May 9, 2007

May 9, 2007
Wed May 9th 2007. Sweet Moses, this is a Dousey
Filed under: Uncategorized — jtuffy @ 10:20 am
You’ll want to read this, yes even you Spence! The honorable Sharpton takes a swipe at Mormons!



CNN Version

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/09/romney.sharpton.ap/index.html

Fox News Version

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270853,00.html



63 Comments »
Wowzers… that is just too bad. The really stupid part is that he is trying to defend himself by saying everyone is taking his statement the wrong way. He ment something besides what he said. This sounds increadably like Imus defense! According to his own statements about Imus… it doesn’t matter what you mean, only what you say. Looks like the Rev needs to practice what he preaches.

So… is he going to loose his job now? I doubt it. Did you see the statement Romney made? “I think there are differences between different faiths in this country. And there will be battles between different religions,” Romney said. “That’s a great thing about this country. We don’t decide who’s going to be in office based on what church they go to.” I think he handled it well, though I am curious to see if his campaign chooses to dwell on this (like Sharpton dwelt on Imus) or if they take the high road and move on.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 11:26 am

You know that nothing is going to happen to this monkey! There are some loose rumblings that he has had protesters killed indirectly with his rants! It is unbelievable how people lend their ears to the rantings of a lunatic, is this going back to the “you have to be extreme” to be heard? And you know Mormon’s aren’t going to raise a stink about it because we are nice people, which is how it should be, but how come the nice guy never wins the battle, (I guess the war is more important! : )

Also, what do you think of the cleavand steamers trying to plot against Fort Dix? How long are we going to keep our borders open to these flag-haters? Political correctness is killing this country, and it will probably be the end of it too, complacency!

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 11:46 am

Yea, I think most LDS people will let this thing with the Rev go… but I don’t think they all will. There are some crazies out here who love to be oppressed… gives them an excuse to defend their religion. I just wonder how big it will get and how many people will get involved. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. Either way, I hope your right Jon.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 12:11 pm

So where the heck is everyone? Thought the Smenglanator would be all over this one!

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 12:20 pm

I know, he has his “meetings”! : )

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 12:21 pm

And what about Posedown’s new job. Anyone figure out what that is all about? I bet it’s gay porn… we corupted him with all the Soul Force buisness.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 12:31 pm

its a thong-underwear model job, so he can be a banana-boat guy! LOL

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 12:50 pm

The only thing wrong with what Sharpton said was his attempts to say he was misunderstood. Think about it, it is normal for people to be threatened by Mormons. It is his right and religious obligation (I assume) to say things against a religion that is commonly considered “bad”. But still, he’s wrong for trying to back-up from it now.

I think the quote from Romney that Seth made is an example of why true Christians can’t run for office. That quote suited the political defense, but it undermined the religious defense. Obviously there is an inverse relationship here. The more politically correct you are, the less you can represent your church appropriately (meaning truthfully). If he made it into office, I think it is POSSIBLE for him to be a good example for the LDS church, but there is no way he could do it justice. In fact, he would be putting the LDS church in a vulnerable position and therefore be more likely to make people more enraged against it. However, truth is, he doesn’t have a chance anyway. He should just drop out now.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 2:17 pm

Why did you feel the need to give a Fox link and a CNN link? It was from the same Press. Did you provide the Fox link so Spence would be more likely to read it and the CNN link so Seth would be more likely to read it? Very tactful!

I don’t even understand what is meant by “he was contrasting himself with Christopher Hitchens, the atheist author he was debating at the time.” Please explain that part to me.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 2:31 pm

Michael… Are you familiar with Ezra Taft Benson at all? He was the Prophet in the late 80’s. He was also the Secretary of Agriculture for quite some time and made huge strides forward for the accaptance of the church. He just lived his religion and did the best job he could in his political office (even though it’s appointed, still very political as we have seen in Bush’s administration) and gained a tremendous amount of respect in doing this.

I don’t think you are right that you have to be PC and play all the political games to be a successful politician. I think it is easier that way… but not mandatory. People are still looking for an honest Joe they can relate too and have confidence in. You get enough people behind you and even if the political and party leadership don’t like you for refusing to play it their way… you can still get elected. I believe that government for the people by the people works… the problem today is that too many people choose to be uninformed and lazy and let others make their decisions for them.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 2:39 pm

Michael… I watch fox news as much as I watch CNN. In order to get any actual information out of the media, you have to scour both sides for the facts that they are all trying to warp to play on your emotions.

Anyone who only goes to one sorce or one side for their news falls into the catagory of people who choose to be uninformed that I was talking about in my prior post.

Also, it was funny that the CNN story talked about Romney’s responce and the Fox news story didn’t? I have been very curious to see how the “religious right” will react to Romney as a member of the LDS church? It could get hairy. I think eventualy he will get more resestance from the Reds than the Blues.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 2:46 pm

I’m willing to bet things have changed since the late 80s. Media has changed and more media has come out against Mormons. Also PC has gained a new light which isn’t so forgiving. Also, Secretary of Agriculture is a far cry from President. Lastly, Romney is an example. He was advised to respond as he did. Not by Pres. Hinkley, but by his party advisors. They did the best they could not to offend other religions which made it sound as though you can believe whatever you want. It’s your wonderful right as an American! “I’m Mormon, and that’s what WE believe!” It doesn’t work the way it SHOULD. I said I think it’s POSSIBLE to be a good example, BUT it would only be towards the people that just see him as a nice guy, and that’s about it. It wouldn’t do the LDS church justice. That may be good for the average person, but when you’re the President, people are going to get false impressions of the church since he will be the biggest example.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 2:52 pm

Fox did show Romney’s response the same as CNN. And you know what I think is more funny than people that just look to one source? The people that think they know what’s REALLY going on because they check two or more or even all sources! Now that’s funny stuff! I guess after reading all the filtered, biased news you are going to know the truth. You people amaze me!!

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 2:56 pm

You have a real comprehension problem Michael. You are so busy thinking about what you can say next to be outrageos and how you can counter what someone else is saying that you have no understanding of what they said.

And when am I gonna get an appology for your false accusations of not reading your article? Once again… you never asked if I had read it, just made assumptions.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 3:02 pm

And, pre-emptively… let me clarify. I made a mistake. Fox did show romney’s response. CNN showed the response of his campaign representative and Fox did not. I just confused the two.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 3:05 pm

LOL, I would agree that in today’s PC world, it is easier to be accepted if you just seem like you go with the flow, blown this way and that and be accepting of everything, look where that has gotten us, is the world better off now than it was 5, 10 years ago, with all the gay rights and backlash of PC sewage! I think not, everyone wants their bum powdered and everyone feels entitled. You can’t have a bad guy or good guy unless its on the silver screen! I don’t know much about Romney’s character, but he could be a really good example for the LDS church. But even if he did pull a Bill clinton, we have to remember that he doesn’t represent the church, the church is true, the people aren’t! I think this little issue actually bodes well for Romney, not a home-run hitter difference, but a positive one.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 3:06 pm

Here’s the best part, Seth. You don’t even know what truly goes on in your own church. How are you going to know what goes on in other parts of the country and world?! Mark Hofmann was an amazing example. Do you know who that is? He presents documents to President/profit (emphasis on profit) Hinkley. Hinkley deems them authentic (documents against common Mormon belief), pays big bucks for them and locks them away in a safe. Now the average Mormon can’t read or even know about them! But then, as Christians do, when all this comes out because Hofmann gets in trouble for forging many other documents in other places, the Mormons don’t fade on their belief and faith in their church and profit, even though it showed him completely and totally opposite of what the Mormons had painted him. You guys should have seen the Truth with that alone. You should have seen that you can’t even trust the PROFIT of your church! But gee wiz, we’ve still got those TRUE documents from Joseph Smith! You know, the ones HE wrote! Yeah, those MUST be true!! And especially those documents God led him to dig up!! Yeah, those have to be true for sure, no one has ever proved them wrong!!! Oh, of course no one has ever seen them either! Very convenient.

You guys are going to get mad at this, but just remember: Don’t kill the messenger just because the truth hurts.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:24 pm

Actualy, Michael… I have the ensign where they talk about the purchase of these documents and the Ensign where they talk about the fact that they were forgeries. The Church acknowledged that the documents they purchased from him were forgeries like the ones that he sold others.

Still waiting on that apology.

Comment by Seth — May 9, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

There goes DOMS beating the old horse to death. Everyone knows about this and i’m sure its a bunch of rubbish, where are you getting your information, from wikipedia? LOL. Don’t you think that if he really thought they were true, he would’ve published them as church documents? LOL, or maybe they were for his personal library collection! ROFLOL. And another point, lets say the prophet says that burger king is better than mcdonald’s, can’t he have an opinion, or are people like you elevating him above what even Mormon’s do? : )

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 3:32 pm

Again, you have to remember that Romney would represent the church if he were president. It doesn’t matter what you keep telling yourself, that the people don’t represent the church. The reality is in the mind of the beholder.

Now Seth, I really don’t believe you read the article I sent you. If you have read it, it is because you read it after I brought it up the other day. You said I needed to ask you if you read it if I wanted to know?! I guess you don’t remember me asking you about a week or so after I sent it! Don’t you think I would have enjoyed a little feedback on that? I guess you thought I just sent it to you, didn’t care what you thought about it, and just forgot about it altogether. And you say I have a comprehension problem.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:33 pm

Seth, I already highlighted the part where the church had no choice but to admit what happened! It was all over the news!!!! What am I to apologize for?

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:35 pm

Good job, Tuffy. You gave another example of making excuses for the profit. Let me put the following in big letters so it stands out for you guys: PROFIT HINKLEY PAID YOUR BIG BUCKS FOR FALSE DOCUMENTS! You don’t pay big bucks for documents you don’t believe in. You can’t get around that.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

And, I actually haven’t even looked at Wikipedia about Hofmann. But I’m sure it would work.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:38 pm

And tuffy. I hope you realize an opinion of flavor is not the same as speaking to God himself. Your excuse for Hinkley and the church is pahetic. If you can’t trust your profit, how can you follow his leadership on what God wants the church to do? You can’t.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:43 pm

Ok, first and foremost, you’ll need to discontinue the “profit” bit if you want to maintain any credibility about argumentative speech, its like cursing to make you point, it shows ignorance.

And like i stated, you don’t see these documents floating around anywhere being passed on as scripture, you don’t see the books written by the prophets and apostles being handed off as doctrine. I’m sure the parties involved know exactly what happens while outsiders just guesstimate. And if i’m giving excuses for a man of God, who are you giving excuses for? Touche! LOL

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 3:55 pm

And one more poke at Seth. You tried to put me down as the person that only tries to rebut what other people say. However, in actuality, you started this with me today. Let me explain: You gave your opinion about Sharpton and Romney. Then I gave my opinion, which had nothing to do with your opinion. Then you jumped on me saying you disagreed, which is fine. But then when I defended myself, you accused me of just trying to rebut everyone else. Think about it - maybe you’ll learn something about yourself.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 3:57 pm

What is rebut? Did you have to get new buns? : )

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 3:59 pm

Tuffy, that doesn’t make a bit of sense under all the circumstances. I don’t know what you’re talking about with being passed on as scripture and such. Those documents that Hinkley purchased defied common Mormon belief. They were meant to be hidden away. And what’s wrong with calling your profit a profit? I REALLY don’t understand that argument. Do you not say he is a PROFIT of God? If you don’t, then all the missionaries lied to me.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:01 pm

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
re·but /rɪˈbʌt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-buht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -but·ted, -but·ting.
–verb (used with object) 1. to refute by evidence or argument.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:02 pm

The rebut was a joke if you didn’t pick up on the smiley faces. And calling the prophet a profit is insulting because it is someone we esteem very dear. Its like someone we know, would you like for us to refer to Brooke as garden hoe? Because she likes to garden. There are very few people that command ultimate respect and the prophet is one of them in my opinion.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:07 pm

Oh, are you calling me on my spelling? Okay, I give you that one. I wasn’t paying close enough attention to that technical aspect. Sorry, everyone. I meant to say “prophet”.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

There we go! ding ding ding, we have a winner! LOL

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:17 pm

So you think the prophet is false because he bought some forged documents from some looney and hid them away?

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:20 pm

yeah !!! oh, sorry. Hey, Michael..when you have kids, one look in their eyes and you won’t doubt God’s existence.

Comment by Leigh Ann — May 9, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

YES! DING, DING, DING, WE HAVE ANOTHER WINNER!!

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:25 pm

Where did everyone go?

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:26 pm

home…bye!

Comment by Leigh Ann — May 9, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

I should have said “weaner” so you guys knew I was refering to tuffy’s comment, not the entrance of Leigh Ann.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:27 pm

And yet he never tried to make them church doctrine?

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:28 pm

But I explained that those documents defied the Mormon faith. They were meant to be hidden away. It was bad for business for you to know about it!

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:30 pm

so they took forged false documents and bought them to get them out of the hands of people that believe everything they read in print or on the tv, mmmmmmmmmhhhh. I don’t see the harm in that.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

Seth, I think it is very comical that you referred to your ONE source for the Hofmann incident - Ensign. How did you feel when you first read it? I’m sure they really printed a biased report that really disguised the full impact.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:33 pm

Tuffy, please. Quit while you’re only 100 points behind. I don’t see Hinkley paying off every author that has evidence of the church being false. If he knew the documents were false, then he wouldn’t worry about it. He wouldn’t give Hofmann enough money to make him rich numerous times. Stop kidding yourself.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:37 pm

i’m just saying, we don’t know the details.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:38 pm

so let me ask you something, where did you hear about this

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:39 pm

We know enough.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:40 pm

And you’re right about not knowing the details. It just goes back to not even knowing what truly happens in your own church. You can’t trust anyone. If there was nothing to hide, then you’d know ALL the details.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:41 pm

who says there is something to hide, not me.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

I think Seth must have crawled up into the fetal position in the corner after calling him out.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:44 pm

You said you don’t know all the details. Either you don’t know because you refuse to learn, or you don’t know because you ONLY listen to your church, which hides them.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:45 pm

I saw an AE American Justice episode to learn about Hofmann. If you don’t know, that’s a good show giving police, news, convict, and witness reports. I then surfed the internet on the matter. I saw NOTHING to support the Mormons in all my searches other than excuses like yours which just can’t discount the impact on the churches standings. Trust me, if this were the Baptist church, which only business men run, then it’d be easier to defend.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:49 pm

Ah, i see, you were searching for a sign, well we know what Joseph Smith said about sign seekers. : ) So you are going to side with the media on this one, even though clearly seth already mentioned that the leaders have already addressed it, did you read that? I didn’t think so. Jon 1 Michael 0 LOL

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:55 pm

Funny. I don’t REMEMBER exactly what was said by the church. Why don’t you refer me to a place where I can read it again…

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 4:57 pm

You’ll have to ask seth on that one! Jon 2 Michael 0

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 4:57 pm

i’ll have to admit that gears of war was pretty fun last night, especially towards the end, you just need to get used to the funky controls and the pure dumb luck of the delayed shooting!

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

Seth can’t type from the fetal position as you can. +10 Michael!

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

I think we need to invite more people on this blog, since cameron and spence have gone the way of the pinto.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 5:01 pm

Did you stay on after I left?

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 5:02 pm

I think gears is fun too most of the time. But I still don’t want to play it solely. Halo can’t be substituted.

Comment by Michael — May 9, 2007 @ 5:03 pm

No, i thought i left before you did.

Comment by jtuffy — May 9, 2007 @ 5:04 pm

Ok Michael, I have to say something. I know you guys won’t like that I’m writing on this page as opposed to the “cheatin’ wives” page, but I have to say something. I get bored every once in a while and so I read your posts and I have kept quiet as long as humanly possible…I don’t understand why an atheist would care what his friends believe. According to my understanding, Atheists don’t really believe in God right? or the afterlife? So whether your friends believe in God or not shouldn’t really matter, should it? They’ll end up in the same place after they die no matter what, nowhere, right? Well then, why are you so adamant about putting down everything they believe in. The way you talk about their beliefs is very belittling and disrespectful. It just seems to me that if you were a real friend you would let them believe what they want and respect that, not try to convince them that what they believe isn’t true. Whether you are right or not, I think we would all choose this life and this religion because it makes us happy and you should respect that.

Comment by JennyTowns — May 9, 2007 @ 7:16 pm

Michael you are amazing!!! The truth comes out. You arn’t atheist. You arn’t inactive in the mormon church because of all the rubbish you have told us. You were dumb enough to keep reading all the anti mormon crap you could find untill eventually you believed it. Unbelievable. You are a real piece of work. You should atleast have the integrity to be honest with your friends. Obviously I can understand how you would be ashamed of that being the reason. I mean really all the anti crap is so silly. I mean it takes a real smuck to fall for it. The documents probably were to be hidden away so that ignorant don’t get confused and fall away. But like Jon said the church or us arn’t hiding anything. the church has a huge(bigger than you can imagine) collection of papers, articles, books ect…. The church has not only true reigious books, but also false doctrine books. Man I have thought once or twice before that you had probably gotten to the point where you are at by letting a coupld of jehovah’s witnesses in who fed you full of a bunch of anti mormon crap, But I gave you the benifit of the doubt on it. You have created such an elaborate story as to your reasons. When in reality its all a lie. I am such a fool for not figuring this out earlier. That anti stuff is so silly. But I know that once you let satan in and you start looking at it you can be led astray. If it didn’t work Satan wouldn’t use it. Well I guess you have probably gotten lots of enjoyment out of us on this one. you’ve gotten us to spend hours trying to help you with lie’s. Wasting our time talking about things that aren’t even issues for you. All because you were too embarrased to tell us you were fooled by a couple of JW’s. So you know, if you brought up this topic hoping to instigate many more conversations about your true reasons for ditching the LDS church I am not interested. Talking about Anti Mormon stuff is a complete waste of time. You will never be able to find the truth until you forget about that crap and start seaking the truth again. Obviously you arn’t going to convince any of us to believe any of that ignorant rubish. And I know from lots of experience that we can’t convince someone who is as far down that path as you must be. So don’t come on here trying to mention any of that crap. I won’t have it. When you decide you are ready to actually start seaking the truth again let me know, and we can discuss it.

Spencer

Comment by Frodo Baggins — May 10, 2007 @ 12:41 am

After a long absence… i return.

I appreciate your comments jenny. Michael, it is definitely below you to refer to someone we respect as a prophet as the “profit.” it is a tactic used by people that i have read that are against the church and it is a cheap attack. so, because you didn’t come up with it yourself and because you don’t say why you are calling him that, it is below your intellect and if you were really going to make an attack on the prophet i would expect something more put together.

the prophet is someone we love and respect and if you love and respect us, you could at least refrain from disrespecting him. not that we have always done a good job of respecting what you present to us, but maybe this is a lesson for all of us.

as well, if you are really interested in this document thing, why not ask instead of accusing. what kind of response did you expect? when did this blog become a battle ground?

side note, i don’t think i know leigh ann. introductions? leigh ann, it’s nice to meet you. i ran around with these kids in high school.

slaughter house five. i’ve got it. i’m half way through. we need to make our own page or something so that a cohesive discussion can ensue. or maybe a conference call. for now - i notice a constant theme of futility. in almost everything he states, in symbolism, in tone, in syntax. futility. thoughts?

alright, gotta run.

Comment by The Scam — May 10, 2007 @ 9:37 am