our Candidates EARN our Trust?
The Big Mick |
|
You seem to think that a belief in Jesus is sufficient for salvation.
James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.
Belief in Jesus is necessary but not sufficient.
Jesus says that baptism is necessary.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
Do you believe what JESUS said? Or do you only believe your interpretation of Paul?
That is not all.
To be saved one must endure to the end.
Matt 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Do you believe what JESUS said? Or do you only believe your interpretation of Paul?
Faith is a principle of action.
James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.
18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.
Faith and works are not mutually exclusive. Get it?
So then to be saved one must believe or have faith in Jesus Christ. This faith must motivate to action. Action to be Baptized and do the good works as Jesus says and endure to the end.
All this according to the words of JESUS. Do you believe the WORDS of JESUS? Or only your interpretation of Paul?
What does JESUS teach about works?
JESUS said, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good WORKS, and glorify your Father which is in heaven."
JESUS said, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the WORKS that I do shall he do also; and greater WORKS than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father."
JESUS said, "I will give unto every one of you according to your WORKS."
Do you believe what JESUS said? Or do you only believe your interpretation of Paul? |
|
So, sure, LOTS of non-Mormons share your position, BG, on the NECESSITY of Immersion Baptism and Gift of the Holy Spirit through Laying on of Hands. Those βordinances and lawsβ donβt make you either particularly unique, or hinky, or particularly scary. On the other hand, those who believe in the NECESSITY of those, due tend toward the Fringe a bit. Itβs how we GET there thatβs the problem.
Art. 5 βWe believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.β The key words here are MUSTβ, βAUTHORITYβ, and βADMINISTERβ.
Note the progression. To PROPERLY βadministerβ the βordinancesβ (or even PREACH it?) one MUST be called by βProphecyβ and the Laying on of Hands βBY THOSE IN AUTHORITY!β
No βlaying on of hands BY AUTHORITYβ, no LEGITIMATE βadministration of the Ordinancesβ or, it would seem, PREACHING of the Gospel.
Now MOST denoms have SOME kind of Idea of Apostolic Succession, the transmission of the Gospel and Authority from the Disciples and Apostles and the 1st Century Church on.
Damn few of em skip right from AD 90 or so (Death of John last of The Apostles) to 1820 or May 15 1829 when John the Baptist appeared to Joe and Oliver and RESTORED the βpriesthoodβ that had been βREMOVED.β
Everything in between, according to the Articles, and other LDS Church Teachings (SOME of Which, like the Articles, they claim as SCRIPTUREβTHE BIBLE!) Is APOSTATEβnull and void, NOT LEGITIMATE!
Ergo, you get the administration of the ordinances ONLY through Joe, or you DONβT get it, no legitimate administration, no legitimate Gospel, no salvation.
We outa luck, boy.
The Big Mick |
|
You can take solace in believing the way you want. You have everyright to believe what you want.
I dont need to trash your religion to make myself feel better about my personal realtionship with Christ.
I don't get bent out of shape because the pope says that only Catholics go to heaven.
I do have a problem with others defining my faith for me.
I dont think that only Mormons go to heaven.
I dont get the fundy bitter attitude, seriously.
I dont get that Mormons are't American or Christian enough to run for public office.
Its retarded, and you know it. |
|
Art 4. β We believe that the first principles and aordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by eimmersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.β
Again, one can chuck up a bunch of Scriptural references about βFaith not worksβ but Luther and the Reformers can carry that Freight. Note, though, the requirement of Baptism by Immersion (noted that others share) and the gift of the Holy Spirit by Laying on of Hands. Some Pentecostals will back you there. I simply note that when the Gospel came to the Gentiles at Corneliusβ House the Baptism of the Holy Spirit EXACTLY as at Pentecost occurred DURING the Preaching of the Gospel WITHOUT the laying on of Hands. Peterβs take on this is interesting. He trashes the guys back at Jerusalem who had gone all control freaky and βOrdinances and Laws of the Torahβ and βThis way and only this wayββnow who does that sound like?
But the deal breaker is Art.5. Thatβs what cuts the rest of us out.
Part 3
The Big Mick |
|
Big G, I figured youβd go here so OK letβs do it. Remember Christians do not do Theology by the Stalin Method βquantity has a quality all itβs own.β Chuck up all the Scripture References you want, Theological Opponents can do the same. Iβll let you read Luther for the βFaith Aloneβ Rebuttal. Itβs a Vegas Push. As far as that goes, you ainβt the only Denom who pushes Baptism by immersion as De Rigueur, the Churches of Christ (maybe some kin to you up the line) do too and some Hard Shell Baptists. And you ainβt the only ones whose Theological implications relegates the rest of us to Hell. Jehovah Witnesses donβt think we make the cut. As far as that goes the RCβs only cut us Proddies some slack in Vatican 2, and it IS an Orthodox Christian Teaching that Jesus ALONE is the Way of Salvation.
But YOUR documents say what they sayβyou can proof text all you want, you still got to deal with the TEXT of YOUR Articles.
Art. 1. "We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all bmankind may be csaved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel." Catch the MAY there, BG? Note the βBY OBEDIENCE to the LAWS and ORDINANCES of the Gospel.β Now thatβs an interesting take right there. Most Christian Scholars are going to buy the idea basic to Pauline and Refornmation Theology that THE GOSPEL places us under GRACE and Not LAW. The LAW of The Gospel is generally thought of as the LAW of LOVE. The Idea that GRACE is actually ONLY achieved through OBEDIENCE to Ordinances and Laws would be a Contradiction in Terms, an Oxymoron to most Orthodox Christian Scholars through History, unless you run the RC position of Grace and Works that way and they would make a distinction between BOTH (their position) and BY (yours).
So exactly what ARE these βOrdinances and Lawsβ which REQUIRE βobedienceβ in order to gain access to JESUSβ act of GRACE?
Part 2
The Big Mick |
|
what blithering idiots the Mittwits are.
You write: "Remember the 'petition'? Romney was not as in the headlines at that time. Right after that failed attempt -because 90 percent of the signers were PRO romney...."
It was a petition to keep Romney off the ticket, and all these so-called Romney supporters were signing the petition!
They got confused because there was a poll that was basically asking, "Even if McCain picks Romney, would you still vote for the ticket, even though you really, REALLY don't want Romney on it?"
The Mittwits thought the whole thing was a web poll, and so signed it with messages of support for Romney. In the end, McCain gets this petition with all these names (comments not included) saying to NOT PICK ROMNEY AS HIS VP! |
|
Since we have firmly established that you think that sex with pubescent girls is wrong, when are you going to denounce Jos. Smith and Brigham Young for doing it?
Just asking... |
|
Since our little LDS trolls have turned this into another argument over who the invisible sky pixie likes best, here's a concise guide to Mormonism written by an ex-Mormon.
MORMONISM IN A NUTSHELL
(WHAT ANYBODY SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT WITHOUT ANY HELP)
If somebody should come around to you and say, very seriously, that:
God has been talking personally to him; and
he has an important message for YOU from GOD (even though you know that God has your address and phone number and could easily give you the message himself); and
the message is that God wants you to do whatever this guy says;
which includes giving this guy lots of money, time and energy to help him; and
if you do this, wonderful things will happen to you, but mostly after you're dead; and
God has told him all kinds of important stuff (but not how to cure AIDS, or cancer, or the common cold; or how to pick a stock that will double in a year; or how to pay off the national debt); and
It's OK for him to be married to 30 or 40 women at the same time (but it's not OK for YOU); and
You're not supposed to ask him any questions, but just trust him; and
If you do everything he says, he'll tell you the secret password and handshake that will get you into Heaven; and
Then, after you die and go to Heaven, you will organize and rule your own world and billions of your own spirit children (even though right now you can't even organize your own desk top, you hire somebody else to prepare your tax return and repair your carburetor, you have absolutely no interest in astronomy, quantum physics or advanced math, and you can't control the three kids you have);
If somebody tells you all this,
SHOULDN'T YOU BE A LITTLE BIT SUSPICIOUS?
Chances are pretty good that he is either a lunatic or a fraud, AND YOU SHOULD RUN LIKE HELL!
But this is Joseph Smith's story, in a nutshell.
|
|
rather lose a campaign than lose a war."
That is noble; I would also like to hear him say, I would rather lose a campaign than be threatened by "agents of intolerance". |
|
We also believe that priesthood authority is given by God
Ex. 18: 15 (1 Sam. 9: 9) people come unto me to enquire of God.
Ex. 28: 41 consecrate them . . . that they may minister unto me in the priestβs office.
Num. 1: 50 appoint the Levites over the tabernacle.
Num. 16: 5 him whom he hath chosen will he cause to come near unto him.
Num. 27: 23 (Deut. 34: 9) laid his hands upon him, and gave him a charge.
1 Sam. 2: 28 I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel.
1 Sam. 3: 20 Samuel was established to be a prophet.
2 Chr. 26: 18 It appertaineth not unto thee, Uzziah, to burn incense.
Hag. 1: 12 Haggai the prophet, as the Lord their God had sent him.
Matt. 16: 19 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom.
Mark 3: 14 he ordained twelve.
Mark 11: 28 By what authority doest thou these things.
Luke 9: 1 gave them power and authority over all devils.
Luke 10: 1 Lord appointed other seventy.
John 15: 16 I have chosen you, and ordained you.
Acts 6: 6 (Acts 8: 18; Acts 13: 3; 1 Tim. 4: 14) apostles . . . laid their hands on them.
Acts 10: 42 testify that it is he which was ordained of God.
Gal. 1: 1 Paul, an apostle (not . . . by man, but by Jesus Christ).
Titus 1: 5 ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed.
Heb. 5: 4 he that is called of God, as was Aaron. |
|
We believe Baptism is essential for salvation.
Matt. 3: 15 Suffer it to be so now . . . to fulfil all righteousness.
Matt. 28: 19 teach all nations, baptizing them.
Mark 1: 9 Jesus came . . . and was baptized of John.
Mark 16: 16 (Ether 4: 18; D&C 112: 28-29) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved.
Luke 3: 21 Jesus also being baptized.
Luke 7: 30 rejected the counsel of God . . . being not baptized.
John 3: 5 Except a man be born of water . . . he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Acts 2: 38 Repent, and be baptized every one of you.
Acts 10: 48 commanded them to be baptized.
Acts 22: 16 be baptized, and wash away thy sins.
Titus 3: 5 saved us, by the washing of regeneration.
1 Pet. 3: 21 baptism doth also now save us.
|
|
We believe baptism is not optional if one wishes the fullness of salvation. Jesus said a person must be born of water and of the Spirit (John 3: 3-5).
When he sent the twelve apostles forth to teach the gospel he told them that whosoever believed and was baptized would be saved; and whosoever did not believe would be damned (Mark 16: 16).
Jesus himself was baptized βto fulfill all righteousnessβ (Matt. 3: 15; 2 Ne. 31: 4-11).
But the Pharisees, being unwilling to accept the gospel βrejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptizedβ (Luke 7: 30).
So where does that leave you? Religion is a personal thing, it is up to you, not me, to tell you what to do, ask God what you should do.
I can see why people are reluctant to vote for Mike Huckabee given that his supporters and Evangelical leaders go about telling others that they are going to hell rather than preach the gospel of Christ, and that by not being of the their religious affiliation they are somehow less American.
|
|
Big G and KC still phartin around?
Well I done gone and looked up what I said I would and the verdict is IN
1. Fuller Theological Inst. Pasadena CA
Founded by Charles (Old Time Revival) Fuller Radio Evangelist 1947. Their statement of faith is damn Orthodox. Never heard of Richard Mouw and if he thinks he can harmonize Fuller's Statement of Faith with LDS's 13 Articles he either didn't do his homework or shouldn't be President of a Post Graduate Seminary.
2. LDS.org IS pretty upfront--search the Topic Data base under Church Doctrines. 4,8 and 10 Interested me, along with the one about, apparently, ordination--5 maybe? You want a head spinner click on Area 70
3. This still don't let Mitty--would he be a Seer or a Revelator? off the hook for his running dodge. But I can see why he didn't.
If the LDSers REALLY believe what they got in those Articles then they CAN'T believe the rest of Us are Saved. Faith ALONE is NOT one of the Gospel Ordinances. Baptism by immersion is required AND laying on of Hands to receive the Holy Spirit. You don't got the last two you're screwed--so say the Articles if you take em at Face Value. Spin anyone?
4. The bit on Ordination is the most significant--If you ain't got a properly done Gospel Preacher, it ain't genuine Gospel--so say the Articles. And since they admit to believing such Priestly ministry vanished with the Apostles and didn't reappear until Uncle Joe, you do the Math. None of the rest of us have ever heard a Genuine Gospel. So where does that leave us?
I can see why Mitty didn't want to tell all his potential voters they were doomed to hell.
So say the Articles.
the big mick
|
|
That is a false assumption, that is like saying that Christ fails everytime an believer becomes an atheist.
Because people reject Christ doesnt make Him a failure.
You can feel free to interpret the Bible as you see fit, as for me and my house, I will take the word of the Prophets and Jesus Christ.
To believe the words of the prohets and Jesus Christ as I believe them doesnt mean that I think Jesus failed as you falsely accuse me of believing.
Me: BUt the problem is that as an LDS, you HAVE to believe Jesus failed. The problem isn't that devout Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists don't accept Christ as their savior, and believe in his teachings, they do.
But you, and Joseph Smith, believe that those churches got it all wrong, and Jesus would have to have been pretty inept to let them get it wrong AND do nothing about it for 1800 years.
|
|
Yet you yucked it up with Eugene in his equating Mormons to Nazis as just a good ole guy telling the truth about the "dangers of Mormonsim".
Me: Man, are you ever going to stop whining about that? Gosh, did I hurt your wittle feelings?
(Of course, you had no problem comparing Confederates to Nazis, which they weren't.)
Hey, let's start with this. Instead of using the excuse that God didn't reveal that Blacks could be in the priesthood until 1978, just admit the obvious. Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were racist jerkwads. Not as bad as it sounds, nearly everyone in 1840 was a racist, even Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin. Yeah, you should have made the correction a long time ago, but you really are trying to fix things now.
The problem is that you can't. When you claim that your church leaders are "prophets" in God's Fav Five, you can't admit that they were just as fallible and screwed up as the rest of us are. Maybe more so.
|
|
Besides lying again about things Eddie said about FLDS (a Mormon offshoot that's probably closer to the way Smith practiced the faith), she adds this little gem...
"And eddie, Mormons believe that the people failed, not Christ. He cannot fail, we can only fail him. We do not worship Joseph Smith and do not rely on him for salvation. Why does it bother you so much that we interpet the scriptures as pointing to a falling away? Why can't you just write it off as a different belief than your own? We still worship Jesus Christ and look to him alone for salvation."
But you see, that's the problem that a lot of Christians have with LDS. What it says that Jesus was pretty incompetant as a savior. He entrusted the Church to guys he had to know were going to screw it up. And knowing that, he went to spend time with the poorer relations, the Nephites, knowing these poor fools were going to be exterminated by the Lamanites, and it'd be another 1800 years before Joseph Smith would put it all together to get it right.
I mean, does that sound like an 'infallible' incarnation of the Godhead to you? It doesn't to me. |
|
QM7:For those that think that LDS is wacked
Needs to look in the mirror about their own faith, and see if it compares with the exact church Christ established. I think when you take a critical look in your own backyard, you'll see your cracks a tad clearer, and stop judging the LDS as wacked out, when your faith is equally weird to much of the world.
Me: Actually, all faith is equally weird, strange, and contradictory. Not really anyone's fault, the source material, the Bible, is chock full of contradictions, fallacies, and outright distortions, that sadly, leaders of churches have been burning and murdering people for centuries over.
None of that excuses a cult started by a convicted con man for the express purpose of bedding 15 year old girls.
THe best way to be a spiritual person is to study faith, and find what applies to you in your life, and try to be a better person. |
|
Only we fail to hear--or hear and receive.
Go read Christ's parable in Luke 8:5-15. "The seed is the word of God....But that on the good ground are they, in which an honest and good heart, having heard the word, keepeth it, and bring forth fruit with patience.
The key is an honest and good heart. Not a hostile, hard one.
|
|
As for me, I had practically never heard of Romney prior to this election cycle. I was impressed with his knowledge and intelligence from the early debates. I then reviewed his record in detail, and after doing so, I have a much higher opinion of him than when I just listened to what was said about him in the media.
I'm glad you are reasonable enough not to disown a relative for religious reasons. After high school, I had a friend who was raised in the catholic church. Her parents disowned her when she studied and was baptized into the LDS church. Her parents refused to speak to her, but she continued writing to them without ever hearing back from them. She eventually fell in love and married a young LDS man in the temple. Finally, when she was about to have their first child, her parents un-disowned her. The excitement of being grandparents finally got through to them. |
|
"Some people (I am not one) feel that anyone gullible enough to believe that LDS doctrines are too gullible to trust with the POTUS. I am not saying they are correct in this judgment, but I am not saying that such a position is bigoted either. Anyway that is why it keeps coming up."
Yet you yucked it up with Eugene in his equating Mormons to Nazis as just a good ole guy telling the truth about the "dangers of Mormonsim".
You like the cake, and you eat it too.
"My nephew belongs to the LDS. I disagree with him, but I have not disowned him."
Do you also assume that he thinks Christ is a failure? |
|
He's a little off his rocker. A few months back, he said that adult/child sex is not evil. He defended the practices of the FLDS. He denies it now, but he knows he said it. He also asked why 12 year-old bodies could pro-create if sex was unacceptable for their age.
Sorry to keep bringing it up, everyone. But eddie too is not dealing with a full deck.
Sorry eddie too. But you always have the option of explaining yourself and putting this to rest, rather than just continuing to call me a liar.
And eddie, Mormons believe that the people failed, not Christ. He cannot fail, we can only fail him. We do not worship Joseph Smith and do not rely on him for salvation. Why does it bother you so much that we interpet the scriptures as pointing to a falling away? Why can't you just write it off as a different belief than your own? We still worship Jesus Christ and look to him alone for salvation. |
|
Peter chimed in in Acts 3:19: The Savior could not return until there had been a "restitution of all things." A need for a restitution implies a loss.
Mormons do not condemn non-Mormons to hell, but issue a kind invitation to bring all the truth you already have, which is no doubt considerable, and see if we can add to it.
Mormons are not Calvinists. We do not believe in Jonathan Edwards' "spiritual rape" or irresistible grace. The gospel restored by Joseph Smith teaches that all men and women who die after the age of accountability will have a bona fide opportunity to hear, receive or reject the truth, whether in this life or the next.
This could be your opportunity to receive all the blessings that Jesus desires you to enjoy. Don't be so quick to reject them.
|
|
Your point that Jesus would set up a church, knowing that it would fail and thereby dening salvation to those who followed is a common, but flawed one.
First of all, how were all those who lived prior to Jesus to be saved? Or people who lived in situations where they could never hear the good news of Jesus Christ?
Are they all condemned to hell since they had no opportunity to hear? That would make God an unjust monster. Peter offers the solution to this doctrinal connundrum in 1 Peter 4:6 (KJV): "For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spitit."
Clearly, there is a time between death and the judgment where those who have not had the opportunity to hear the totality of Christ's gospel and choose to receive baptism by water and by fire in this life have the opportunity to do so in the spirit world and receive salvation prior to being judged.
Paul gives a second witness to this gracious doctrine in 1 Cor. 15:29: "Else what shall they do which are baptizted for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?"
All those good Christians throughout the ages who lived after Christ's true church was taken up into heaven for a time have had the opportunity to hear the word in the spirit world.
Paul is clear in 2 Thess 2:3: Except there be a "falling away," Christ cannot return.
|
|
why this blog mixes politics and religion is because of this. Some people (I am not one) feel that anyone gullible enough to believe that LDS doctrines are too gullible to trust with the POTUS. I am not saying they are correct in this judgment, but I am not saying that such a position is bigoted either. Anyway that is why it keeps coming up.
As for me, I have never thought Romney was the best choice for national office. Primarily, I did not support him because of the newness of his conversion to conservatism. I still am not sure whether that conversion was simply one of expedience based on his desire to be POTUS. I have said that if he sustains his conservative credentials for a significant amount of time he may be a good future GOP candidate.
My nephew belongs to the LDS. I disagree with him, but I have not disowned him. |
|
I asked you a question,"What about NOT SPARING THE FLOCK don't you understand?"
Why won't you give straight answer to this question? |
|
No you have not stated your objections, you have stated what you think LDS believe, and call us presumptuous for wanting to define our own beliefs rather than allow you to do it for us.
Reject our beliefs, just don't assume you know what I believe and make rediculous claims like ..."Big G thinks Christ is a failure, and the Mormons teach it."
Really rediculous. |
|
I appreciate your response. You seem to be under the misunderstanding that mormons believe salvation comes through Joseph Smith. Let me quote to you part of the second article of faith which defines basic mormon doctrine. "We believe that through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved..." Salvation doesn't come through Joseph Smith any more than it comes through Pope Benedict.
There are numerous prophecies in the old and new testament regarding an apostasy and the doctrines of Christ being replaced by precepts of men. You must interpret those scriptures differently than I do. I'm grateful for the freedom we have in this country that allows that.
I still don't understand why any of the above is relevant to a discussiion on politics. To me, religion and politics are different subjects. |
|
to the teachings of the LDS. My objections will make sense to some and not to others. God gave you the use of reason. Use it. |
|
I believe the words of the prophets and Jesus Christ on the subject of the Apostasy.
Isa. 24: 5 changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa. 29: 13 this people draw near me with their mouth.
Isa. 60: 2 darkness shall cover the earth.
Amos 8: 11 a famine . . . of hearing the words of the Lord.
Matt. 13: 25 his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat.
Matt. 24: 5 saying, I am Christ, and shall deceive many.
Matt. 24: 24 shall arise false Christs, and false prophets.
John 6: 66 his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.
Acts 20: 29 shall grievous wolves enter in among you.
1 Cor. 11: 18 there be divisions among you.
Gal. 1: 6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him.
Gal. 3: 1 who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey.
2 Thes. 2: 3 shall not come, except there come a falling away first.
1 Tim. 1: 6 some having swerved have turned aside.
1 Tim. 4: 1 giving heed to seducing spirits.
2 Tim. 1: 15 all they which are in Asia be turned away from me.
2 Tim. 2: 18 Who concerning the truth have erred.
2 Tim. 3: 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power.
2 Tim. 4: 4 turn away their ears from the truth . . . unto fables.
Titus 1: 16 profess that they know God, but in works they deny him.
James 4: 1 From whence came wars and fightings among you.
2 Pet. 2: 1 false prophets also among the people.
2 Pet. 3: 17 being led away with the error of the wicked.
1 Jn. 2: 18 now are there many antichrists.
1 Jn. 4: 1 many false prophets are gone out into the world.
Jude 1: 4 certain men crept in . . . denying the only Lord God.
Rev. 2: 2 which say they are apostles, and are not.
Rev. 3: 16 thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot.
Rev. 13: 7 to make war with the saints.
|
|
That is a false assumption, that is like saying that Christ fails everytime an believer becomes an atheist.
Because people reject Christ doesnt make Him a failure.
You can feel free to interpret the Bible as you see fit, as for me and my house, I will take the word of the Prophets and Jesus Christ.
To believe the words of the prohets and Jesus Christ as I believe them doesnt mean that I think Jesus failed as you falsely accuse me of believing.
|
|
We have been over the already. You just don't catch on well.
Acts 20:28 ΒΆ Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
The CHURCH is the FLOCK. Get it?
Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
What about NOT SPARING THE FLOCK don't you understand? |
|
It is the primary tenent of your faith that the Church Jesus started apostasized. A Church that cannot preserve its truths is a failed Church. A person who starts a failed Church has failed unless He always intended for His Church to fail. That is how you reason. Big G, "Jesus knew starting His Church was a futile exercise."
I say, "I do not believe Jesus ever acted in futility, that is an LDS teaching." |
|
eddie too writes: "At least other Christians
do not send their children out to bash other religions as the LDS do."
To the contrary, missionaries are sent out to preach the Gospel, not bash other religions.
Once again, how absurd!
I can't help but laugh at the Irony of such a statement coming from you.
|
|
Your church goes around saying that all of the other Christian churches are apostates to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
That's why your church calls them apostate Protestants. Get it?
Can you say DOUBLE STANDARD!!!! |
|
Ask a straight question without loading it with presumptions that you already believe. |
| | |