# Why Mitt R. MUST win the election.



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

> You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber. I love the Constitution; it was made by the inspiration of God; and it will be preserved and saved by the efforts of the White Horse, and by the Red Horse who will combine in its defense.


The Prophecies clearly expected that the Constitution and the government of the United States will survive the future predicted crisis because of the support that will be given by the Elders of the Mormon church.

Mitt is a practicing Mormon.


----------



## beccachow (Nov 8, 2008)

Clarify? This seems like a fascinating direction, but I am really baffled by your exact meaning. WHere was the quote taken from; in what context was it taken? WHo is Mitt; the first, second or third angel? Clarity for exploration and discussion, if you please!


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

I believe that one version of this prophesy says "*If*..the Consitution is to be saved..." Since there are several versions, I have to question it's validity -if it were a true prophesy, it would be known who said it, when and better recorded. it is certainly not church doctrine. Remember General Conference this month - and the strong message not to allow one sentence by one man to sway our belief in what is truth and what is not. Men are fallible. I'll not hold my breath on this one.

I believe that there is no one people that can save the Constitution. Though I hope that the LDS people would have a hand in it and step up as leaders in rallying the people to the cause, they cannot save it by themselves. Many others would have to step up to the plate. I do believe that it could be that if the entire country were to completely collapse, a government similar to our current Constitution would be set in place by the LDS people where ever they are gathered.

It's called the White Horse Prophesy. And many are not sure who actually did say it, though Joseph Smith is generally given credit. More reason to give it cautious attention.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

The 'White Horse Prophesy' is one of those rumors that no one can nail down. Which in LDS terms means while some people may believe it, its not official or has any standing in the Church.

That said I must admit its the first thing I thought of when he won the nomination.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Good grief. LDS prophecies are worth the same as SDA,JW,etc,etc,.

An embarresement to the lot of them.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

I wonder how Romney will hold his blood oaths subserviant to the oath of office?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I had never heard of this prophecy - but then I don't know all that much about the Mormon Church.

I don't know about their saving the Constitution. I will say, however, if I had my choice of where to be when the collapse happens, it would be in Utah in an area of a lot of Mormons.


----------



## arabian knight (Dec 19, 2005)

Trixie said:


> I had never heard of this prophecy - but then I don't know all that much about the Mormon Church.
> 
> I don't know about their saving the Constitution. I will say, however, if I had my choice of where to be when the collapse happens, it would be in Utah in an area of a lot of Mormons.


Yes that is for sure. Many on here think they are stocking up for if SHTF.
Well the LDS have been doing this for years. And I mean Years. Many have storage areas underground just stock piled with food stiffs. Long Storage foods in bunker type rooms underground. I have seen them.


----------



## Callieslamb (Feb 27, 2007)

And many don't have an extra can of beans around.


----------



## KnowOneSpecial (Sep 12, 2010)

Wow. That doesn't make Mitt sound like a religious extremeist at all.....


----------



## tarbe (Apr 7, 2007)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Wow. That doesn't make Mitt sound like a religious extremeist at all.....



Oh sure, Mitt is much more a threat to the Constitution than BO. :heh:


----------



## JMD_KS (Nov 20, 2007)

Is this related to how they believe the Garden of Eden was in Independence,MO? :heh:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

arabian knight said:


> Yes that is for sure. Many on here think they are stocking up for if SHTF.
> Well the LDS have been doing this for years. And I mean Years. Many have storage areas underground just stock piled with food stiffs. Long Storage foods in bunker type rooms underground. I have seen them.


I haven't seen their storage facilities, but I do know every store has a section for the survival foods, so some one must be buying it. It's strange to see it in Wal Mart as well.

Although, I wasn't only speaking of their stockpiles, but their mindset. They have, as you say, been prepared for years.

I also remember stories my Grandparents told of how the Mormon's helped people during the depression.


----------



## snoozy (May 10, 2002)

Umm...weren't the documents on which Brigham Young's bona fides were proclaimed dug up in his backyard?


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

KnowOneSpecial said:


> Wow. That doesn't make Mitt sound like a religious extremeist at all.....


Makes him sound like a zombie



> Many have storage areas underground just stock piled with food stiffs


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> I wonder how Romney will hold his blood oaths subserviant to the oath of office?


Or if JFK can make a decision without consulting the Pope.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

I wonder what it will be like having a prepper in the White House.(assuming Romney is elected)


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I have tried to figure this thread out, but it eludes me. Can someone please explain what all this stuff about prophecies are about?


----------



## Smalltowngirl (Mar 28, 2010)

Sonshine said:


> I have tried to figure this thread out, but it eludes me. Can someone please explain what all this stuff about prophecies are about?


I had to look it up.

White Horse Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Smalltowngirl said:


> I had to look it up.
> 
> White Horse Prophecy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Thanks for the info.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Seriously, I think y'all need a devout pagan goddess for president. She can ride a horse of a different color. :happy2:

.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)




----------



## FeralFemale (Apr 10, 2006)

mnn2501 said:


> I wonder what it will be like having a prepper in the White House.(assuming Romney is elected)


I'm guessing that the WH, not to mention other POTUS safe houses around the country, are already 'prepped'.


----------



## defenestrate (Aug 23, 2005)

naturelover said:


> Seriously, I think y'all need a devout pagan goddess for president. She can ride a horse of a different color. :happy2:
> 
> .


As fond as I am of the separation of church and state, I have found that among all defined categories of people, pagans tend to be the most tolerant of people different than them. I don't see D or R endorsements, but maybe Libertarians or Green Party folks, who are a little more interested in making a better nation than appeasing the (largely uninterested) entrenched interests that lie behind most major party folks.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

defenestrate said:


> As fond as I am of the separation of church and state, I have found that among all defined categories of people, *pagans tend to be the most tolerant of people different than them*. I don't see D or R endorsements, but maybe Libertarians or Green Party folks, who are a little *more interested in making a better nation than appeasing the (largely uninterested) entrenched interests that lie behind most major party folks*.


Exactly.

Give it time, I'm sure it will happen inevitably. :happy2:

.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

naturelover said:


> Seriously, I think y'all need a devout pagan goddess for president. She can ride a horse of a different color. :happy2:
> 
> .


Anyone who rode a unicorn would get my vote. I don't care who they are. You gotta love unicorns.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

Please, do a little research on some stuff like "lying for the lord" and Jesus' background according to Mormonism. Also how women get to heaven & "holy" underwear & the origin of God. This is some seriously peculiar stuff and if you believe it, that's fine with me. 
If you want those beliefs in your president, that's fine with me too but please make yourself aware of this.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> Or if JFK can make a decision without consulting the Pope.


Was JFK a good Catholic?


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

postroad said:


> Was JFK a good Catholic?


I'm not sure he was a very good anything except adulterer. He was only nominally a Catholic. Being murdered greatly enhanced his reputation.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

wanda1950 said:


> Please, do a little research on some stuff like "lying for the lord" and Jesus' background according to Mormonism. Also how *women* get to heaven & "*holy*" *underwear* & the origin of God. This is some seriously peculiar stuff and if you believe it, that's fine with me.
> If you want those beliefs in your president, that's fine with me too but please make yourself aware of this.


 With all the prepping the mormons are known for,, you would think they'd prep for new underwear as well.
GH :cowboy:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wanda1950 said:


> Please, do a little research on some stuff like "lying for the lord" and Jesus' background according to Mormonism. Also how women get to heaven & "holy" underwear & the origin of God. *This is some seriously peculiar stuff* and if you believe it, that's fine with me.
> If you want those beliefs in your president, that's fine with me too but please make yourself aware of this.


LOL.

I'm wondering what you or others might consider NOT peculiar, because honest to God except for prayer I cannot think of one single religious activity for ANY religion that isn't peculiar. All religions are peculiar, that's what makes them religions.

.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

wanda1950 said:


> Please, do a little research on some stuff like "lying for the lord" and Jesus' background according to Mormonism. Also how women get to heaven & "holy" underwear & the origin of God. This is some seriously peculiar stuff and if you believe it, that's fine with me.
> If you want those beliefs in your president, that's fine with me too but please make yourself aware of this.


Actually, it sounds like you are the one who needs to do research.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

naturelover said:


> LOL.
> 
> I'm wondering what you or others might consider NOT peculiar, because honest to God except for prayer I cannot think of one single religious activity for ANY religion that isn't peculiar. All religions are peculiar, that's what makes them religions.
> 
> .


 I agree exept I find prayer peculiar too. I just don't get religion.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Actually, it sounds like you are the one who needs to do research.


I have & have in the past read much of The Book of Mormon as well as talking with several Mormon missionaries. When I read to these very sweet young men a passage from Book of Mormon forbidding plural marriage, I never saw them again. It seems to me that the current prophet can make theology changes at will. (and I suspect ANYONE who claims THEY know God's will)


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

wanda1950 said:


> I have & have in the past read much of The Book of Mormon as well as talking with several Mormon missionaries. When I read to these very sweet young men a passage from Book of Mormon forbidding plural marriage, I never saw them again. It seems to me that the current prophet can make theology changes at will. (and I suspect ANYONE who claims THEY know God's will)


I invite you to share those passages with me.  Here, or in pm if you prefer. I await your chapter and verse.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Tiempo said:


> I agree exept I find prayer peculiar too. I just don't get religion.


The thing about prayer is that a person doesn't have to be religious in any way nor worship any kind of deity to get personal comfort and benefit from prayer. Prayer is a positive affirmation or evocation that can be good for the mind, body and spirit even for persons who are not religious and don't believe in a deity. For persons who are religious prayer can be doubly comforting to them.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wanda1950 said:


> It seems to me that the current prophet can make theology changes at will. (and I suspect ANYONE who claims THEY know God's will)


All prophets of all religions have made theology changes, even yours did, whoever yours is. Nobody knows God's will, some people just _think_ they do because they believe the words that other men wrote into their holy book, whatever religion it is that their holy book belongs to. All holy books are full of discrepancies.

.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

naturelover said:


> All prophets of all religions have made theology changes, even yours did, whoever yours is. Nobody knows God's will, some people just _think_ they do because they believe the words that other men wrote into their holy book, whatever religion it is that their holy book belongs to. All holy books are full of discrepancies.
> 
> .


You are absolutely right--all "religions" have had theology changes over time. In our country, thank God, sects are usually not under the sweeping power that the Prophet has. Catholicism may come to mind but most modern Catholics respect the word of the Pope while not feeling compelled to obey it. Maybe there are many Mormons who Question everything--hope so & hope Romney is one of them.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

wanda1950, did you see my previous post? I'll discuss this issue regarding the BoM and God's word on polygamy with you. I mean, if your evidence is so good that you can silence all of our missionaries, I am indeed curious. 
Well?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

naturelover said:


> All prophets of all religions have made theology changes, even yours did, whoever yours is. Nobody knows God's will, some people just _think_ they do because they believe the words that other men wrote into their holy book, whatever religion it is that their holy book belongs to. All holy books are full of discrepancies.
> 
> .


Until someone is trying to force their beliefs on me or mine, I pretty much politely ignore their religion. If it is something they take comfort in, no matter if it aligns with my feelings and beliefs, who am I to try to try to take it away from them.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> wanda1950, did you see my previous post? I'll discuss this issue regarding the BoM and God's word on polygamy with you. I mean, if your evidence is so good that you can silence all of our missionaries, I am indeed curious.
> Well?


I will see if I still have a copy of the Book of Mormon or will try to access it online. This happened many yrs. ago. Didn't say I silenced ALL missionaries--just two very nice young men who were missionaries. 

I will be straight with you--I was brought up Pentecostal & Baptist & have been Assembly of God as an adult. I have been taught over & over that Mormonism is a cult. My own research supports this to a degree & I really can't support a Mormon believer for president. I feel disappointed with these churches that that teaching was suddenly quieted when the candidate suited fundamentalists in other ways. 

I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I don't mean to insult you but I'm very sure I'll not be moved & very sure you won't be either.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

wanda1950 said:


> I will see if I still have a copy of the Book of Mormon or will try to access it online. This happened many yrs. ago. Didn't say I silenced ALL missionaries--just two very nice young men who were missionaries.
> 
> I will be straight with you--I was brought up Pentecostal & Baptist & have been Assembly of God as an adult. I have been taught over & over that Mormonism is a cult. My own research supports this to a degree & I really can't support a Mormon believer for president. I feel disappointed with these churches that that teaching was suddenly quieted when the candidate suited fundamentalists in other ways.
> 
> I appreciate your willingness to discuss. I don't mean to insult you but I'm very sure I'll not be moved & very sure you won't be either.


let's say you're right, that Mormonism is a cult. Why does that mean you can't vote for Romney? Could you vote for a Jew?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

wanda1950 said:


> I was brought up Pentecostal & Baptist & have been Assembly of God as an adult. *I have been taught over & over that Mormonism is a cult.* My own research supports this to a degree & I really can't support a Mormon believer for president.


 
All religions are cults, even yours. All religions claim that their religion is better than anyone else's, and will claim that other religions are cults - so what else would you expect your own cult to teach to its adherents? 

So you would probably prefer to have a president that is Pentecostal and Baptist and Assembly of God because that is what you have been taught and it's what you believe to be best for you. People of other religions may think differently. Maybe it would be better to think about what would be best for everybody and not just for individuals and their individual preferences.

.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

naturelover said:


> All religions are cults, even yours. All religions claim that their religion is better than anyone else's, and will claim that other religions are cults - so what else would you expect your own cult to teach to its adherents?
> 
> So you would probably prefer to have a president that is Pentecostal and Baptist and Assembly of God because that is what you have been taught and it's what you believe to be best for you. People of other religions may think differently. Maybe it would be better to think about what would be best for everybody and not just for individuals and their individual preferences.
> 
> .


Not really--I'm very disappointed with the hypocrisy of the fundamentalist churches.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> let's say you're right, that Mormonism is a cult. Why does that mean you can't vote for Romney? Could you vote for a Jew?


Because, according to my reading, cult members are very, very much under obedience (near to, or actually brainwashed) to the leader--like Jim Jones & the Kool Aid. Some of the Mormon teachings are pretty scary to me. What if the prophet wants Romney to obey? And even worse, what if Romney thinks he should obey? 

Oh, Lord help me, I just described the Republican party:teehee::teehee::teehee: I wonder if any of you can chuckle with me.

I don't believe Judaism is a cult. In honesty, though, I would have to give a lot of thought to voting to anyone outside Christianity.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

naturelover said:


> All religions are cults, even yours. All religions claim that their religion is better than anyone else's, and will claim that other religions are cults - so what else would you expect your own cult to teach to its adherents?
> 
> So you would probably prefer to have a president that is Pentecostal and Baptist and Assembly of God because that is what you have been taught and it's what you believe to be best for you. People of other religions may think differently. Maybe it would be better to think about what would be best for everybody and not just for individuals and their individual preferences.
> 
> .


Be careful. I got censored and reprimanded by a mod for using the word "cult" in a thread here. Reason: use of the word cult was "insulting." Swearing, bigotry, and use of the word "cult" however is always encouraged in reference to all non Christian religions around here.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

Marshloft said:


> With all the prepping the mormons are known for,, you would think they'd prep for new underwear as well.
> GH :cowboy:


Thanks for the laugh!! You may be aware--Mormons wear a special undergarment (why I joke about HOLY drawers). I believe it can be ordered from their stores. I would love to see some. I also wonder when & how one starts to wear it. I mean, does it go over baby diapers, or what? Can you go swimming without it? Or sleep?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Haven said:


> Be careful. I got censored and reprimanded by a mod for using the word "cult" in a thread here. Reason: use of the word cult was "insulting." Swearing, bigotry, and use of the word "cult" however is always encouraged in reference to all non Christian religions around here.


I'm not worried - besides which, I wasn't the first person to use the word cult - but anyway, here is the short definition of cult:

1. A system of religious veneration and devotion directed toward a particular figure or object.

2. A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Here are the more comprehensive definitions of cult:

1. a particular system of religious worship, especially with reference to its rites and ceremonies. 


2. 
an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, especially as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult. 

3. 
the object of such devotion. 

4. 
a group or sect bound together by veneration of the same thing, person, ideal, etc. 

5. 
Sociology . a group having a sacred ideology and a set of rites centering around their sacred symbols. 

6. 
a religion or sect considered to be false, unorthodox, or extremist, with members often living outside of conventional society under the direction of a charismatic leader. 

7. 
the members of such a religion or sect. 

8. 
any system for treating human sickness that originated by a person usually claiming to have sole insight into the nature of disease, and that employs methods regarded as unorthodox or unscientific. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Ergo, one way or another all religions can be regarded as cults.

.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

wanda1950 said:


> In honesty, though, I would have to give a lot of thought to voting to anyone outside Christianity.


Ohhhhh...you're a religious bigot. got it. Now i understand why you can assert that Mormon's and Romney in particular could be controlled by his church even after his business and political careers have not shown that to be the case.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

I'm not looking to "sway" you, wanda1950, nor am I looking to be "swayed", however, I welcome every opportunity to disprove misinformation regarding our church. 

And to clarify, yes, yes we are considered by many to be a cult, but then, Christ was considered to be a cult leader in his own day. The early Christian church was therefore, considered to be a cult, with a charismatic leader who expected obedience to the Word. However, be that as it may, we in the church are told to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good..." We are told to question, study, ponder, and pray, and yes, that goes for the words of the prophet. Yet when one has developed a testimony of the validity and authority of the prophet, one no more needs to question everything. I've learned over the years that my husband doesn't lie to me, that he is honest in his dealings with me. Therefore, I don't have to question the things he tells me. So it is with our prophet. We don't blindly follow anyone.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

wanda1950 said:


> Thanks for the laugh!! You may be aware--Mormons wear a special undergarment (why I joke about HOLY drawers). I believe it can be ordered from their stores. I would love to see some. I also wonder when & how one starts to wear it. I mean, does it go over baby diapers, or what? Can you go swimming without it? Or sleep?


:umno:
You know, we see a lot of this on this board...and I have to say that I sincerely wonder about some of you "adults" who get all giggly about someone else's underwear. Some of you have some real strange fetishes when it comes to my underwear. Yikes! :teehee:


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> I'm not looking to "sway" you, wanda1950, nor am I looking to be "swayed", however, I welcome every opportunity to disprove misinformation regarding our church.
> 
> And to clarify, yes, yes we are considered by many to be a cult, but then, Christ was considered to be a cult leader in his own day. The early Christian church was therefore, considered to be a cult, with a charismatic leader who expected obedience to the Word. However, be that as it may, we in the church are told to "Prove all things, hold fast that which is good..." We are told to question, study, ponder, and pray, and yes, that goes for the words of the prophet. Yet when one has developed a testimony of the validity and authority of the prophet, one no more needs to question everything. I've learned over the years that my husband doesn't lie to me, that he is honest in his dealings with me. Therefore, I don't have to question the things he tells me. So it is with our prophet. We don't blindly follow anyone.



I believe this may be the verse I mentioned. As I said, it was many, many years ago. 
Critics use the Book of Jacob to show that the Book of Mormon condemns the practice of polygamy:

24 Behold, David and Solomon* truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.* 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27*[/B] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. Jacob 2:24-29

I trust my husband also but he is just a human being as is the prophet, the pope, ministers, priests, deacons, etc. Don't know a single one who hasn't sinned & fallen short. Me, too. Under enough pressure (money, fear, pain, etc.) men & women will fail. Ultimately I only trust in God*


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> Ohhhhh...you're a religious bigot. got it. Now i understand why you can assert that Mormon's and Romney in particular could be controlled by his church even after his business and political careers have not shown that to be the case.


Yes, I guess I am a religious bigot. I think most people of faith are. If we didn't believe our denomination, etc. we'd not be members. Yes, I think Christianity (with all our faults & sins) is best.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> :umno:
> You know, we see a lot of this on this board...and I have to say that I sincerely wonder about some of you "adults" who get all giggly about someone else's underwear. Some of you have some real strange fetishes when it comes to my underwear. Yikes! :teehee:


Can't help myself!! I get tickled about many things & religion & politics are special favorites of mine. I didn't mean to be disrespectful & I truly am curious.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

wanda1950 said:


> I believe this may be the verse I mentioned. As I said, it was many, many years ago.
> Critics use the Book of Jacob to show that the Book of Mormon condemns the practice of polygamy:
> 
> 24 Behold, David and Solomon* truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.* 25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph. 26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old. 27*[/B] Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; 28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. 29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. Jacob 2:24-29*


* 
Yes, yes, these are the verses I figured you were talking about. These are the verses everyone who wants to discredit the early church's practice of polygamy uses. The only problem with it is that they/you quote the entire section, except for the very last verse...verse 30. Now why is that?? Here, let me add that verse and it puts the entire thing into perspective for you. Its only one sentence long.  Jacob 2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. 
Here, God is saying that "now" ( in those times in which he is speaking), he wants every man to have one wife, just as it is in today's church. However, in that last verse, God clarifies that when he has a need to raise up seed (grow the church) he will command his people, or tell them to take more than one wife, but otherwise, they are to obey the command for one wife only. Just as in biblical days, God allows polygamy when it is expedient for him and disallows it when it is not, or when it is detrimental to the church as a whole. 
God is saying that polygamy is an exception to his law that he allows when it is expedient for him, but the law is one wife. 


wanda1950 said:



I trust my husband also but he is just a human being as is the prophet, the pope, ministers, priests, deacons, etc. Don't know a single one who hasn't sinned & fallen short. Me, too. Under enough pressure (money, fear, pain, etc.) men & women will fail. Ultimately I only trust in God

Click to expand...

We don't put our prophet on the same footing as we do God. The prophet is a mortal man and is indeed subject to sin, as was Moses, et al.*


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

thequeensblessing said:


> :umno:
> You know, we see a lot of this on this board...and I have to say that I sincerely wonder about some of you "adults" who get all giggly about someone else's underwear. Some of you have some real strange fetishes when it comes to my underwear. Yikes! :teehee:


Personally I view both religious dogma, _and_ underwear to be incredibly outdated and restrictive.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

wanda1950 said:


> Yes, I guess I am a religious bigot. I think most people of faith are. If we didn't believe our denomination, etc. we'd not be members. Yes, I think Christianity (with all our faults & sins) is best.


There is a type of logical fallacy called the Appeal to Common Practice (ACP). ACP is a fallacy with the following structure:

X is a common action.
Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc. 

The basic idea behind the fallacy is that the belief that most or many people similar to one's self do X is used as "evidence" to support the action or practice. It is a fallacy because the mere fact that most people do something does not make it correct, moral, justified, or reasonable. 

I don't want to say what most people of faith will or will not do because I don't know. And even if most American's at one time at least tacitly approved of practices that denied people opportunities based on race, that doesn't make bigotry right.

However, since most American's claim to be have faith in a higher power and somewhere near 50% of voting American's support Romney, you are on shaky ground in your appeal to common practice. I have many friends and family who might be called people of faith, heck, I might even be one myself, and we do not discriminate purely based on a person's faith. I guess we hang out with different sorts of "believers" than you. I can vote for someone of any religious belief as long as their policies align with mine.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

Haven said:


> Personally I view both religious dogma, _and_ underwear to be incredibly outdated and restrictive.


Perhaps you need to break down and admit you need the next larger size? :nanner:


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Yes, yes, these are the verses I figured you were talking about. These are the verses everyone who wants to discredit the early church's practice of polygamy uses. The only problem with it is that they/you quote the entire section, except for the very last verse...verse 30. Now why is that?? Here, let me add that verse and it puts the entire thing into perspective for you. Its only one sentence long. _ Jacob 2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. _
> Here, God is saying that "now" ( in those times in which he is speaking), he wants every man to have one wife, just as it is in today's church. However, in that last verse, God clarifies that when he has a need to raise up seed (grow the church) he will command his people, or tell them to take more than one wife, but otherwise, they are to obey the command for one wife only. Just as in biblical days, God allows polygamy when it is expedient for him and disallows it when it is not, or when it is detrimental to the church as a whole.
> God is saying that polygamy is an exception to his law that he allows when it is expedient for him, but the law is one wife.
> 
> We don't put our prophet on the same footing as we do God. The prophet is a mortal man and is indeed subject to sin, as was Moses, et al.


This is the answer I expected. You may believe what you will but where are you obtaining these messages from God? The Mormon Church must take the word of the prophet for these revelations--where else did the word come from? Either the prophet is infallible or he's not. The ending of polagamy was at a very expedient time since the law was being enforced.

Just as fundamentalist Christians have now decided they will support a person they previously would have considered a dangerous cult member--it came at a very expedient time--they are mainly Republicans & want to support Mitt.

I don't think Almighty God does anything for expediency--it's putting him on our human level to say so. 

I respect your strong belief. I believe you are wrong in that belief as you believe I am wrong in mine. Let's close this discussion & agree to disagree.


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

It is my understanding that the Mormon Church as an organization does not endorse political parties or candidates.

And, not all Mormons are conservative, especially when it comes to social welfare issues.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Yes, yes, these are the verses I figured you were talking about. These are the verses everyone who wants to discredit the early church's practice of polygamy uses. The only problem with it is that they/you quote the entire section, except for the very last verse...verse 30. Now why is that?? Here, let me add that verse and it puts the entire thing into perspective for you. Its only one sentence long. _ Jacob 2:30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. _
> Here, God is saying that "now" ( in those times in which he is speaking), he wants every man to have one wife, just as it is in today's church. However, in that last verse, God clarifies that when he has a need to raise up seed (grow the church) he will command his people, or tell them to take more than one wife, but otherwise, they are to obey the command for one wife only. Just as in biblical days, God allows polygamy when it is expedient for him and disallows it when it is not, or when it is detrimental to the church as a whole.
> God is saying that polygamy is an exception to his law that he allows when it is expedient for him, but the law is one wife.
> 
> We don't put our prophet on the same footing as we do God. The prophet is a mortal man and is indeed subject to sin, as was Moses, et al.



You misinterprete the text. The surounding text clearly condemns poligamy under all curcumstances.

Thus God is stating that he is clarifing the rules to indicate that he has no need to resort to the abomination of poligamy to raise up seed for himself.

For indeed the only way that poligamy can increase numbers is for men to take wives from outside their comunity or leave many men in the comunity without any wives.

31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands. 

32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts. 

33 For they shall not lead away captive the daughters of my people because of their tenderness, save I shall visit them with a sore curse, even unto destruction; for they shall not commit whoredoms, like unto them of old, saith the Lord of Hosts. 

34 And now behold, my brethren, ye know that these commandments were given to our father, Lehi; wherefore, ye have known them before; and ye have come unto great condemnation; for ye have done these things which ye ought not to have done. 

35 Behold, ye have done greater iniquities than the Lamanites, our brethren. Ye have broken the hearts of your tender wives, and lost the confidence of your children, because of your bad examples before them; and the sobbings of their hearts ascend up to God against you. And because of the strictness of the word of God, which cometh down against you, many hearts died, pierced with deep wounds.


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> There is a type of logical fallacy called the Appeal to Common Practice (ACP). ACP is a fallacy with the following structure:
> 
> X is a common action.
> Therefore X is correct/moral/justified/reasonable, etc.
> ...


Oh, no religious beliefs are based on logical thought! It doesn't matter to me if 99% support Romney--look what happens to Lemmings!!

There are a lot of reasons to oppose any candidate. One could say Democrats are bigoted against the beliefs of Republicans. 

Romney has every freedom to be whatever he wants to be faithwise. Fine with me! He can worship the sun or rocks if he wishes & I won't care a bit.

I don't support him because I believe his particular religion is dangerous to the principles we have worked so hard in this country to promote--many of which are based on Christianity. 

Do you have any limits on your liberality? (I'm a proud liberal) Atheists? Cannibals? Militant Muslims?


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

thequeensblessing said:


> :umno:
> You know, we see a lot of this on this board...and I have to say that I sincerely wonder about some of you "adults" who get all giggly about someone else's underwear. Some of you have some real strange fetishes when it comes to my underwear. Yikes! :teehee:


 Sorry,, I have way to much respect for you to have made a joke at your expense. I wasn't thinking, obviously.
GH


----------



## wanda1950 (Jan 18, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> Ohhhhh...you're a religious bigot. got it. Now i understand why you can assert that Mormon's and Romney in particular could be controlled by his church even after his business and political careers have not shown that to be the case.


Black Skin and the Seed of Cain | Mormonism Research Ministry

If we're going to talk about bigotry.


----------



## thequeensblessing (Mar 30, 2003)

postroad said:


> You misinterprete the text. The surounding text clearly condemns poligamy under all curcumstances.
> 
> Thus God is stating that he is clarifing the rules to indicate that he has no need to resort to the abomination of poligamy to raise up seed for himself.
> 
> ...



Although it means little to you, I just wanted to point out that the explanation I gave in my prior post is not solely an LDS viewpoint. There are many mainstream Christians who view polygamy in this same way. Here's just one. You too can google. 

Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?

Although, when expounding code of conduct in Exodus 21, God talks about treatment of a 1st wife when taking a second wife. Why would he do this if it were strictly forbidden? If it were strictly forbidden at all times, why would Moses, Jacob, and Abraham all have multiple wives if they were chosen as prophet? Who are you, or anyone else, to decide what God will, or won't, decide to do?

And I must say, like a bad penny, you sniff out a Mormon-bashing thread and of course, you're right there.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

wanda1950 said:


> Oh, no religious beliefs are based on logical thought! It doesn't matter to me if 99% support Romney--look what happens to Lemmings!!
> 
> There are a lot of reasons to oppose any candidate. One could say Democrats are bigoted against the beliefs of Republicans.
> 
> ...


I only brought up what most Christians might believe because YOU stated, "Yes, I guess I am a religious bigot. I think most people of faith are." You are a moving target, you want to be with the majority only when it suits you. 

Yes, one could say Republicans are bigoted against Democrats, in fact you just did, but one could not say it with a correct understanding logic (it takes only one un-bigoted Repub to prove your statement wrong), grammar, and the meaning of the word bigot. 

Would you care to list his Mormon based beliefs which are "dangerous to the principles we have worked so hard in this country to promote--many of which are based on Christianity." Or do you just make vague assertions and then run from them the same way you are running from your statement on what most Christians believe? 

As to my "liberality," sorry you missed on that as well. I'm not a big fan of Romney, but anti-Obama, and anti ignorance and bigotry. The way I was taught, bigotry just isn't Christian. No, I wouldn't support Cannibals or Militant Muslims because they infringe upon the rights of non-believers. Can you show proof of Romney doing that? 

And as for Mormons not being Christians, you are wrong on that as well. Remember their real name is the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. They may believe differently than you, but if you are a Christian, you know that it is up to God to decide if the Mormon faith meets the terms of John 3:16.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

CesumPec said:


> let's say you're right, that Mormonism is a cult. Why does that mean you can't vote for Romney? Could you vote for a Jew?


and what is a cult? _It is a relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or sinister.
_
Why is that bad? The Media coins the term cult, as some bizarre weirdos who sacrifice chickens under a pentagram. 

Dunno if anyone here is OLD enough, but remember John F Kennedy, people were like "OMFG HE TAKING ORDERS FROM THE POPE!!"

and Kennedy replied: "I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who also happens to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my Church on public matters â and the Church does not speak for me."


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

thequeensblessing said:


> Although it means little to you, I just wanted to point out that the explanation I gave in my prior post is not solely an LDS viewpoint. There are many mainstream Christians who view polygamy in this same way. Here's just one. You too can google.
> 
> Why did God allow polygamy / bigamy in the Bible?
> 
> ...


Lets work this out rationaly.

Does a LDS covenant made with God the Father beome subserviant if it conflicts with a earthly duty?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> Lets work this out rationaly.
> 
> Does a LDS covenant made with God the Father beome subserviant if it conflicts with a earthly duty?


such as...?

I know Mormons but not lots about the religion. From what I know, choice of beverages to not include alcohol or caffeine, choice of underwear, choice to care about and be kind to others, choice to believe that their version of Christianity is better than others, to live by the 10 commandments...I just don't see the conflicts with presidential duties.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> such as...?
> 
> I know Mormons but not lots about the religion. From what I know, choice of beverages to not include alcohol or caffeine, choice of underwear, choice to care about and be kind to others, choice to believe that their version of Christianity is better than others, to live by the 10 commandments...I just don't see the conflicts with presidential duties.


Think about it..

We have been told by a LDS member that for an LDS to engage in a previously abhored practice is not condemned if God comands and requires it to be done.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> Think about it..
> 
> We have been told by a LDS member that for an LDS to engage in a previously abhored practice is not condemned if God comands and requires it to be done.


No you think about it. What are you afraid of a president having to do that LDS beliefs would prohibit?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

postroad said:


> Think about it..
> 
> We have been told by a LDS member that for an LDS to engage in a previously abhored practice is not condemned if God comands and requires it to be done.


Uh oh. Here we go again.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

If given the choice, between a Roman Catholic and a LDS, I'd pick the LDS every single time. 


The LDS church has a record of being persecuted across the U.S., that's why they are in Utah. If given a choice I would prefer someone who's religion is one of oppressed people rather than one that is the "oppressor".


Most people do NOT consider Mormons Christian. It is obvious the LDS do not follow the Bible(KJV) and the Book of Mormon is really nothing more than 19th century fiction. As a Christian, I don't see it as a "threat" to our Nations Christian ideology.

Not to mention when you become president, you are SWORN into office to uphold the laws.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> No you think about it. What are you afraid of a president having to do that LDS beliefs would prohibit?


Just for the sake of debate, If Romney was told that the time had come for the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem to be established in America, what would he do?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

VERN in IL said:


> If given the choice, between a Roman Catholic and a LDS, I'd pick the LDS every single time.
> 
> 
> The LDS church has a record of being persecuted across the U.S., that's why they are in Utah. If given a choice I would prefer someone who's religion is one of oppressed people rather than one that is the "oppressor".
> ...



In the LDS are the Covenant oaths subserviant to mans law?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

postroad said:


> Just for the sake of debate, If Romney was told that the time had come for the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem to be established in America, what would he do?


He'd step down. It would be the only thing any president could do if he'd been told that the time had come for the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem to be established in America .... and if he believed it.

But who would tell him something like that and how would he know it was the truth?

.


----------



## VERN in IL (Nov 30, 2008)

postroad said:


> In the LDS are the Covenant oaths subserviant to mans law?


If that happens he will be impeached.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> Just for the sake of debate, If Romney was told that the time had come for the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem to be established in America, what would he do?


I don't even know what it means, please tell me why i should care.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

naturelover said:


> He'd step down. It would be the only thing any president could do if he'd been told that the time had come for the Kingdom and the New Jerusalem to be established in America .... and if he believed it.
> 
> But who would tell him something like that and how would he know it was the truth?
> 
> .


It is a basic tenant of the LDS faith that God will soon establish his Kingdom on earth with the New Jerusalem in Jackson county Missouri.

It is widely believed that this is the last generation refered to in biblal and LDS scripture.

Any LDS is bound by revelation of the Living Prophet of the LDS Church.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> I don't even know what it means, please tell me why i should care.


The Kingdom is a world wide theocracy built around the New Jerusalem from which the Law of God will be enforced.


----------



## Haven (Aug 16, 2010)

Postroad, you should of gone to school to get a degree in theology. Maybe you already did?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> It is a basic tenant of the LDS faith that God will soon establish his Kingdom on earth with the New Jerusalem in Jackson county Missouri.
> 
> It is widely believed that this is the last generation refered to in biblal and LDS scripture.
> 
> Any LDS is bound by revelation of the Living Prophet of the LDS Church.


you seem quite worried about this happening. My vote doesn't get determined by the possibility any deity is going to set up a new world order. Here's why. There are only three possibilities:

1. God does it now, in which case who we elect president would be powerless to stop it. 
2. God does it later so it is not an issue at this time
3. God never does it because there is no God to do it, or we have misinterpreted (go figure, how could that ever happen) the Book of Mormon, the Bible, Torah, Koran, or whatever it is you believe and God is going to do something else or just lost interest us. 

Basically you look like a religious bigot for making this an issue.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Haven said:


> Postroad, you should of gone to school to get a degree in theology. Maybe you already did?


Self taught. Some say that is the problem.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> you seem quite worried about this happening. My vote doesn't get determined by the possibility any deity is going to set up a new world order. Here's why. There are only three possibilities:
> 
> 1. God does it now, in which case who we elect president would be powerless to stop it.
> 2. God does it later so it is not an issue at this time
> ...



Look at option three or varient therof. People interpreting what God desires them to do and taking actions based on that belief.

Are you imune to those actions even if you do not hold the same belief?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> Look at option three or varient therof. People interpreting what God desires them to do and taking actions based on that belief.
> 
> Are you imune to those actions even if you do not hold the same belief?


So you would only support an atheist? Obama claims to be a mus...err...Christian. If I was to worry about how Romney might react to a Godly message, I have to have the same worries with Obama, so it becomes a moot issue. 

Using logic instead of bigotry and fear to make decisions makes things so much easier.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> So you would only support an atheist? Obama claims to be a mus...err...Christian. If I was to worry about how Romney might react to a Godly message, I have to have the same worries with Obama, so it becomes a moot issue.
> 
> Using logic instead of bigotry and fear to make decisions makes things so much easier.


Actualy I am fairly confident that most Christians especialy polititions subvert biblical principles for the sake of pragmentism.

I hope that Romney would do the same. Espescialy in light that the LDS Scriptures is on several degrees closer to OT principles then mainstream Christianity.

Also concidering that the doctrine remains open to new revelation from their Living Prophet.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

postroad said:


> Look at option three or varient therof. People interpreting what God desires them to do and taking actions based on that belief.
> 
> Are you imune to those actions even if you do not hold the same belief?


If you're concerned about the LDS taking some kind of hinky action based on their beliefs and the instructions of their Living Prophet, I don't think you should worry about it. What are they going to do? Do you think they're going to commit acts of terrorism? I think not. World wide there's something like 13 million LDS out of a world population of 7 billion. In the States there's approximately 6 million LDS, out of an American population of 311 million. So what do you think the LDS will or could do or say that has you so concerned about them having an impact on America or the rest of the world?

.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

naturelover said:


> If you're concerned about the LDS taking some kind of hinky action based on their beliefs and the instructions of their Living Prophet, I don't think you should worry about it. What are they going to do? Do you think they're going to commit acts of terrorism? I think not. World wide there's something like 13 million LDS out of a world population of 7 billion. In the States there's approximately 6 million LDS, out of an American population of 311 million. So what do you think the LDS will or could do or say that has you so concerned about them having an impact on America or the rest of the world?
> 
> .


Your probably right. Romney's Covenant oaths were probably empty words.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

postroad said:


> Your probably right. Romney's Covenant oaths were probably empty words.


Whether they were or not (and you and I will never know) - that's an LDS concern that impacts only the LDS and not anyone else.

.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

naturelover said:


> Whether they were or not (and you and I will never know) - that's an LDS concern that impacts only the LDS and not anyone else.
> 
> .



Depends on how Romney understands absolute devotion to the Church.

"Each of you bring your right arm to the square. You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in this, (The Officiator holds up a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants again.), the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion."


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Yes, that's all very nice. What is your problem with it? Do you think Romney is going to try to impose it upon the rest of America?

.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

naturelover said:


> Yes, that's all very nice. What is your problem with it? Do you think Romney is going to try to impose it upon the rest of America?
> 
> .


Do you think that God's Kingdom on earth and Zion will not be a theocracy?

And if not is it prudent to put people in positions of power who have sworn themselves to the concept of promoting and bulding such a theocracy?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

postroad said:


> Do you think that God's Kingdom on earth and Zion will not be a theocracy?


Well, not a concern for me since I don't believe there is or ever will be any such thing as God's Kingdom on earth and Zion. It's just a made up thing in the minds of men who take comfort in allowing themselves to believe in something like that. I don't have a problem with it if that's what makes them happy, and they all seem to be pretty nice people so I'm not concerned about them trying to cause mayhem on earth.



> And if not is it prudent to put people in positions of power who have sworn themselves to the concept of promoting and bulding such a theocracy?


I wouldn't worry about that either. If the guy makes president he'll only be there for 4 years - I doubt he'd make it for 8. Frankly I don't think he's going to be elected this time round but that remains to be seen. But if he is elected - how much damage can one person do trying to impose a theocracy upon a population of over 300 million people who all have varying belief systems and believe in their constitution and seperation of state and religion? Romney would do more damage to himself if he tried to pull a stunt like that and I'm sure he knows that, so he will keep his mouth shut about the LDS God's Kingdom and Zion or else make a laughing stock of himself and be forced to step down before he even finished one term.

I think there are probably a lot more important things in the world for you to worry about beside's any politician's religious beliefs.

.


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> Do you think that God's Kingdom on earth and Zion will not be a theocracy?
> 
> And if not is it prudent to put people in positions of power who have sworn themselves to the concept of promoting and bulding such a theocracy?


Once again you are in such a logical bind that you can't be right in any way. Either God exists and has this plan, in which case you can't stop Romney no matter what. Or God doesn't exist or exists and doesn't have this plan, so your fears are groundless. 

Or do you think that God exists but is such a weak god that we can thwart his plans at the ballot box? Wow, that god would be so wimpy he wouldn't be worth worrying about. 

See once again, looking at things logically and without trying to justify bigotry or fear, it is easy to come to a conclusion that your comments are not worthy of consideration.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> Once again you are in such a logical bind that you can't be right in any way. Either God exists and has this plan, in which case you can't stop Romney no matter what. Or God doesn't exist or exists and doesn't have this plan, so your fears are groundless.
> 
> Or do you think that God exists but is such a weak god that we can thwart his plans at the ballot box? Wow, that god would be so wimpy he wouldn't be worth worrying about.
> 
> See once again, looking at things logically and without trying to justify bigotry or fear, it is easy to come to a conclusion that your comments are not worthy of consideration.


Are you insisting that because their premise is false their actions do not have
consequenes?


----------



## CesumPec (May 20, 2011)

postroad said:


> Are you insisting that because their premise is false their actions do not have
> consequenes?


I'm pretty sure, since I've done it more than once, that I'm insisting that YOUR premise is false and bigoted. i don't expect you to get that because bigots always have a way to justify their thoughts to themselves.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

What consequences?

.


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

I haven't stepped foot in HERE in three years, or more, I think ... I was Mama Crow back then, and still am, just changed my username ... but, wow, discussions like this one still intrigue me.

:donut:


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

Haven said:


> Postroad, you should of gone to school to get a degree in theology. Maybe you already did?


:donut:

I am working toward my Masters in Theology, and I am still trying to figure out exactly "what precise point" postroad is making.

Maybe I missed it during my swift skim? Let me read through all this again.

:donut:


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:stars:

nevermind, my head hurts.

Anyway ... good to be back, if only for a little while, thanks for letting me peek in.

:stars:


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

CesumPec said:


> I'm pretty sure, since I've done it more than once, that I'm insisting that YOUR premise is false and bigoted. i don't expect you to get that because bigots always have a way to justify their thoughts to themselves.


In your opinion I am a bigot?


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

naturelover said:


> What consequences?
> 
> .


Should a POTUS put his country ahead of his faith?


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

postroad said:


> Should a POTUS put his country ahead of his faith?


A POTUS should seperate state from religion. If the president is unable to seperate state from religion then he is not suitable to be president and should either step down or be impeached.

.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

glazed said:


> :stars:
> 
> nevermind, my head hurts.
> 
> ...


 When I saw your post,,, I could see a head bangin experience for ya.
But never been one to stand in the way of progress.
GH


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> A POTUS should seperate state from religion. If the president is unable to seperate state from religion then he is not suitable to be president and should either step down or be impeached.
> 
> .


 I guess all those pics of G. Washinton bowing down and praying was for "photo ops?
Just sayin


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> When I saw your post,,, I could see a head bangin experience for ya.
> But never been one to stand in the way of progress.
> GH


....

Progress?

....


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

naturelover said:


> A POTUS should seperate state from religion. If the president is unable to seperate state from religion then he is not suitable to be president and should either step down or be impeached.
> 
> .


Does an LDS member of the priesthood having laid everything on the alter hold as his first alegiance the state of the Gentiles or the Kingdom of God?


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

postroad said:


> Does an LDS member of the priesthood having laid everything on the alter hold as his first alegiance the state of the Gentiles or the Kingdom of God?


I think they only target trolls from Canada. Why are you so worried about what happens here in the states anyway? I would argue with you about your government and President too but danged if I know who he is and I'll wager the vast majority of Americans don't either nor do we care.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

glazed said:


> ....
> 
> Progress?
> 
> ....


 One can always hope. I've been watching this thread since its inception,, and I still can't figure outthe purpose.
One more mind could never be a bad thing. Unless we both end up with a headache.
GH


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

Marshloft said:


> One can always hope. I've been watching this thread since its inception,, and I still can't figure outthe purpose.
> One more mind could never be a bad thing. Unless we both end up with a headache.
> GH


How long has the state of Israel existed?


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

Modern Israel? 1948.

:donut:


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

I'll rub your temple, if you'll rub mine.

:donut:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> I guess all those pics of G. Washinton bowing down and praying was for "photo ops?
> Just sayin


Well - when he was bowing and praying was he doing that as the POTUS or as Washington the man? Enlighten me.

.


----------



## postroad (Jan 19, 2009)

glazed said:


> :donut:
> 
> Modern Israel? 1948.
> 
> :donut:


Yes. How many years is a generation?

Has Hal Lindsey been discredited as of yet?


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

naturelover said:


> Well - when he was bowing and praying was he doing that as the POTUS or as Washington the man? Enlighten me.
> 
> .


 I havn't a clue, I wasn;t there to ask him.
As POTUS, you're just an extension of who you were.
Take Obama as an example. How many were warned in advance of his leanings?
A mans foundations are just that. I'm sure you've heard of the analogy, Built on sand or solid ground.
GH


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

Yes, I do believe he has.

:donut:


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

I am not sure where you are going with all of this, but I am STILL intrigued ... you may, or may not, appreciate some of my posts from years past.

But I don't know because I just don't know where you stand right now.

As far as Hal Lindsey, I find the man fascinating and there is much I agree with ... but is he infallible? No.

:donut:


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

No man of God would ever seek, nor accept any political office serving civil government, especially one so inherently corrupt as "president of the United States".

There are only two houses..... The Father's house, and the house of Belial.

The two are absolutely devoid of compatibility.


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

:donut:

FORERUNNER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(((( hug ))))

:donut:


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

Marshloft said:


> I havn't a clue, I wasn;t there to ask him.
> As POTUS, you're just an extension of who you were.
> Take Obama as an example. How many were warned in advance of his leanings?
> A mans foundations are just that. I'm sure you've heard of the analogy, Built on sand or solid ground.
> GH


I don't think any person is born to be president, therefore I don't think any president is an extension of who they were. When a person becomes the president that person changes into something else and can never again be the person that they once were. Not even after they cease to be president. They are permanently changed into something else for the rest of their lives and their past life gets left behind never to be retrieved. This has always been the way of it for all presidents and all other leaders of state anywhere in the world.

Washington and Obama and their respective religous beliefs and foundations are not really relevant to this discussion because it's about the man Romney who apparently has an LDS foundation and who now aspires to be president. If he becomes president his foundation and his ideals will permanently change for him just as it has for every other leader of state before him and he will become a different man. He can be a president or he can be a man of God, but he can't be both at the same time. He will discover that he has to choose for himself which is most important to him and then forsake the other, but if he becomes president he will still become a changed man.

.


----------



## naturelover (Jun 6, 2006)

poppy said:


> I think they only target trolls from Canada. Why are you so worried about what happens here in the states anyway? I would argue with you about your government and President too but danged if I know who he is and I'll wager the vast majority of Americans don't either nor do we care.


The fact that you admittedly don't want to know and don't care is one of the reasons why you will never understand why Canadians might be interested about what happens in the states. So if you don't know and don't care then you don't need to ask why Canadians are interested because you'd be incapable of understanding the answer and it's clearly not important and wouldn't make any difference to you anyway. It's not important to Canadians that you understand either, so maybe you shouldn't bother to ask. Now do you understand?

.


----------



## Forerunner (Mar 23, 2007)

glazed said:


> :donut:
> 
> FORERUNNER !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> ...


Glazed.....wherever do you find all the donut gifs ?

......and, does your mother know you were up so late last night ? :indif:


----------



## glazed (Aug 19, 2006)

...

Made me laugh!!! 

I have missed you 

...


----------



## poppy (Feb 21, 2008)

postroad said:


> Yes. How many years is a generation?
> 
> Has Hal Lindsey been discredited as of yet?


Never read any of Lindsey's stuff and disagree with his beliefs. But to answer your question, the Bible mentions a 40, a 70, and a 120 year generation.


----------



## mnn2501 (Apr 2, 2008)

poppy said:


> I think they only target trolls from Canada. Why are you so worried about what happens here in the states anyway? I would argue with you about your government and President too but danged if I know who he is and I'll wager the vast majority of Americans don't either nor do we care.


Postroad isn't even A US American but he's worried about Romney's religion -- boy theres' an agenda if I ever saw one.


----------

