Mitt Romney's religion
- Thread starter Newoldstock
- Start date
- Tags mitt religion romney's
NOS
This 'Jew/Big Money' thing you invoke sure goes a long way in making me believe you are in fact a Socialist. Because that attitude is precisely what the National Socialist Party made popular. [Note: NAZI is a contraction of National Socialist Party in 30's and 40's Germany when they had their spate of Socialism].
How in the hell have you managed to actually believe that ANYONE in Montreal or ANY PLACE ELSE IN THE WORLD bought an army for Israel?? You have repeatedly demonstrated the fact that you have a warped view of world history but this is the furthest out you have come up with. By starting this THREAD you did evoke some interesting posts; that was very likely your intent and it worked. But this POST is over the top!
I highly recommend that you read Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War. Sounds like a strange place to get info on the modern history of Israel? Well it is enlightening. Repeated through the six volumes he rails about the necessity of keeping a mass of British troops in the Near East just to keep the armed Arabs form again massacring the unarmed Jews in the region. Winston had no ax to grind other than wanting to use the troops in North Africa and etc..
So lets go to 1947-8 in as much as you mentioned the era. The nation of Israel was established and the Mohammad people with only a 30 minute wait to load their guns went to push them into the sea. Didn't work out. Nor did any of the later attacks by all of Israel's neighbors succeed.
Your attitude is, in a way, not surprising. You cannot gainsay the fact that you don't much care for the USA...and you can't seem to get it in your head that Canada would be taken over by Uganda or Bolivia if the USA was not here to prevent it. That is a strange thing about Canadian thought process that many Americans can't figure out. By extension Israel is the ONLY friend we have in that part of the world. So I suppose it is to be expected that if you don't know who your friends are on that continent it surely is to be expected that you would not know who your friends are on another continent.
Bottom line. Israel has the power to instantly eliminate all her crazy enemies that surround her....but does not even threaten it. The loonies that have sworn to kill all Jews don't [yet] have the means to do it...but if they did they would push the button in a hot flash.
And no, I am not a Jew.
This 'Jew/Big Money' thing you invoke sure goes a long way in making me believe you are in fact a Socialist. Because that attitude is precisely what the National Socialist Party made popular. [Note: NAZI is a contraction of National Socialist Party in 30's and 40's Germany when they had their spate of Socialism].
How in the hell have you managed to actually believe that ANYONE in Montreal or ANY PLACE ELSE IN THE WORLD bought an army for Israel?? You have repeatedly demonstrated the fact that you have a warped view of world history but this is the furthest out you have come up with. By starting this THREAD you did evoke some interesting posts; that was very likely your intent and it worked. But this POST is over the top!
I highly recommend that you read Winston Churchill's history of the Second World War. Sounds like a strange place to get info on the modern history of Israel? Well it is enlightening. Repeated through the six volumes he rails about the necessity of keeping a mass of British troops in the Near East just to keep the armed Arabs form again massacring the unarmed Jews in the region. Winston had no ax to grind other than wanting to use the troops in North Africa and etc..
So lets go to 1947-8 in as much as you mentioned the era. The nation of Israel was established and the Mohammad people with only a 30 minute wait to load their guns went to push them into the sea. Didn't work out. Nor did any of the later attacks by all of Israel's neighbors succeed.
Your attitude is, in a way, not surprising. You cannot gainsay the fact that you don't much care for the USA...and you can't seem to get it in your head that Canada would be taken over by Uganda or Bolivia if the USA was not here to prevent it. That is a strange thing about Canadian thought process that many Americans can't figure out. By extension Israel is the ONLY friend we have in that part of the world. So I suppose it is to be expected that if you don't know who your friends are on that continent it surely is to be expected that you would not know who your friends are on another continent.
Bottom line. Israel has the power to instantly eliminate all her crazy enemies that surround her....but does not even threaten it. The loonies that have sworn to kill all Jews don't [yet] have the means to do it...but if they did they would push the button in a hot flash.
And no, I am not a Jew.
I don't know that I am a "proper expert", but I will try to answer any questions. I've never had a problem discussing religion (I was a missionary in Iceland for a few yrs).
I've never had a problem discussing politics, (I am a registered republican, a former republican precinct chair, and was elected to be a state delegate again last week, despite the fact that I am very up-front about my Libertarian leanings - in fact, the platform I ran on was that our current "conservative" Republican senator was spending us into oblivion, and most importantly had VIOLATED his constitutional oath by supporting the Patriot act and the 2012 NDAA, and he needed to be held accountable).
My impressions of Romney is that he is VERY capable, and probably an all around good guy. When we hosted the Olympics in SLC in 2002, the city had hired some Olympic lobbyist "experts", who really made a mess of things. The whole event was turning into one giant scandal. Mitt Romney was called in. He was about the most 'together' guy I have ever seen. He took full responsibility for the whole mess, despite the fact that he'd had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, he'd been running for a senate position against Ted Kennedy in the mid 90s when the mistakes had been made. Didn't matter, he took it all, let the press badger him, was transparent and won the press over. He straightened out the mess and pulled out a miracle.
He is an amazing man, but he moves with political expediency, and that bothers me.
His faith is real, I believe. He was a missionary for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints (Mormons) at age 19-21. He served in France. That's a hard place to serve, French people generally have a condescending attitude toward Americans and Religion in general.
Missions are set up with an older married couple who act at a mission president, and his wife. They direct 100-200 younger volunteers, look out for them, direct the work in a certain geographical area. Kind of like parents away from home. When Romney had been out for just a year or two, he was driving the mission president's wife to a meeting. Their car was hit, (it was not his fault), he sustained a few cuts and bruises, she died. The mission president left the country to see to his family and funeral arrangements and help his kids. It was Mitt that he left in charge. For a 20 yr old to accept responsibility for 150-200 missionaries, and missionary work in France would require a great deal of faith and trust in the Lord. Romney did it, and the mission experienced very good success while under his leadership.
He pays tithing (10% of all gross income)
The Mormon church doesn't have a paid clergy, members are called (or asked) to serve in leadership roles. (My bishop is a software designer, and my bishop before that was a doctor.) Romney has been asked and has served as both a bishop (the leader of a congregation of 300-700 members, kind of like a pastor I guess) A calling like this requires at least 10, and more likely 20+ hrs/week, and usually lasts for 5-7 yrs.
He has also served as a Stake president (a member called to serve as the leader of 5-12 congregations, offering support, training and guidance to local leadership) This calling usually lasts 5-10 years and also would require 10-20 hrs/ week. Leaders receive NO monetary compensation for their time, and still pay tithing. I do not believe Romney's devotion to God is an act of political expediency, but a genuine love of the Lord, and an expression of his belief in Christ.
So, why do I prefer Ron Paul?
Ron Paul has been consistent since the mid 1970s. He is the only veteran, he gets more support from active military personnel than all the other candidates combined. I think he is the only one who could curb and cut spending in DC, I think he is the only one which could avoid another costly war in Iran. OIF and OEF (operations Iraqi freedom and Enduring freedom) have cost us over $4 TRILLION. What have we accomplished?
Santorum scares me the most. The more I hear him speak, the more I fear that he actually believes what he is saying. If so, he is severely unstable. His revisionist version of US and world history will land us in WWIII by his mid-term elections. His plan to "reduce" our spending adds $4.5 Trillion to our debt, and does not include funding for another prolonged war.
A somewhat simplistic over stated comment on my part about how the family that owns the Seagrams brand up here did a very good jopb of raising money ( and donating a lot of their own ) to buy weapons and suport Isreal when they had very few friends.
But they pushed Canada from the inside to get on board for a jewish state when there was non.
My second meaning in the statement.....
I have nothing against jews, and they do well in buisness.
Extremely well......
Might be the past they have the wandering and fact they always lost their land in the end I am not sure.
When I was a boy there was just one little main street where I grew up.
It had a few buisness that generaly owned by the small minority of Jews or Anglophones ( stuff shirt type from south ).
I am sure there were Frenchman with a buisness on Barber street, but the trueth is I can't remember any.
What I can tell you is you will never hagle for a deal with a stuff shirt Anglophone from Toronto. They don't bargin, thats the price and here's the deal end of discussion.....
But I recall the owner of Cronans Dept store very well and my Papa would bargin with the old Orthodox jew that owned it. That man would and could deal. He is the prototype example I have in my mind of a successful ethnic non catholic small buisness man I have.
I have seen the same pattern over and over through the years from other ethnic groups but I still most closely associate that with the fellow from Cronans ( I would also like to add he was fairly well liked because he managed to run a store in a small town that would compete with the Eatons Catalog store or a day trip down the road to the big smoke in the nickle city ).
He was also not Anglo stuffed shirt, like the stuffed shirt bosses at the mill.
Good people skills I guess.
That's the kind of man I think I would suport running in a small c conservative context. ( But I was looking at him from a large L home and ethnic groupe ).
That also brings up and interesting point the majority franco population voted liberal and went to the same church burried their dead in the same cementary and listened to the same crusty old priest deliver the same mass in latin untill he passed away in the early 70s.
Quit literaly this was a place the quiet revolution never touched...
So how does religion play into politics?
Does it at all?
Today I see people of all different races and religions running as members of parties but I have not seen one lead a party that realy breaks the rules.
Those old rules:
Liberal >>>> Catholic french, western eroupean iomigrant types
Progressive Conservative >>>>> protestant English
CCF/NDP other >>>>> Athiets union man (probably a comie, lock him up ) or protestant farmer wetsern alienated type.....
The New rules:
Liberal >>>>> Multi ethnic basket case trying to govern from the center and apeal to everyone.
Conservative >>>>> The progressive is dropped and the Protestants are still there but with a mixture of other ethnic groups. All who seem to significantly more amped up fundimentalist views.
So through my looking glass Oldsalt if you are trying figuere me out.
The more conservative you are the more protestant and fundimentalist you are. And if you head the other direction you will find the more liberal thess diverse.
Do these rules aply to the USA?
Seems to follow a pattern something like that.
Could WE elect a Morman PM?
Not sure....
His religious views would be a factor and to be honest I think a Small c Woman who was more mainstream would be chosen first ( and its happened ).
Stockwell Day was a significantly more fundamentalist man than the tradition deffinition of tory than could win an election so the party dumped him. Kim Camble lost her job over the train wreck that followed the Mulrooney govermernt she took over as PM for ( prefectly exceptable WASP lady to lead the party I think ).
So the question is how far out of the ordinary does a person have to be to become unelectable?
And are you just holding your noses when you vote for Romey because that's the best you can get?
Reading turftech 1 post:
He leans towards the Libertarian Ron Paul.
Of all the people I have watched in you campains I have to agree I like him the best too. Even if his policies are more radical than many people are used to hearing. I would put Harper on a plane and trade you our PM for him in a heart beat, because he does not leave me with the feeling is a ( Nixon with a fundimentalist streak like we have in Harper ) .
The more progressive the conservative elements they more comfortable I get with them. But the Clark ( Joe who as he was known ) years flabby and lacked the spark to win an election, Mulrooney had the charisma but spent like a drunken Irishman on bender and ran deficits that turned us into..... Ireland.
You guys don't elect people like we do.
First off they have Charisma like Reagan, or brains like Nixon ( evil or not ).
You weed throw a pack and pick a winner.
Everything is tribal once you start to dig.
I'm a union man but there is a tribe in there we don't talk about and they all wear Mason rings. And then they sit down with a bunch of bosses that have the same rings on and make contracts.
And I never liked those Orange lodge.
My adopted Irish daughter ( I've talked about coming here to find work ) was stunned to see Orange men in Canada. Not part of her tribe for sure..
Sure you can take anyone and make a politician out of him but sooner or later he will return to his tribe.
Take that nice curly haired french man in the PQ. He used to be a tory and a heart beat awy from the PMO. But he lost his change to get power and low and behold he returned to his roots Liberal catholic frenchman roots.
So in closing ( another rambling and no doubt badly spelled post comes to an end ) Oldsalt I am not an part of that National Socialist tribe " you keep pointing me at and saying here look ".
Today was the day I did my part to chose a new leader for the NDP ( Social democrat ). As part of a shrinking red faction I didn't get want I wanted. But I got someone that makes the kinds of sounds and motions that my tribe will except as a leader.
Does Mitt Romey make the right kind of sounds and motions to be a Republican?
And you seem to think I hate the USA.
Will you stop that?
I don;t hate the USA.
Wonderful country you have nice people too.
I like going there to vissit.
My Dad lives there married to a yanke.
1/8 of my cousins are Americans.
And you can't tell the average American from a Canadian unless they start talking at length and you hear some politics and local dialect in the English.
But they pushed Canada from the inside to get on board for a jewish state when there was non.
My second meaning in the statement.....
I have nothing against jews, and they do well in buisness.
Extremely well......
Might be the past they have the wandering and fact they always lost their land in the end I am not sure.
When I was a boy there was just one little main street where I grew up.
It had a few buisness that generaly owned by the small minority of Jews or Anglophones ( stuff shirt type from south ).
I am sure there were Frenchman with a buisness on Barber street, but the trueth is I can't remember any.
What I can tell you is you will never hagle for a deal with a stuff shirt Anglophone from Toronto. They don't bargin, thats the price and here's the deal end of discussion.....
But I recall the owner of Cronans Dept store very well and my Papa would bargin with the old Orthodox jew that owned it. That man would and could deal. He is the prototype example I have in my mind of a successful ethnic non catholic small buisness man I have.
I have seen the same pattern over and over through the years from other ethnic groups but I still most closely associate that with the fellow from Cronans ( I would also like to add he was fairly well liked because he managed to run a store in a small town that would compete with the Eatons Catalog store or a day trip down the road to the big smoke in the nickle city ).
He was also not Anglo stuffed shirt, like the stuffed shirt bosses at the mill.
Good people skills I guess.
That's the kind of man I think I would suport running in a small c conservative context. ( But I was looking at him from a large L home and ethnic groupe ).
That also brings up and interesting point the majority franco population voted liberal and went to the same church burried their dead in the same cementary and listened to the same crusty old priest deliver the same mass in latin untill he passed away in the early 70s.
Quit literaly this was a place the quiet revolution never touched...
So how does religion play into politics?
Does it at all?
Today I see people of all different races and religions running as members of parties but I have not seen one lead a party that realy breaks the rules.
Those old rules:
Liberal >>>> Catholic french, western eroupean iomigrant types
Progressive Conservative >>>>> protestant English
CCF/NDP other >>>>> Athiets union man (probably a comie, lock him up ) or protestant farmer wetsern alienated type.....
The New rules:
Liberal >>>>> Multi ethnic basket case trying to govern from the center and apeal to everyone.
Conservative >>>>> The progressive is dropped and the Protestants are still there but with a mixture of other ethnic groups. All who seem to significantly more amped up fundimentalist views.
So through my looking glass Oldsalt if you are trying figuere me out.
The more conservative you are the more protestant and fundimentalist you are. And if you head the other direction you will find the more liberal thess diverse.
Do these rules aply to the USA?
Seems to follow a pattern something like that.
Could WE elect a Morman PM?
Not sure....
His religious views would be a factor and to be honest I think a Small c Woman who was more mainstream would be chosen first ( and its happened ).
Stockwell Day was a significantly more fundamentalist man than the tradition deffinition of tory than could win an election so the party dumped him. Kim Camble lost her job over the train wreck that followed the Mulrooney govermernt she took over as PM for ( prefectly exceptable WASP lady to lead the party I think ).
So the question is how far out of the ordinary does a person have to be to become unelectable?
And are you just holding your noses when you vote for Romey because that's the best you can get?
Reading turftech 1 post:
He leans towards the Libertarian Ron Paul.
Of all the people I have watched in you campains I have to agree I like him the best too. Even if his policies are more radical than many people are used to hearing. I would put Harper on a plane and trade you our PM for him in a heart beat, because he does not leave me with the feeling is a ( Nixon with a fundimentalist streak like we have in Harper ) .
The more progressive the conservative elements they more comfortable I get with them. But the Clark ( Joe who as he was known ) years flabby and lacked the spark to win an election, Mulrooney had the charisma but spent like a drunken Irishman on bender and ran deficits that turned us into..... Ireland.
You guys don't elect people like we do.
First off they have Charisma like Reagan, or brains like Nixon ( evil or not ).
You weed throw a pack and pick a winner.
Everything is tribal once you start to dig.
I'm a union man but there is a tribe in there we don't talk about and they all wear Mason rings. And then they sit down with a bunch of bosses that have the same rings on and make contracts.
And I never liked those Orange lodge.
My adopted Irish daughter ( I've talked about coming here to find work ) was stunned to see Orange men in Canada. Not part of her tribe for sure..
Sure you can take anyone and make a politician out of him but sooner or later he will return to his tribe.
Take that nice curly haired french man in the PQ. He used to be a tory and a heart beat awy from the PMO. But he lost his change to get power and low and behold he returned to his roots Liberal catholic frenchman roots.
So in closing ( another rambling and no doubt badly spelled post comes to an end ) Oldsalt I am not an part of that National Socialist tribe " you keep pointing me at and saying here look ".
Today was the day I did my part to chose a new leader for the NDP ( Social democrat ). As part of a shrinking red faction I didn't get want I wanted. But I got someone that makes the kinds of sounds and motions that my tribe will except as a leader.
Does Mitt Romey make the right kind of sounds and motions to be a Republican?
And you seem to think I hate the USA.
Will you stop that?
I don;t hate the USA.
Wonderful country you have nice people too.
I like going there to vissit.
My Dad lives there married to a yanke.
1/8 of my cousins are Americans.
And you can't tell the average American from a Canadian unless they start talking at length and you hear some politics and local dialect in the English.
Last edited:
Newoldstock/ Oldsalt 2012 :laugh:
I think most people are going to vote for Romney and bite their lip doing so. Its not because of his religion but because he is establishment and we know it. Its worriesome, but look at the alternatives.:doah:
Other than the Warren Jeffs types and their tween wives which are very easy to market to, and make great front page news, most poeple dont see and probably dont care the differances between what a mormon confesses and what a catholic/ protestant confesses. (IE, differant levels of Heaven, not sinful from birth, Adam was god), there is a differance.
I think a better question to ask is: how are we the people going to ensure these people uphold our Constitution.
I think most people are going to vote for Romney and bite their lip doing so. Its not because of his religion but because he is establishment and we know it. Its worriesome, but look at the alternatives.:doah:
Other than the Warren Jeffs types and their tween wives which are very easy to market to, and make great front page news, most poeple dont see and probably dont care the differances between what a mormon confesses and what a catholic/ protestant confesses. (IE, differant levels of Heaven, not sinful from birth, Adam was god), there is a differance.
I think a better question to ask is: how are we the people going to ensure these people uphold our Constitution.
There's no problem figuring out where you are coming from. Take a look at the line you wrote regarding the "SOCIAL Democrat Party" not being Red enough for you.
I do applaud your interest and attention to US politics. Although it is difficult for me to become elated with anything that happens politically in this country. We are rapidly sliding to the same Socialist system that has kept Canada considerably poorer than the US for 150+ years.
I have spent too much time in Canada to be fooled about the 'dissatisfaction with the USA' quotient in your country. If the word hate is too strong; so be it. I have had Canadians ask me "Why do you Americans let old people starve in the streets?". No joke. Also, "Why do you Americans discriminate against people?". A favorite one liner in the northern climes seems to be "Why do you Americans like war?".
I told one fool that if he decided to visit the US we would not discriminate against him if he did not bring his pet moose with him; he'd be able to walk down the street and no one would know that he was a good target.
Thinking that a Mans religious believes doesn't matter is, Well ridiculous! what a man believes about God is the foundation of how he will run the country. we should be looking very close at what it is that any candidate believes..after all would you vote in a Jihad Muslim for president..:shrug: Of course not..Well why would you not consider what a candidate believes as far as his religion, before he becomes the leader of our country?..personally i think Mormonism is a scary religion. If you look into it.. the whole magic underwear is just the tip of the ice burg.. they believe that if they follow their religion to the tee, they will become gods and make spirit babies in Heaven with their many wife's!.. and that Heaven is segregated depending on how "good" you were in this life! and that having Dark Skin is the Mark of Cain and it is how we tell the good people from the bad ones..Sounds a bit Racist doesn't it! and then there is the “Mormon Oath of Vengeance against America”, Did you know that Mormons have fought 3 wars against America?.. maybe you need to read up on what it is that Mitt believes before you elect him to be the next leader on this Nation!.
Your post is as full of doctrinal errors as it is spelling and grammar errors.
The same silly anti-Mormon mumbo-jumbo that has been around forever, based on a few ancient quotes that do not represent accepted doctrine and are generally taken out of context. The term "magic underwear" is not a Mormon term, it is just a pejorative term slapped on by anti-Mormons.
"The Mormons have fought 3 wars against the US?" FALSE
The Mormons were expelled from Missouri in 1838, in part because they were mostly from the north, and were anti slavery. 21 Mormons were killed, and only 1 of the expulsion army was killed, most likely by friendly fire.
The second "war" which anti-Mormons claim took place was started when a group of men met in a bar, painted themselves to look like Indians and killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith. 10 Mormons were killed in the Illinois expulsion, 0 people were killed by the Mormons.
How is that a war?
The Utah war is the 3rd "Mormon war" Utah was not a state when Mormons settled there, it was a Mexican territory. Mormons settled there to escape persecution.
In 1857 James Buchanan sent troops to Utah to take control of the territory. 38 of those men died. The cemetery where they are buried is only 10 minutes from my home. Most of the men died from disease, 3 committed suicide, one died from an accidental self inflicted gun wound. 2 were killed by other soldiers in fights.
There were no battles.
There was a massacre in the Mountain Meadows area of southern Utah. A group of pioneers on their way to California was attacked by a small handful of Mormon settlers and Native Americans, who mistakenly believed the group was coming for their land. This was a tragedy, but it was not any kind of coordinated war, just a few settlers and Native Americans who acted badly, and on bad information.
Skin color is not an indication of righteousness. There is a specific event in the Book of Mormon, where a group of people living between 600-500 BC is cursed with a dark skin for rebelling against God. But to extrapolate that it is "Mormon doctrine" that a dark skin is a sign of unrighteousness would be like coming to the conclusion that water is highly flammable based on the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal.
In fact, one Mormon leader did make a connection there, and included it in a book he titled "Mormon Doctrine". Though the preface of the book clearly states that he alone is responsible for its content, and he does not claim the book to be standard church doctrine, still, this idea only appears in the first printing of the book. Why? Because after the first edition came out, the unified leadership of the church asked him to remove it because it was not doctrinally sound. He agreed.
Men with colored skin serve as bishops, stake presidents (men who preside over multiple congregations), and general authorities (people who preside church wide).
The same silly anti-Mormon mumbo-jumbo that has been around forever, based on a few ancient quotes that do not represent accepted doctrine and are generally taken out of context. The term "magic underwear" is not a Mormon term, it is just a pejorative term slapped on by anti-Mormons.
"The Mormons have fought 3 wars against the US?" FALSE
The Mormons were expelled from Missouri in 1838, in part because they were mostly from the north, and were anti slavery. 21 Mormons were killed, and only 1 of the expulsion army was killed, most likely by friendly fire.
The second "war" which anti-Mormons claim took place was started when a group of men met in a bar, painted themselves to look like Indians and killed Joseph and Hyrum Smith. 10 Mormons were killed in the Illinois expulsion, 0 people were killed by the Mormons.
How is that a war?
The Utah war is the 3rd "Mormon war" Utah was not a state when Mormons settled there, it was a Mexican territory. Mormons settled there to escape persecution.
In 1857 James Buchanan sent troops to Utah to take control of the territory. 38 of those men died. The cemetery where they are buried is only 10 minutes from my home. Most of the men died from disease, 3 committed suicide, one died from an accidental self inflicted gun wound. 2 were killed by other soldiers in fights.
There were no battles.
There was a massacre in the Mountain Meadows area of southern Utah. A group of pioneers on their way to California was attacked by a small handful of Mormon settlers and Native Americans, who mistakenly believed the group was coming for their land. This was a tragedy, but it was not any kind of coordinated war, just a few settlers and Native Americans who acted badly, and on bad information.
Skin color is not an indication of righteousness. There is a specific event in the Book of Mormon, where a group of people living between 600-500 BC is cursed with a dark skin for rebelling against God. But to extrapolate that it is "Mormon doctrine" that a dark skin is a sign of unrighteousness would be like coming to the conclusion that water is highly flammable based on the story of Elijah and the priests of Baal.
In fact, one Mormon leader did make a connection there, and included it in a book he titled "Mormon Doctrine". Though the preface of the book clearly states that he alone is responsible for its content, and he does not claim the book to be standard church doctrine, still, this idea only appears in the first printing of the book. Why? Because after the first edition came out, the unified leadership of the church asked him to remove it because it was not doctrinally sound. He agreed.
Men with colored skin serve as bishops, stake presidents (men who preside over multiple congregations), and general authorities (people who preside church wide).
well I stand on what i have researched. most of my family is the LDS church and I have seen first hand the double talk they teach! do your own research on the church history, and you will find the truth..think for yourself not what the elders teach you to believe
Home | MormonZeitgeist.com | E-zine & Forums
Home | MormonZeitgeist.com | E-zine & Forums
My comment on the fact I do not care what his religion is stands, I simply do not care as I'm Agnostic and believe everyone's religion is right if they practice it according to the Holy book or text that guides them. I'm talking about established religions and not kooks or cults. Humans need religion, most anyway need some form of belief to explain the goings on around them. I'd elect a Morman, Muslim, Buddist etc. as long as he or she had no anti-American sentiments, anyone remember "Freedom of Religion". So they have the right to vote and die for our freedoms but not to run for office without judgement of their chosen religion?:doah:
Chriminy guys, this is why I will never again comment on a touchy subject such as religion or politics here. I like my debates and arguments face to face or fist to face, keystrokes not so much these days.
ut:
This thread could go south fast now that there are arguments beginning, watch out fellas.:hammer:
Chriminy guys, this is why I will never again comment on a touchy subject such as religion or politics here. I like my debates and arguments face to face or fist to face, keystrokes not so much these days.
ut: This thread could go south fast now that there are arguments beginning, watch out fellas.:hammer: