Mitt Romney Unveils Secret Plan To End The War
Speaking on ABC’s Good Morning America, former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) said that he supports setting a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq — but only if it’s a secret time line.
Asked yesterday by Robin Roberts if he would “set a deadline for bringing the troops home,” Romney said only that he “wouldn’t publish it for my adversaries to see.” Romney added, “I would certainly sit down with al-Maliki as well as his government, plot out a series of milestones, timetables as well, measure how well they’re doing. But that’s not something you’d publish for the enemy to understand.”
Watch it:
Richard Nixon “campaigned in 1968 by saying he had a secret plan to end the war in Vietnam.” His Defense Secretary Melvin Laird later wrote, “Richard Nixon was elected in 1968 on the assumption that he had a plan to end the Vietnam War. He didn’t have any such plan.” In fact, the war dragged on, leading to over 20,000 American deaths.
Creating a secret Iraq timeline, as Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) also proposed last week, would be pointless. The key purpose of a public timeline is to make clear to the Iraqi people and their government that the U.S. does not have an open-ended commitment to Iraq, and to use that fact to pressure Iraqi politicians to make compromises. Making it secret won’t actually prevent Iraqis from knowing when the U.S. is leaving; there’s no subtle way to pack up and move 145,000 troops and their equipment.
Romney is just desperate to thread the needle between supporting Bush and distancing himself from the war, so much so that he’s willing to embrace completely absurd ideas.
Transcript:
ROBERTS: As president, would you set a deadline for bringing the troops home?
ROMNEY: Well, I wouldn’t publish it for my adversaries to see.
I would certainly sit down with al-Maliki as well as his government, plot out a series of milestones, timetables as well, measure how well they’re doing.
But that’s not something you’d publish for the enemy to understand, because, of course, they can just lay in the weeds until the time that you’re gone. So these are the kinds of things you do privately, not necessarily publicly.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
Romney is a clueless GOPer fool!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amAdd that to Mitt Romney’s other secret plans to simultaneously hold all positions on abortion, gay rights, his place of residence, etc.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:29 amHAHA!!!
Secret plan, and ONLY I CAN READ IT! I have SUPER SECRET DECODER ring I ordered right out of the back of X-Men comic book. Those terrorists will never have this l33t technology!
PHEAR ME!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amAlso, perhaps Mitt would also like to discuss his secret plan to maintain his investments in companies doing business with Iran while publicly calling for state pension funds to end theirs.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:31 amMaybe, like his pops, he’s been given the “greatest brainwashing that anybody can get,” but this time by Karl Rove.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:32 amThe secret date will be about election time 2008 when it becomes obvious to the world that the GOP will lose even more seats in Congress than they did in 2006. It worked for Reagan oin 1980.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:33 amAs a Massachusetts resident and having endured Mitt Moron as Gov., GOD help this country (and I truly hope he won’t even get the nom) — if he becomes the president.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:33 amSure Mitt, sure.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:33 amPS This SECRET DECODER RING has a 10x Magnifying glass, and we think we have found patrick1’s brain…. More news at 11!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:34 amLeave it to a guy who believes a religion reportedly dictated out of a hat to have a ’secret’ plan to win a war.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:35 amWait-Romney is Mormon-if I remember (my South Park)correctly, isn’t the Mormon faith based on a SECRET scripture that only 1 man has (supposedly) seen?
dang-all these secrets….
April 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amtmm-you trumped my post!
April 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amWhat Romney said make perfect sense. Only a fool would announce to the enemy ones intentions.
The fact that most Democrats don’t understand somethig so elementary makes me question both their motives and their collective intellegence.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:36 amLet’s hear about the “double-secret” plan for Iraq, which is/was to take their oil.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:37 amwhiteyfresh sez:
Heh…when I saw the headline, that was the first thing that popped into my head. You know we’re not going to be the only ones to make the connection, either. Stewart and Colbert are going to have a field day with this one. ^_^
April 4th, 2007 at 11:41 amWait-Romney is Mormon-if I remember (my South Park)correctly, isn’t the Mormon faith based on a SECRET scripture that only 1 man has (supposedly) seen?
dang-all these secrets….
Comment by whiteyfresh
Ya gotta have FAITH, whitey!
Look how well it worked for old Bob Smith and his golden tablets. Oy….
April 4th, 2007 at 11:42 amLet’s hear about the “double-secret†plan for Iraq, which is/was to take their oil.
Comment by Not Canadian
——————————————————–
Why then have we not taken it?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:43 amShhhhh,
April 4th, 2007 at 11:43 amMitt got his secret plan from Conrad Burns.
Unfortunately, Burns got his ass handed to him by Testor, so he secretly sold the secret plan to Romney in trade for one of Mitt’s Grandfathers’ 12 wives. Shhhhhh…
dum,dum,da dum dum dum, dum dum dum dum dum…
April 4th, 2007 at 11:44 amThe fact that most Democrats don’t understand somethig so elementary makes me question both their motives and their collective intellegence
are you that stooooopid that you think 150,000 military personnel, plus the logistics to support them (including the 100k+ mercenaries/contractors) will just one day magically disappear.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:45 amtakin a break from work(heh)
April 4th, 2007 at 11:45 amslow day…
Back in a few…
So Bob from Al Qaeda is sitting in (what’s left of) Baghdad thinking, “The Americans could be leaving any day now… maybe tomorrow, maybe in a year…”. So?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:45 amThey’re better than ever at killing our troops, and the various factions that enjoy killing Americans are also really good at killing other Iraqis. It’s not like they’re afraid of our military. They’re already killing our soldiers as fast as they can. If anything, a deadline might cause them to lay back a bit and give our people some breathing room to improve the situation and not get killed so often — although that begs the question of what we could possibly do at this point to improve this catastrophe.
are you that stooooopid that you think 150,000 military personnel, plus the logistics to support them (including the 100k+ mercenaries/contractors) will just one day magically disappear.
Comment by linda
——————————————————————————-
No.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:47 amdoes this secret plan involve laserbeams attached to the heads of sharks?
April 4th, 2007 at 11:48 amisn’t the Mormon faith based on a SECRET scripture that only 1 man has (supposedly) seen?
dang-all these secrets….
Comment by whiteyfresh — April 4, 2007 @ 11:36 am
No. That is not correct.
The mormon scriputures are available for purchase online or from one of any of the hundreds of mormon bookstores throughtout the world.
Mormons are for the most part, mainstream fundamental Christians who center everything in their church around their belief in Christ, strong family and community bonds and a commitment to labor and industry.
I am no fan of Romney’s, but we shouldn’t dis his religion.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:49 amWhy then have we not taken it?
Comment by Ringo
Welcome to the Big Lie.
Iraq’s “Freedom” and “Stability” are required before Shell/Mobil/Exxon can feel safe enogh to do their jobs.
Welcome to reality.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:50 amI am getting confusing fear talking points. My head hurts.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:51 amI WORFEUS sez:
Actually, it is.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:53 amMormons are for the most part, mainstream fundamental Christians who center everything in their church around their belief in Christ, strong family and community bonds and a commitment to labor and industry.
I am no fan of Romney’s, but we shouldn’t dis his religion.
Comment by I WORFEUS
That is correct and through the 1960’s they advocated blacks could not enter heaven, multiple wives was Gods Law and Jesus came to reveal himself to Smith in the 1800’s.
You gotta love these fairytales. makes L. Ron Hubbard look mainstream.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amOnly a fool would announce to the enemy ones intentions.
If this was purely a military effort, sure. But where the only way to achieve a reasonably acceptable outcome is by working on the diplomatic and political fronts to achieve a political solution, the announcement of our withdrawal is tool we can use to help bring that about.
Republicans pay lip service to the statement “there is no military solution,” but they either don’t mean it, or they don’t understand what they’re saying.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:54 amKay,
Thats unfortunate, I had to endure six years of a twit named George here in Texas and his compassionate conserv666atism.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:55 ambut we shouldn’t dis his religion.
Comment by I WORFEUS
If that religion opresses the mind of men, it should be called like it is: Propaganda for the benefit of religious leaders.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:55 amMy head hurts.
Comment by Patrick1
Posibly, because you are thinking.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:56 amComment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
That’s exactly what I was looking for. Thanks, TMM.
Mormonism is a cult, no question.
April 4th, 2007 at 11:59 amPosibly, because you are thinking.
Comment by Juan C
Thank goodness my juice didn’t actually come up through my nose — it tried. :-D
April 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm15 Hostages released though talking
Pelosi shows amazing respect , a true ambassador for America
What shit is Bush going to do , to counteract all the good thats been done today ????
Time for Iraq to go it alone, they need a break to get their lifes in order
April 4th, 2007 at 12:01 pm“My plan is so secret even I don’t know what it is. Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.”
April 4th, 2007 at 12:03 pmThe only deadline that works in war is the one you give your enemy.
Giving yourself one is like pointing a gun at yourself.
I thought Mitt was smarter than this.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:03 pmMitt Romney will make a great president. This plan to withdraw from Iraq that he is talking about it a great idea. He is the only republican supporting a withdrawal it sounds like, which is why I will vote for him. Go Romney!!!! You the man!!!
April 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pmI didn’t realize how many religious bigots there are in this country! Sure Mormons believe in a lot of “weird” things, but what religion doesn’t? Most Christians believe that Noah fit 2 each of all the world’s animal species into a big boat and sailed around with them for 40 days. They also believe that Moses caused an entire sea to part. Need I go on? Why is it so vogue to hate Mormons?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:04 pmUnder normal circumstances he would be correct. He used WW2 as an example but both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally. I fail to see how invading Iraq to eliminate its WMD that it didn’t have and killing 650,000+ people is NORMAL.
To pretend that China’s military can be defeated would be INSANE. To pretend that Russia is not watching US aggression is foolish. Pulling the plug on Iraq would be the moral and ethical thing but would cost the OIL.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:05 pmIf cowering from the vengance from a great big invisible man who lives up in the sky would keep these zipperheads from murdering and stealing and lying, I’d be all for it. But it doesn’t. So not only are they fools, they’re hypocrites. The only reason they defer to their superstition is as a rationale to tell others what to do.
As for the super-duper-double-secret plan of this plate-polisher, he can stuff it under the Rock of Ages for all I care. A politician cannot be trusted; for a Republican that goes double.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:06 pmTMM:Once again, your LINKS(righties-note that ‘links’ means”showing a path back to your claims so there is actually something to BACK UP what you say”) have proven most helpful. THanks for defending sanity once again…
April 4th, 2007 at 12:07 pmit tried. :-D
Comment by Zooey
Patrick1 makes those one happen. :D
April 4th, 2007 at 12:08 pmI thought Mitt was smarter than this.
Comment by Cynicon Implant
What gave you the impression Romney was anything more than an empty suit?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:09 pmFIRST of all:
all engineers, including engineers of war, have milestones. Maybe it wasn’t so wise to admit it, here. It could be confused with the liberal’s idea of “Let’s post them so that our enemies can optimize their advantages” brilliant ploy.
SECOND:
Is it possible, that there can be ONE thread in which the man’s religion is not attacked?
IS IT POSSIBLE???
April 4th, 2007 at 12:12 pmHow stupid…Has he been in military…?
Leaving home,with huge army like we have is a big logistical nightmare…No nation can hide this…
He wants to leave secretly…
Ya, meeting a woman in a motel room….!!
April 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pmAaron-it’s not ‘vogue’ to hold someone up to their belief system.I have problems with all religions.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:14 pmI(personally) feel that in ANY religion, the further you get away from the true core beliefs or teachings, the more structured and compartmentalised the religion becomes, and the further you get from the truth.
MGGGD:does your religion come out of a hat? or perhaps a talking bush(no pun inten-wait, yeah it is..)?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:16 pmWhat gave you the impression Romney was anything more than an empty suit?
Comment by Zooey
I live in Mass. and have watched him deal with the overwhelmingly Democratic congress here. Of course, they are not exactly the brightest bulbs either…
April 4th, 2007 at 12:17 pmComment by mungagungadin — April 4, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
Hogwash! This is not a war that the USA was drawn into. It in fact is a criminal invasion of Iraq by the USA. They (REPS & DEMS) have admitted NOTHING. Odds are there will never be an EXIT from IRAQ since the true nature of this invasion is PLUNDER.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:21 pmThat is correct and through the 1960’s they advocated blacks could not enter heaven, multiple wives was Gods Law and Jesus came to reveal himself to Smith in the 1800’s.
Comment by Heterodoxy — April 4, 2007 @ 11:54 am
Wrong again.
African Americans could not hold the mormon priesthood until 1978, but there was no doctrine teaching they could not enter heaven.
As for “multiple wives” or polygamy as is the correct term, this was a very short lived practice of the church and was abolished over 150 years ago.
Today the mormons are as mainstream as the Methodists.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pm#25 Comment by I WORFEUS —
a commitment to labor and industry.?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:26 pmisnt that the same principles of Old Eygpt?
you know, the one back during the Pharoah/
If that religion opresses the mind of men, it should be called like it is: Propaganda for the benefit of religious leaders.
Comment by Juan C — April 4, 2007 @ 11:55 am
Mormonism is a voluntary religion.
Any “oppression” therefore would self imposed.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmI live in Mass. and have watched him deal with the overwhelmingly Democratic congress here. Of course, they are not exactly the brightest bulbs either…
Congress? You sure about that?
We’ve got laws in this here series of tubes, Cynicon Implant. When you insult someone’s intelligence on a discussion thread, you will - will, not might - make a factual or grammatical error that makes you look like a complete tool.
It’s best just keep things civil.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:27 pmand a commitment to labor and industry.
I am no fan of Romney’s, but we shouldn’t dis his religion.
Comment by I WORFEUS — April 4, 2007 @ 11:49 am
April 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pmand a commitment to labor and industry.???
Slavery
[…] Transcript: (more…) […]
April 4th, 2007 at 12:28 pmMormonism is a cult, no question.
Comment by Zooey — April 4, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Sorry Zooey, you know I’m a fan, but Mormonism is a conservative, fundamentalist christian religion.
Nothing more.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:29 pmActually, it is.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 11:53 am
I don’t need links to anti-mormon sites Trip old buddy.
I know more about the mormon church on my worst day, than anyone in here does on their best.
I was a theology student and studied mormonism for many years as a focus of my studies, due to its strong emphasis on the apostlictic heirarchy and certain ancient rituals founded solidly in the Torah.
Mormons are not cult members, and I find them to be less weird than the majority of rapture embracing holy roller evangelical christians we are innundated with today.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmThis from the son of the man (George Romney) who admitted he had been brainwashed during his tour of Vietnam by the Generals and Colonels who escorted him.
These Republicans don’t know how to think any longer. Everything is tied to a political calculation.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:34 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Sorry, WORFEUS, but the dividing line between ‘fundamentalist christian religion’ and ‘cult’ is vanishingly small…the difference is usually in which side you are viewing the faith from.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:36 pmWe’ve got laws in this here series of tubes, Cynicon Implant. When you insult someone’s intelligence on a discussion thread, you will - will, not might - make a factual or grammatical error that makes you look like a complete tool.
It’s best just keep things civil.
Comment by joe
My bad, Joe. I meant Mass. legislature, not congress. Slip of the keyboard.
And I’m only a partial tool, not a complete one.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:38 pmMormonism is a voluntary religion.
Any “oppression†therefore would self imposed.
Comment by I WORFEUS
Just like every other religion. But you are correct. This shouldnt be about religion.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:40 pmSee, Cynicon Implant? Did you see how that worked?
I called you a tool and BAM, the italics tags get screwed up.
You can’t escape it. None of us can.
The laws of the internet are bigger than any of us.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:43 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Are you disputing the claim that Joseph Smith originally dictated the Book of Mormon by translating writing inscribed on golden plates he viewed in a hat?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:44 pmThe real issue with the Mormon church is their belief that God instructs men to kill other men.
Thats the issue I have with it, the same issue I have with Islam and Judaism.
These “fundamental” religions have a tendency to lean heavily on the old testament, paying particular heed to wars, assinations and blood atonements.
The Book of Mormon, a central scripture in the mormon cannon, there is a story early on, about a prophet named Nephi, who is instructed by God to cut off the head of a bad man, named Laban. Nephi finds Laban drunk, and unprotected, and God supposedly instructs Nehpi to draw his sword, and cut off the head of a defenseless man. The verses drag on with endless rationalization supposedly coming from God to this Nephi character, and even going so far as to instruct him to pilfer and loot Labans possessions.
This scriputer verse was clearly set up as a way of bypassing the laws Christ actually taught, so as to get church members to defend the church early on from persecuters and perhaps even the government. Its simple.
Church member believes in Book of Mormon.
Book of Mormon says God sometimes tells us to kill each other.
Church gets in trouble. Prophet tells church members God also told him to fight or kill someone, and the Church becomes a small army. In fact, Joesph Smith did just that, and appointed himself General. They stood against the US army even at one point!
Today however the Church is a mainstream conservative Christian religion, with all the trappings of fundamnental evangelical christianity.
But today, because of “scripture passages” like the one I referenced above, Mormons tend to be right wing deer shooting rambo watching neocons, who study Christs teachings, and then ignore them in their daily lives.
Like most Christians.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:47 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Are you forgetting Christianity, or are you deliberately leaving it out?
April 4th, 2007 at 12:51 pmmutt romney, just what we need -another religious psycho
April 4th, 2007 at 12:54 pmAre you forgetting Christianity, or are you deliberately leaving it out?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 12:51 pm
Neither. I am including Mormonism with the rise of the Christianity in Rome (Catholic) as both neglecting the teachings of Christ, in favor of an Old Testament type theology.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:55 pmAre you disputing the claim that Joseph Smith originally dictated the Book of Mormon by translating writing inscribed on golden plates he viewed in a hat?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 12:44 pm
Yes, of course I am disputing it. You don’t think he actually did any of that do you? (sic)
Well, actually he claimed to use a “seer-stone” which he referred to as the “urim and thummin” which he sometimes cast into a hat, and there saw the mysterious characters on the gold plates translated into english.
That is what he claimed. Did it happen? Unlikely.
April 4th, 2007 at 12:59 pmAnd meanwhile, even ABC believes the surge is starting to work.
(Cue the ’stoopid-rethuglican-controlled-media rants).
April 4th, 2007 at 1:02 pmWhat most Christians do is worship the New Testament and live by the Old Testament.
I watched a bald headed neocon Christiain on Bill Maher the other night (purposely leaving out his name so as not to give him a plug) asking D L Hugley whether he believed in the 10 commandments, as if that had some role in his being a Christian.
Christ put away the old law, including the 10 commandments and gave a higher law.
There are few Christians, particularly in the right wing, who live by, acknowledge or are even aware of the new commandments issued by Christ.
If there were, we’d not be in the mess right now.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:03 pmChrist turned the other cheek. The primary lesson that He taught us was that of peace. Waging war is antithetical to Christianity. If we are going to take the moral Christian approach, then we better damn well act like it. We should be stopping the genocide in Darfur and feeding the 800 million who go to bed hungry. That would be in Christ’s image.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:04 pmMormonism is a voluntary religion.
Any “oppression†therefore would self imposed.
Comment by I WORFEUS
Except for the children of the members. They have no choice.
And some of the offshoots are pretty bad.
I looked into the LDS church years ago, read their book of mormon that Joseph Smith wrote. At the time blacks were not allowed in the priesthood because blacks are the children of Cain. ( every man in the church is inducted into the priesthood, women are not allowed ). The Prophet had a “vision” to change that rule while there was a lawsuit going on against the church, conviniently.
Women are still not considered worthy of the priesthood and are expected to be brood mares.
They claim that my native american ancestors are a lost tribe of israel. Funny thing that genetics have proven that false.
Frankly, I would not be impressed with a President that thinks he wears magic underwear.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:05 pmThis is not the MORMON thread…
April 4th, 2007 at 1:06 pmNow back on topic…
Christ turned the other cheek. The primary lesson that He taught us was that of peace. Waging war is antithetical to Christianity. If we are going to take the moral Christian approach, then we better damn well act like it.
Comment by Marisa — April 4, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
Amen Marisa
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:07 pmthese folks are using very, very strong drugs and should be forced to submit to testing. this particular fellow just went past mccain in being the craziest. congratulations. get a hat, put in some rocks, and have a martini. but most of all, see you doctor about clinics that will make you well.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:08 pmNo, it isn’t. In fact, I’d go further and say that’s it’s pretty near impossible for some of the posters here to discuss *anything* without resorting to personal attacks.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:09 pmAccording to Mormon history you can only read the golden tablets with the special glasses. Don’t forget the mark of Cain is being of dark skin and on,and on it goes
April 4th, 2007 at 1:12 pmIt’s ALL a cult as far as I’m concerned.
As long it ends at the tip of one’s nose, it’s of no consequence. Institutionalizing one superstition or another as a matter of public policy is where the trouble starts.
The only church at which George W Bush worships is the church of death and destruction. And Cheney is his High Priest.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pmAnd meanwhile, even ABC believes the surge is starting to work.
Wow, the “Path to 9/11″ network is just as optimistic about this war as it was in 2004. Color me impressed.
Back on Planet Earth, casualties among Iraqi civilians are higher after the surge than before it began.
BTW, if announcing a timeline allows your enemies to just sit tight and wait until you leave, what doesn announcing a limited-duration “surge” do?
April 4th, 2007 at 1:13 pm#73
April 4th, 2007 at 1:14 pmIt is a Mormon thread. If his politics are generated by his Mormon beliefs.
The right wing talking point saying that we can’t let the “enemy” know what our timeline is for withdrawing from Iraq is pure bullshit. Staying in Iraq when we shouldn’t be there aids the “enemy” far more. We’re wasting billions of dollars and losing more and more troops only in order to prop up the Republican party. The Republican strategy fulfills Osama bin Laden’s wildest dreams.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Regardless of whether it actually happened or not, this is what the Mormons claim. I never vouched for the actual veracity of the event, but I did claim that this is what the Mormons themselves believe.
Actually, there’s several passages in the New Testament that explicitly state that the Old Testament law is still valid and still to be followed.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:15 pmYes, you know, the same network that continues to pay Rosie to spout hair-brained theories.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:17 pmExcept for the children of the members. They have no choice.
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Thats simply not true Wayne.
Mormons, like most family’s, do take their kids to church with them.
So what?
But what mormons do not do is force their children to join the church.
Central to mormon doctrine, in fact, the CRUX of all mormon doctrine, is the docrtine of what mormons call “FREE AGENCY”.
Mormons believe that the doctrine of “FORCE” is the doctrine of the devil, and therefore they shun any forced or regimental upbringing of their children.
In fact, Children are not even allowed to join the church until they have reached 8 years of age, which mormons call the “age of accountability”.
And in order to be baptized, the youth must demonstrate an understanding of basic mormon doctrine as well as REQUEST that he be baptized into the church. They will not force it on them.
The fact is most mormon families lose a large percentage of their offspring to the “world” as they put it, which is why proselyting is also central to their religion.
There is only one mormon church. You are confusing cults and apostates with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints. The Church has no ties to any other religion and they do not recognize, support or communicate in any way with apostate branches.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:18 pmGuess Romney wants it both ways and thinks that secrecy will get you that.
I want a transparent government with checks & balances… as much as human fraility & skullduggery will allow.
I want a non-corporate government that does not place corporation interests over those of the people and the earth we must sustain for future generations.
I want goverment leaders who appoint the qualified not the cronified.
Oh heck…just bring back democracy & diplomacy & intelligence.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:21 pmJesus Christ, could an American politician be more stupid? How on earth does this man have any role to play in U.S. politics?
“Yeah, let’s set a date, but keep it secret, so that the terrrists don’t find out and win.. Iraqi police blah blah blah..” How about we remove our army, which is like an elephant in a room filled with china, and end the unnecessary and cruel suffering of Iraqis? How about we god damn talk to other neighboring countries as is completely justified and DO SOMETHING to stop the Iraqi suffering?
Many of our politicians are reducible to a bunch of warmongering, cruel, cynical bastards who apparently lack the basic flame of humanity, you know, the one from which sympathy at other peoples’ suffering arises.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:22 pmActually, there’s several passages in the New Testament that explicitly state that the Old Testament law is still valid and still to be followed.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Well thats debatable. I know what you are referring to and the pharisical order did have religious steps that Christ acknolwedged and followed himself, but with regards to the 10 commandments, which is what we were discussing, Christ “fullfilled” that law and provided a new one.
In Matthew 5 Christ clearly lays out his new laws, which are to superceed the old laws.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:23 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Um…isn’t it the Mormon church that espouses the practice of ‘retroactive baptism’?
How exactly do these departed souls request this, let alone demonstrate an understanding of basic Mormon doctrine?
April 4th, 2007 at 1:24 pmAccording to Mormon history you can only read the golden tablets with the special glasses. Don’t forget the mark of Cain is being of dark skin and on,and on it goes
Comment by miguel — April 4, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
No miguel, thats “anti-mormon” history.
The gold plates (which is not an unusual concept, ancient civilizations often used brass, copper and sometimes gold, to record historical records on) contained the Book of Mormon.
And the only glasses you need to read that are reading glasses, if your eyes are as bad as mine.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pmUm…isn’t it the Mormon church that espouses the practice of ‘retroactive baptism’?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Its called Baptism for the dead, which is a practice that dates back to the early days of Christianity, and is referenced by the apostle Paul.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:26 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Supercede…or replace? There’s a difference.
From Matthew 5:
April 4th, 2007 at 1:29 pmHow exactly do these departed souls request this, let alone demonstrate an understanding of basic Mormon doctrine?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
They don’t. Mormons are busy baptizing by proxy everyone who ever lived on this planet and left some form of identifiying record. It is an ongoing effort that is taking place in mormon temples on a daily basis around the world.
Mormons believe that baptism is pre-requisite to entrance into heaven, and therefore they baptize by proxy those who have passed on and were not members of the church. They believe that in the next life these individuals (pretty much everyone) will have the opportunity to either accept the baptism on their behalf, or reject it.
To mormons, the spririt world is a very real place, and they believe life goes on their pretty much like it does here.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:30 pmDon’t forget the mark of Cain is being of dark skin
Comment by miguel — April 4, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
That is a concept that was taught early on by many Christian religions of Joesph Smiths time.
It did not originate with the mormons.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pmThats simply not true Wayne.
Comment by I WORFEUS
Bulldooky.
My ex was raised in an LDS family. I know quite a bit about the Church. I thought about joining so I researched well.
It is true, the children are babtised at 8, the boys,only theboys are inducted into the priesthood at that time as well.
You cannot tell me anything about their church I already do not know.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm(note to self: never try to argue religion with I WORFEUS; he knows his stuff)
April 4th, 2007 at 1:33 pmIt did not originate with the mormons.
Comment by I WORFEUS
They perpetrated it untill the late 1970s.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pmEducate yourself more before defending them, it will help your argument’s credibility
Trip, I am quite familiar with Matthew 5, which is why I referenced it above.
The old law taught “an eye for an eye”.
Jesus said no more.
INSTEAD, if someone smacks you on one asscheek, offer him the other (:D).
In other words, he put away the old law.
You can’t do both. You can’t take his eye too, AND turn your other buttcheek to him.
So therefore, he put away the old law in place of a new higher law.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pmIt did not originate with the mormons.
Comment by I WORFEUS
They perpetrated it untill the late 1970s.
Educate yourself more before defending them, it will help your argument’s credibility
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 1:35 pm
Well if I am guilty of defending them Wayne, it is only because of misinformation like what you just spoke.
No where in official mormon doctrine does it teach that Blacks are the seed of Cain. No where. It was an idea promoted by Joesph Smith, but it is not to be found anywhere in offical church doctrine. While there is some mormon scripture that speaks of a darkened skin and Cain, it does not indicate that black people are decended from that and it is not embraced by the heirarchy of the church.
What you are referring to in the 1970s, was the permission for black men to hold the mormon priesthood, which was an order issued by the President of the Mormon Chruch , Spencer W Kimball in 1978.
It had nothing to do with the seed of cain lore that you are referring to.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:41 pmHow exactly do these departed souls request this, let alone demonstrate an understanding of basic Mormon doctrine?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
By proxy in a temple ceremony.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:43 pmWhat you are referring to in the 1970s, was the permission for black men to hold the mormon priesthood, which was an order issued by the President of the Mormon Chruch , Spencer W Kimball in 1978.
It had nothing to do with the seed of cain lore that you are referring to.
Comment by I WORFEUS
Again, bulldooky. I was attending the church at the time and I questioned the priesthood being denied blacks, and that is what was told me by the Bishop of the local Church.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:47 pmtotall bullsh*t Worf.
Bulldooky.
My ex was raised in an LDS family. I know quite a bit about the Church. I thought about joining so I researched well.
It is true, the children are babtised at 8, the boys,only theboys are inducted into the priesthood at that time as well.
You cannot tell me anything about their church I already do not know.
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
Yea?
Well I’m sorry for you. That must have been rough.
But as for my not being able to tell you things about the mormons you don’t already know, don’t bet on it old friend.
Mormonism was my thesis, and I studied the religion, along with Catholicism for many, many years. That included living amongst them for years, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
But if you doubt me, then answer these questions without googling.
Who’se Solomon Spaulding?
What is the “blood atonement”?
Who was BH Roberts, and what role did he play in the mormon concept of temporal evolution?
What is “Man his origin and destiny”, and why was it the subject of a first presidency review?
Who are the Tanners?
Who is Fawn Brodie?
What was the last words spoken by Joesph Smith, and what was he doing?
What is the Kirtland Anti-Banking society?
How many versions of Joesph’s Smiths “First vision” are there, and how do they differ?
There’s a few starters for you Wayne. When you’re done with those, I’ve got a million more.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pmAgain, bulldooky. I was attending the church at the time and I questioned the priesthood being denied blacks, and that is what was told me by the Bishop of the local Church.
totall bullsh*t Worf.
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 1:47 pm
Well, assuming that is what your bishop told you, your Bishop was wrong.
Look it up.
Its all in the offical church history and records.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:00 pmBut I do not dispute Wayne that there are mormons who believe that.
Joesph Smith believed that, but it never made its way into the offical church doctrine.
Period.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:03 pmComment by I WORFEUS
now that last request to answer all those questions is a bit silly, the post would be way too long. And I could answer all of them, btw.
You may have done a thesis, but I lived with it for years.
My ex and I were married for 25 years.
personally I have no problem with LDS members, they do try to be good people even if deluded by the falacies of their church.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:04 pmJoesph Smith believed that, but it never made its way into the offical church doctrine.
Period.
Comment by I WORFEUS
if that was the case, then blacks would have been allowed the priesthood all along then.
It only changed after Kimball had his “vision” after the news broke ( and a lawssuit filed ) of a Bishop getting excommunicated for invoking someone that was half black into the priesthood. The suit was settled out of court
April 4th, 2007 at 2:09 pmnow that last request to answer all those questions is a bit silly, the post would be way too long. And I could answer all of them, btw.
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
Ok. Who was BH Roberts, and what was his relationship to Man His Orgin and Destiny?
Juist answer that one.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:10 pmLook I am not questing your belonging to the church Wayne.
In fact, you are making my point for me.
People belong to religions, but do not always “know” their religions.
Were you an Elder? Did you serve a mission? If so, then maybe you’d know some of the stuff I tossed you, but Wayne, I am not going to apologize for being an expert on the Mormon church, which I am. I am not going to apologize for being an expert in anything that I am an expert in.
And I can assure you, on my worst day, I know more about the history of the Mormon Church, and its teachings, than you probably do on your best.
But prove me wrong. Tell me about BH Roberts, and the Joesph Fielding Smith contraversy, (Hint: you probably can’t google this).
April 4th, 2007 at 2:14 pmAnd how does “Man, his orgin and destiny” fit into that contraversy?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:15 pmif that was the case, then blacks would have been allowed the priesthood all along then.
It only changed after Kimball had his “vision†after the news broke ( and a lawssuit filed ) of a Bishop getting excommunicated for invoking someone that was half black into the priesthood. The suit was settled out of court
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Wrong.
First you don’t “invoke” someone into the priesthood. You “ordain” them.
Someone who was in the church as long as you claim would know that immediately. In fact, the word would roll off their tongue.
Second, the offical church stand on why black men could not hold the priesthood was that there was no official church stand. “The reason had not yet been revealed” was the message from the First Presidency, and when it was finally lifted, no offical reason, other than “God said so” was given.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:19 pmHere. Here’s an easy question for you Wayne if you think I cannot tell you anything about the church you don’t already know.
What is the offical church stand on evolution?
Easy question for a 25 year solid member.
What is the OFFICIAL church stand on evolution.
(Hint;this ties and answers earlier questions I asked, that you have failed to answer, even though you keep responding).
April 4th, 2007 at 2:23 pmGoogle must be resolving slow, huh?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:28 pmLooks like Romney is chanelling Nixonian energy and karma! Remember Mitt: What goes around, come around and if you dance to close to the fire, you’re sure to get burned.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:29 pmPeople want to immediately accuse me of defending the mormon church when what I am really doing, is simply what I try to do everytime I post in here.
Refuting incorrect information about someone or something.
We claim to want the facts and the truth, and that plays both ways.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:33 pmBy the way Wayne, you can google some of that. I didn’t think you can, but while I’ve been waiting for you to google it I did, and a lot of it is out there.
:|
Take your time.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:39 pmBut prove me wrong. Tell me about BH Roberts, and the Joesph Fielding Smith contraversy, (Hint: you probably can’t google this).
Comment by I WORFEUS
Are you talking about the evolution issue where 3 proffesors were fired from Brigham Young University for teaching evolution in1911?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:49 pmBy the way Wayne, you can google some of that. I didn’t think you can, but while I’ve been waiting for you to google it I did, and a lot of it is out there.
:|
Take your time.
Comment by I WORFEUS
I happen to beat work andnot at your beck and call at this time
April 4th, 2007 at 2:50 pmWe will discuss thisfurther tonight after I get off
“I got my plan from the Secret Agent Spy Kit I sent away for. It only cost me $4.99 (for shipping and handling) and 4 Froot Loops box tops.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:54 pmThe best part is the secret decoder ring which was free in every box!”
I happen to beat work andnot at your beck and call at this time
We will discuss thisfurther tonight after I get off
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 2:50 pm
You mean “not at my “beckoned call?”
Ok.
Well I’m not at yours either, but please explain this.
How is it, that you can take the time to write a post to explain to me that I am not at your “beck and call” and to tell me that you are at work, AND to tell me that you will talk to me tonight, but you can’t for some reason take the time to write one single sentence answering ANY of my questions?
You can answer this question, with one 6 word sentence.
So answer it please.
What is the OFFICAL church stance on evolution?
April 4th, 2007 at 2:57 pmAre you talking about the evolution issue where 3 proffesors were fired from Brigham Young University for teaching evolution in1911?
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
keep googling.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pmLook, just admit it. You’re googling for an answer.
If you knew the answer, you’d have said it about half an hour ago.
Don’t feel bad though.
Most church members cannot answer that question without doing research.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:01 pmIn fact, I bet Mitt Romney would have had to look it up.
I’d bet a yard on it.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:02 pmThe Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has no official stance on evolution. None. Period. The Church doesn’t support the theory, nor does it refute it. End of story.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:07 pmWell, since Aaron answered that one (oh but Aaron, thats NOT the “end of the story”, its a great story, the Roberts\Fielding Smith episode, but we’ll leave that for another time) for you Wayne, so we’ll have to move up the wrung.
So lets go to an easier question, that only knowledgeble elders and sisters would know. This one however is not available on “google”.
What was “Out of the Waters of Mormon”?
Unfortunately you can’t google that but “some” Church historians will be able to tell you about it. (If they haven’t been excomminicated for talking about it yet)
What was “Out of the Waters of Mormon”?
April 4th, 2007 at 3:18 pm#120 You mean “not at my “beckoned call?â€
Respectfully, no. Beck and call is correct.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:21 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Not to piss in your Cheerios, WORFEUS, but if Wayne’s intention was to cheat, he would have cheated by now.
I was curious to see how long it would take someone to find the LDS’ official stance on evolution, using ‘the Google’. Took me all of ten seconds.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:21 pmNot to piss in your Cheerios, WORFEUS, but if Wayne’s intention was to cheat, he would have cheated by now.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey
I already told him I am at work and I do not have time for more than short replies atm. He is being an A$$, something I didn’t expect from Worf.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:28 pmI WORFEUS sez:
Oh….can’t I? ;)
Am I right?
April 4th, 2007 at 3:30 pmSo why didn’t he answer it Trip?
It took Aaron one sentence to offer the answer.
Why would Wayne write 3 or 4 sentences explaining to me why he cannot write one sentence?
Doesn’t make sense.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:31 pmAm I right?
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — April 4, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Not even close.
I told you you cannot “google” this one.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:32 pmAnd I am sorry Wayne, but being I am not being an ass.
I am just being correct.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:33 pmI believe you are referring to the following story from the Book of Mormon:
A wicked king by the name of Noah condemned a prophet named Abinadi to death. Alma, a repentant priest of the wicked king, pleaded for the prophet’s life. Furious, Noah tried to have Alma killed, too, but he fled into the wilderness and began teaching the gospel. Those who believed him went to hear him preach near a fountain of pure water in a place called Mormon.
By the “waters of Mormon” Alma said to a large group of believers, “Behold, here are the waters of Mormon … and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
“Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life—
“Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?
“And now when the people had heard these words, they clapped their hands for joy, and exclaimed: This is the desire of our hearts.†(Mosiah 18:8–11.)
Then Alma baptized all of the people in the waters of Mormon and they came up out of the waters of Mormon following their respective baptisms.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:38 pmNo Aaron, I’m not.
That also is a response google returns.
But that is not even close.
Come on guys, this ones simple.
Think Tanner.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:40 pmI can assure you however, you cannot “google” this.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:41 pmA bit more to refute your claims that the LDS church was not racist.
You state the Church has no Doctrine of Bigotry,but the church believes in living prophets and the statements of each prophet are considered current revelationon the word of God. Here are someof the teachings and”living revelations” of some of the previous prophets
“Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.” - Joseph Smith 1st Prophet
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.” — Brigham Young 2nd Prophet
“…after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God;.. ” –John Taylor 3rd Prophet
“I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. “Darkies” are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church.”
“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race.
“… and they have been ‘despised among all people.’ This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith …” — JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH 10th Prophet
there are alot more
Now the question you are asking Worf, I do not know or understand the question, if it was not over the evolution issue that occured.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:11 pmA bit more to refute your claims that the LDS church was not racist.
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Please go back and re-post for us where I made ANY statement whatosever about the LDS Church and whether or not they are racist.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:15 pmI am amazed at the harrasment people give to Mormons. As a people Mormons are quite industrius. If there is any national emergency, Mormons are usually one of the first on the scene to provide shelters, food, medication, and other emergency aide. With Hurricane Katrina, we had trucks loaded with supplies within hours and on their way. The LDS welfare program of working for what you get has been deamed the best system by many American Presidents. But, no one would call the rescue efforts by Mormons to be Christian. God forbid! It only counts if you belong to a christian church that is not Mormon. Right! If Mormons and government don’t mix, consider this….
There is currently an unemployment rate in Utah of 2.5%. Utah has a thriving economy. Utah has had a surplus nearly every year for the last 20 years. Utah has one of the highest educated workforces in the United States. Utah also has one of the lowest crime rates in the US. Utah has repeatedly been name by national publications such as Forbes and Inc. as the most entrepreneurial states in the US. Utah has also been in the top 10 for the most liveable places in the US. Utah is also one of the top technology hubs in the United States. But, of course no one would be interested in having these benefits where they live.
If Mormons are terrible in government, why does Utah repeatedly come up as one of the top best run states in the United States by top publications? Incidentally, there are more Mormons in California then in Utah and even more Mormons outside the US then in it. If Mormons are so terrible, why do they spend millions of dollars in building micro economies and promoting self sufficiency and taking care of others worldwide. Ask any Presidential Candidate about what they think of the Mormons sending relief to Americans in need during times of emergency, or for that matter other nations of the world without any preference to their religious affiliation. Ask them if they think the Mormon Tabernacle Chior is Christian?
I will tell you why the Mormon Church does all of these things, because the Book of Mormon teaches that we should be our “Brothers Keeper,” and so does the Bible.
Incidentally, if you go to the introduction to the Book of Mormon, you will find that there were eight witnesses to the gold plates from which Joseph Smith translated the reformed Egyptian language into English. These witnesses never denied their testimony even under extreme persecution. Is the Book of Mormon secret. No. Is the gold plates secret. No. The Book of Mormon like the Bible have a promise that if people read it and ask God, they will know it is true by the power of the Holly Spirit.
There are a great many religions in the world today, but how many of their members actually act like Christians. Granted there are people among even the Mormons who don’t act like Christians just like other religions. But, I wonder what everyone else’s excuse is who don’t act like Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, etc. Do people really live their religions by attacking others. What a scarry world we live in. America “The home of the Tolerant”!
April 4th, 2007 at 4:18 pmAnd I am intamately familiar with each and every quote you posted above, and not ONE of those quotes you posted is incorporated ANYWHERE in offical church doctrine.
The prophet does not speak for God except under certain circumstances, which is generally agreed to prefix with “Thus sayeth the Lord”.
You can google till you’re blue in the face Wayne, but I am not talking out of my ass here. Try trusting me for a change.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:19 pmNow the question you are asking Worf, I do not know or understand the question, if it was not over the evolution issue that occured.
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
Dude, that horse left the barn about an hour and a half ago.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:21 pmAnd I am still waiting for a correct answer for what was “Out of the Waters of Mormon”.
When you’re ready to admit you do not know, I will tell you.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:24 pmAnd American, since you are clearly a member of the church, I strongly suggest you don’t read my answer when I post it.
Besides, I am not sure your Bishop will accept ‘blogging’ as meeting your Home Teaching goals for the month.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pmAnd yes Wayne, now I’m being an ass.
:p
April 4th, 2007 at 4:29 pmDude, that horse left the barn about an hour and a half ago.
Comment by I WORFEUS
As I said before I am at work. No way to answer everything in a timely manner. I am at lunch for now
When you’re ready to admit you do not know, I will tell you.
Comment by I WORFEUS
What part of I do not know or understand what you are asking did you NOT understand? I already admitted I don’t know what the f*ck you are talking about LOL
April 4th, 2007 at 4:33 pmWow
And yes Wayne, now I’m being an ass.
:p
Comment by I WORFEUS
Yep
April 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pmfrom the thread copy:
Romney is just desperate to thread the needle between supporting Bush and distancing himself from the war, so much so that he’s willing to embrace completely absurd ideas.
i have a problem with that statement…
i totally agree with it, imagine it is just that way…
but, shouldn’t it be worded in such a way that it depicts TPs OPINION and not stated as a FACT ? … qualified as a point of view?
anyone else? …
April 4th, 2007 at 4:34 pmThe prophet does not speak for God except under certain circumstances, which is generally agreed to prefix with “Thus sayeth the Lordâ€.–Comment by I WORFEUS
“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.†— Brigham Young 2nd Prophet
April 4th, 2007 at 4:37 pmWhat part of I do not know or understand what you are asking did you NOT understand? I already admitted I don’t know what the f*ck you are talking about LOL
Wow
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 4:33 pm
You never said you didn’t know about “Out of the Waters of Mormon”.
You said you didn’t know what I was talking about earlier, with regards to the Burton\Smith episode.
But ok., since you are admitting you aslo don’t know what “Out of the Waters of Mormon” was, I’ll tell you.
It was a novel that was available in the Palmyra New York region in the early 1800’s. The Tanner family and other famous anti-mormon nutcases point to it as the origins for the title of the Book of Mormon.
Thats what “Out of the Waters of Mormon” is.
There. Now I’ve told you something about the Church you did not know.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:49 pm“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.†— Brigham Young 2nd Prophet
Comment by Wayne — April 4, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Yes,
But what you fail to mention each time you quote that is its SOURCE.
It is NOT from ANY Mormon cannon, or ANY official Church Doctrine.
It is from the “Journal Of Discourses” which is a historical reference only, just like the History of the Church.
Like I said Wayne, try trusting me.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:55 pmYou are Right!!! D-Day wasn’t a secret, oh wait it was. I mean military battles and procedures shouldn’t be secret either. Oh there again they should.
Secrets is why we are a great military. Don’t give them an edge. I’m heading there in July, the last thing I need is for congress to play with my life.
Spc. Hurtado
April 4th, 2007 at 4:56 pmThere. Now I’ve told you something about the Church you did not know.
Comment by I WORFEUS
That you did, and nope I didn’t know that.
April 4th, 2007 at 4:58 pmi have a problem with that statement…
i totally agree with it, imagine it is just that way…
but, shouldn’t it be worded in such a way that it depicts TPs OPINION and not stated as a FACT ? … qualified as a point of view?
anyone else? …
Comment by katy — April 4, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Probably should be.
As for Romney’s stance, I think its got some merit, and some flaws.
On the up side, not telling them when we’re pulling out kinda makes sense, for us, cause we can just do it, and get the troops out more safely, before they have a chance to realize whats going on.
On the down side, it kind of screws the Iraqi’s, cause it doesn’t give them a deadline, a point where they know they have to prepare for. It negates our mission, and makes us leave like theives in the nigh