138 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
Man, DKL, I really hope you’re right this time. I want a Romney/Obama competition. But, alas, you have proved yourself to be a fallible prophet before. I was curious about one thing: Cuban immigrants. I figured that with five sons, Mitt had to have at least one who had served in a Spanish-speaking mission. BINGO! Craig served in Chile. His Spanish is pretty dang good. He has a cute little ad extolling Romney’s virtues which ends, “How do I know? Mitt is my father.” Then MItt comes on in not-so-good Spanish, and says, “Soy Mitt Romney, y apruebo este mensaje.” I had understood that Crist was very popular with Cuban immigrants and so could sway many to vote McCain. I hope a SPANISH-SPEAKING Romney will compensate. (Craig’s ad is on You-tube.) |
I’m feeling feisty tonight, so I’ll add my predictions: McCain might win or come in 2nd, but he’s in it through Super Tuesday for sure. The media have already elected him, for what that’s worth. Romney – could totally take it, prompting the media to say he and McCain are tied by each winning a major primary, but reminding everyone that SC counts for more than FL in chutzpah if not actual delegates. I further predict that if Romney takes FL, every other candidate is going to whine about his wealth and that they couldn’t “buy” the nomination. I predict Huckabee will stay in the race until McCain tells him veep isn’t going to happen, but maybe a nice ambassador role. When his campaign runs out of money (hasn’t it already?), he’ll be forced to live off Romney’s discarded chicken skins and will regain the 110 lbs but consider it a moral victory. Guiliani will stay with it until Super Tuesday, and will spin the 3rd place as a strong lead into CA where it “really matters” (it always “really matters” in the next place you haven’t lost). |
Margaret Young, I’m sorry, but if you serve in Chile you are likely to have horrible Spanish. Colombia is the place to go for developing great Spanish skills. This is my opinion based on listening to lots of South American grad students in my Portuguese classes and based on having brothers that served in each of those countries. |
Hey don’t knock the Van Buren boys. |
Romney would love for a weakened Guiliani to stay in the race through Super Tuesday. Especially if Hickaboob is still in the race. Whether or not Romney wins FL, he’s still a contender through Super Tuesday. CA will go to Romney. |
Nate C, McCain currently has a big lead in California. However, California, unlike Florida, is not winner-take-all, so Romney is likely to do pretty well there if he can keep his momentum going. Romney needs momentum to compete against McCain’s name recognition and the fawning treatment he gets from the media. Giuliani really miscalculated with his “big states only” strategy. It kind of makes me wonder whether he really wanted to be president or not. The sooner Huckabee drops off the national stage the better. |
I predict McCain will win Florida tomorrow because: 1. He’ll gain the votes of Evangelical Huck supporters and national-security-conscious Giuliani supporters who have been told by the media that this is a 2-man race. They’ll be pragmatic and vote for McCain, the moderate, non-Mormon, Iraq War supporter. 2. There was a definite uptick in the votes for McCain following the Crist endorsement. McCain might have the moderates behind him, but he just got an increase in voters–perhaps these were the undecided moderates or the former Huck/Giuliani voters. Either way, the bump for McCain was real. 3. InTrade market predictions favor McCain with a 55% chance of winning compared to 45% for Romney. I wish it weren’t so. |
I predict McCain will win Florida with Romney second and Huckabee third and Giuliani fourth. At least Giuliani will finally beat Ron Paul. heh. |
One quetion: Why do all the other Republicans hate Romney? It seems to go beyond the “stong opponent” kind of ribbing. |
Good assessment DKL, especially the part about McCain. I’ve seen a lot of posters and lawn signs for Giuliani, Romney and Ron Paul, but very, very few for John McCain and none at all for Mike Huckabee. It’ll be a tough call. |
Two latest polls in this morning:
Both of these have Romney up by 2%, which is well within the margin of error. McCain is ahead by 4% in the latest Zogby poll, which has a margin of error of 3.3%. Aside from that, neither candidate has had a lead outside the margin of error since Rassmussen showed Romney up by 6% on Sunday (January 26). Braynard, btw, is a political consultant who mostly does internal polling for campaigns. He releases public polls for hard-to-call races to promote his polling methodology, which is different from the methodology used by other polling outfits, and it seems to work quite well. Braynard was the only pollster who called the Steele vs. Cardin race in Maryland for US Senate. Braynard had Steele, a black Republican, losing by 10% and received only 12% of the black vote. Zogby, Survey USA, Mason-Dixon, Baltimore Sun had the race much closer and predicted that Steele would get as much as 20% of the black vote. |
Though I support Romney, this statement made by Jon Voight yesterday while he was campaigning for Giuliani makes me wish that Giuliani weren’t doing so poorly:
I’m not a New Yorker, but I’m an Easterner who has frequently visited New York as a youth and as an adult. I can vouch for the fact that pre-Giuliani New York was a filthy, unpleasant, and sleazy city. New York had been on the decline for decades. It seemed inevitable. The consensus was that New York was ungovernable. Giuliani change New York in ways that nobody thought were possible. Perhaps it’s too much to say that he changed New York forever, but Giuliani did for governing New York what Roger Bannister did for the 4 minute mile: He showed that it was possible. |
Interesting predictions DKL – I hope you are right, but I fear a McCain win which will likely doom Romney given the already strong name recognition McCain has. |
I think Mitt takes it tomorrow. Over the past week or so, Mitt’s momentum has been building. I think that carries through tomorrow putting him over the top. I also think that Giulliani will do better than expected, and that this will come primarily at McCain’s expense. Between those two factors, I think Mitt wins. At that point, the key will be whether Mitt can turn that (likely narrow) win into momentum nationally with just a week to Super Tuesday. |
BTD Greg, Don’t get me wrong, a Florida win from Romney would bring him momentum. My point is that this will be decided on Super Tuesday and right now there are too many variables to call the winner. Macy, I just bought Romney at 47. |
McCain commented this morning that Mitt has attacked all his fellow Republicans, an unspoken no-no in the game. It may be because all of them took snipes at him and not each other, however it’s making him look bad. I, too, have been noticing how the media has been spending more time talking about other candidates than Romney and it almost feels like an agreed-upon agenda. Thoughts? |
I agree with your predictions DKL, though your track record isn’t great so I won’t be lying down any bets on this one. I’m a little surprised you think undecideds will vote Romney though. I feel they’d be more likely to go with McCain after the Crist endorsement and McCain having a very slight edge in the polls. Still, I think McCain and Romney will be neck and neck through the evening, then one taking it be only one or two percent. I also think Romney has to win Florida to stay strong in the race. McCain already has the momentum, and Romney needs to get it back. |
Giuliani has been making noises about dropping out. Too bad the wait until late strategy didn’t work. I had hoped for something that diluted the early momentum importance of Iowa and New Hampshire. |
#9/a spectator: It’s not that they hate Romney, per se. Each man brings certain perceived strengths, and voters choose among them. They all bring definite flaws to their candidacy; consequently we have no frontrunner at this point. Regarding the “strong opponent” you suggest about Romney, all head-to-head polls show Romney losing in a race against either Hillary or Obama. McCain, though, is tied against Obama and ahead of Hillary by 2 percent. |
Just based on him slapping down the Saudi prince after 9/11 by rejecting the $10 million, I would not be unhappy had Giuliani been elected (I expect him to withdraw from the race soon). |
Speaking of elections, anyone know why our church doesn’t allow buildings to be used as polling places? Recently the christian church where we’ve voted for years decided that it was too much of a disruption for their preschool, and our church was asked to take it over. Our bishop was all for it (thought it would be a great opportunity to have people come in the doors; we’re not in an LDS area), but it was vetoed up the line. So we’re voting at a Jewish synagogue across the street. |
Naismith–since you’re in a non-LDS area, you don’t have the same dynamica as we here in Utah do. We get inappropriate political prods all over the place, and stake presidents have to really be on their toes to let people know that we actually do believe in a separation of Church and State. I remember somebody saying, “Well, as the Republican Party says–no wait a minute, I mean, as the Church says–I just get them so confused sometimes: the party and the Church.” Then there are talks prefaced by, “I know we’re not supposed to do campaigning during Sacrament meeting, but this issue is a moral one and I just have to say this…” Or the veiled, “Well SOME people who might be running for office are out there saying…” When a church has to make a public statement that it’s okay to be a Democrat and a Mormon, that tells you something. And the center of the Church is here, so the problems in Utah will inevitably affect what happens where you are. Sorry. (And I do mean that.) |
The early numbers are pointing to a McCain win in Florida. With 12% reporting in, McCain is leading by 14,000 votes. That’s a lot. |
DKL – I think your man crush on Romney is clouding your judgment. Don’t feel too bad though, it is easy to get lost in his eyes… Interesting that when exits show conservatives voting in higher numbers and the economy as the number one issue that people picked McCain. (if economy and conservatism were my priorities I’d've voted Romney). |
Here’s a prediction: Rush Limbaugh will endorse Romney on Thursday. |
So it looks like it’ll be McCain this fall. I can’t see Romney recovering from this. |
Let’s see, on January 20th on DKL’s “Wrong Again” thread, I said: “In fact, I’ll prophesy here on this thread that McCain will come in 1st in FL. That way if I’m wrong, you can call me a false prophet too.” Unfortunately, once again DKL’s prophecy fails and mine proves out. It seems the main reasons for this continuing phenomenon are: (1) DKL constantly allows himself to be misled by his own obviously wishful thinking, and (2) DKL’s basic political world-view is so twisted and unaligned with reality that it is not an accurate predictor of reality. You’re a nice guy, DKL, and a smart guy; I like you and can’t deny that you’re a very interesting character; but you are totally wrong about everything political. It doesn’t matter how smart a person is: false assumptions in, wrong results out — as we keep seeing. I was really hoping Romney would pull it out in Florida, because he’s such an obviously weak candidate — as this loss illustrates. Romney spent 5 times the amount of money on advertising that McCain spent, and he still lost. |
In my effort to be candid and gracious, I’ve tried to avoid chest-thumping, so I’ve emphasized my failures and left my correct predictions to speak for themselves. Mark that as one more area where I’ve predicted the wrong outcome, John. Anyway, I’m typing this on my wife’s computer, because hard drive on my laptop went belly-up today, making the clicking sound on the inside that indicates the stepper-motor failed. That’s going to take me out of action for the next few days, and someone else will have to post a clean-up thread on the Florida primary. So in top of all the other things I’m wrong about, I evidently bought the wrong laptop, too. |
Yes, I’m not being magnanimous. However, I’m reacting here to your false statement: “Democrats are cowards, and Americans know it.” That’s hardly gracious behavior. |
Was it a Mac or a PC? |
Should have got a Mac. It doesn’t really whether Romney or McCain win. Although as I see it the nomination process is basically over at this stage. In either case both are very weak candidates and unlikely to beat Obama or Clinton, whomever wins. Even if you like Bush, you have to admit that he and the Republican leadership of the last few years have really screwed up and over the Republican party. The chances of a Republican winning this year were low to begin with. With the candidates we were given they were even lower. I liked Romney at first. But by pandering too much he turned off far too many people. Also it was just hard for a Governor with his record to ever have a hope at winning the nomination. Overall though Romney’s big problem was how he communicated himself. Like Kerry who got the flip-flopper label perhaps a bit unfairly, Romney was unable to get our from under the label. At this stage, even though I can’t stand her, I’m hoping Clinton wins just because I think she’s less extreme on foreign policy than Obama. She’ll definitely be far more pragmatic. I think overall McCain would be better simply because I think he’d do better on Iraq. But as I said I don’t think he has a hope of winning. Economic-wise Romney probably would have been best. But I think Presidential effects on the economy are more about not screwing things up too badly. I think their actual effect is vastly over-exaggerated in a free economy. |
#27, Nice job, buddy. You pick tails because the other guy picked heads. Then tails comes up and you rub the guys face in it? Show some class. |
“You’re a nice guy, DKL, and a smart guy” Ah? Smart? He isn’t getting much right though. Anyway I’m glad that Romney’s lost and probably finished. It may bring back some peace to the mormon world by taking us of the spotlight for a while. And also I’m glad he lost because Romneys’ policies would hurt a lot of families especially from Miami and the US Hispanic world. I know of people in Miami, mormons and illegal who use dead peoples ID’s, who have been praying and hoping that Romney doesn’t win. They have teenage children now born in the US, and who therefore can stay, but the parents aren’t legal so Romney would force them out one way or another, and force them to leave their kids in Miami since those kids are foreigners in El Salvador. Little wonder the Florida Hispanic vote went to McCain. At least he offers some hope to illegals who work and pay taxes like everyone else. And at least during the general election campaign people won’t be saying that Mormons are racists because of our past with blacks, and that now Mormons hate latinos because Romney wants to get rid of them, even though they have always cut his lawn. |
Good point Nate. Plus, let’s be honest. DKL isn’t much worse than the talking heads at most networks. Dang. Is it just me or are pundits completely useless? Most blogs I read have more accuracy than the “professionals.” And then folks wonder why the public doesn’t take the media more seriously? On the other hand that is damning DKL with faint praise. |
#32: Dear buddy, the political discussions on this board haven’t been classy, as we clearly saw on the thread “Guess Who’ll Say or Do Anything to Get Elected (Hint: John McCain).” But, as your party’s frontrunner says, that’s how pig wrestling works. You can identify me as the pig, but in truth I am merely reacting to the environment of the mud. And #33: Yes, this election has defied a lot of conventional wisdom and the pundits and polls have often been wrong. I’ve actually predicted the winner in every GOP primary or caucus this season — so I guess I should keep hold of this lucky heads/tails coin I am using. On the Democratic side, I admit that I did not predict Hillary’s comeback in NH — no doubt that was wishful thinking on my part. |
I don’t think any of this matters anymore. Clearly a democrat will win the general election. After tonight it apears it will be Hillary. |
Why after tonight? Florida means nothing. Next Tuesday will decide the democratic nominee. However I agree it will most likely be Hilary. The big question is whether the cracks in the party that the Clinton’s have created will be easily repairable. (Short of making Obama VP) |
I wouldn’t be too sure about Hillary. The Florida result is meaningless since there was no campaigning there and no delegates were at stake. I’m sensing a big wave for Obama. It’s just a question of whether it will peak in time. |
“I’ve actually predicted the winner in every GOP primary or caucus this season” Yeah, I guess when you call both heads and tails, it makes it pretty difficult to lose. “so I guess I should keep hold of this lucky heads/tails coin I am using.” Is the coin lucky? Or is it just because you keep flipping your coin until all of the polling data comes in? |
Looks like we’ll end up with a Senator for president. Ugh. |
Re #39: As for the Michigan Primary, when Romney lost New Hampshire I was watching the returns with a bunch of Democratic friends. I immediately said, “that clinches it — we need to vote for Romney in our primary.” The Democratic party leader in Michigan who had encouraged Democrats statewide to vote for McCain in 2000 — causing Bush’s humiliating defeat here — unfortunately had a different calculus. He encouraged Democrats in the 2008 primary to cross over as mischief-makers to support Huckabee. I posted that news to DKL with the statement “it’s not going to happen,” meaning that my plan to get Democrats to vote for Romney was apparently too complex and was not going to happen. Fortunately, Kos from the DailyKos blog intervened and encouraged Democrats in Michigan to vote for Romney. I and all my Democratic friends in Michigan did so. It may not seem like a big deal to you guys — since you guys more or less predicted Romney would win every state (or that he would at least come in 2nd when he came in a humiliating 4th) — my ultimate call that Mitt would win Michigan was viewed as pretty ballsy. When I made my pick to historian Newell Bringhurst, who is writing a book on Mormons who have run for president, he was very dubious. In fact, most non-Mormon, non-Republicans thought I would be caught with my pants down. But Mitt ended up proving me right, with the help of my vote and those of all my Democratic friends in this state. I do hope he’s not totally wiped out yet. At the very least, one can say that the other rivals like Guiliani are certainly gone. |
Giuliani is out, thank heavens. The one person I thought would be a complete disaster is in no danger of gaining power, so I’m happy. Of those left, on both sides of the aisle, I think they’ll all do just fine. In terms of personal lives, Clinton and McCain are both unsavory, but I’m not married to either so I can live with that if they do a good job in the office, and they probably would. |
I don’t know if anyone has seen this story on MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22896871/ but it was so sad to hear someone give, ““The honest truth? Because he’s a Mormon,†as a reason not to vote for Romney. I don’t support Romney, either, but there are many, many other reasons why. |
To Naismith: I understand COMPLETELY why someone would be “honest” about why they wouldn’t vote for Romney….”Because he’s a mormon.” Come out of your overprotected cave and face it brother. “Mormon” is a dangerous thing for this country and IF Mitt were to be elected, we would be spiritually doomed as a nation to be represented by a leader who belongs to a cult like LDS…(or any other cult for that matter). Thank God for this and MANY other reasons not to support such a candidate. We have freedom of religion, so let him continue his quest in whatever faith he likes, but let’s not put this Christian nation under someone so anti Christian. Maybe there’s hope after all. |
Thanks for the insightful commentary Ronald. |
With Giuliani and Thompson out of the race, with Huckabee as a fringe candidate with absolutely no chance, and with McCain as a “Moderate” on the wrong side of several ostensibly make-or-break GOP issues, why is Romney doing so bad? He is the only viable, truly conservative/republican candidate left standing, (and on top of all that, he has better organization and tons more resources than McCain) and yet nobody of any import appears to be endorsing or backing him. No key Republican, and no major talk-radio pundit seems to want to fully embrace him. And all of the other candidates in the race seem to despise him, while Guiliani and Huckabee seem to love and respect McCain. Furthermore, most of the media, whether liberal or conservative, seems to gush when speaking of McCain, but maintain their cool, media-neutral reserve when speaking of Romney. Someone explain why this is? Is is his reputation for being less than honest, a flip-flopper. Or is the elephant in the room his Mormonism? Or are there other factors? I don’t get it. |
Matt said: “Someone explain why this is? Is is his reputation for being less than honest, a flip-flopper. Or is the elephant in the room his Mormonism? Or are there other factors? I don’t get it.” I don’t get it either. Even as a slightly left-of-center moderate who favors a Democratic president, I’ve been impressed by Romney the more I see and hear him. Given a choice between him and McCain as president, I think he would do a much better job. To be honest, I think his problem is that he appears too perfect. I mean, he got married to his high school sweetheart, had five sons who are all married with kids and appear to be as clean cut as their dad. He graduated from both the business and the law programs at Harvard and went on to make millions. He’s the embodiment of the American Dream. And yet I think people don’t like him because they want a mediocre, everyman President. And Mitt Romney, try as he may, will never come across as the everyman. |
As a moderate (though my views on Iraq and torture put me to the extreme left), I will say that Romney shifted hard right and began taking on unsavory views, for a moderate. John McCain, however, has fairly consistently been a moderate. When push comes to shove, the more moderate part of the Republican spectrum went to McCain over the shifting Romney. |
For the religious right, Mormons are the desperate girl they’ll take home for sex after closing time, but that they’d never, ever take home to meet the parents. Mormons like to pretend that similar views on social values means that conservative Christians respect us and our values. The reality is, they’ll take our votes, but we’ll NEVER get anything approaching mutual respect from them. Read #44! It’s the most honest statement about Christian views of Mormons I’ve seen on a Mormon blog this political season. Don’t ever, ever underestimate how much they despise our faith. Non-Mormons who insert their religious beliefs into the political arena will never support a Mormon, regardless of what an exemplary person and Christian s/he is. Expecting to win these votes based on shared values was Mitt’s biggest strategic mistake. |
Matt, the problem is that a lot of the base aren’t convinced Romney is a true conservative. He just doesn’t have the history. The fact that, primarily because of his own missteps, he became labeled as a panderer and opportunist, made a lot of folks deeply suspicious. Many last spring were praying for Thompson but I think most of us were deeply shocked at how poor a campaigner he was. And, after Bush’s inability to get out and communicate a message, that made Thompson unappealing. The sad fact is that there wasn’t a single compelling candidate this year. The mere fact Romney appeared to be the best conservative shows how poor the field really was. |
I tend to agree with Ann. Personally, I am hoping that a significant number of LDS reconsider their allegiance to the Republican Party and consider the possibility of voting for Obama. He has included religious tolerance in his unifying message and he has made a particular effort to reach out to the LDS church. He called Elder Monson to express his condolences after President Hinckley’s death and he tried to lay the groundwork in Nevada for courting LDS voters should Romney not receive the Republican nomination. Can you even imagine Huckabee doing that? |
Clark, I get that. Whether he’s a “true conservative” or not, he’s more conservative than McCain and the only candidate, at this point, with a snowball’s chance in hell of besting McCain. It just seems that we can hang lables or highlight problem issues with the other candidates. But for whatever reason, people seem to dwell on Romney’s issues and excuse or overlook the other candidate’s issues. It’s the likeability factor I wonder about. People don’t seem to *like* Romney. Maybe dpc (#47) is onto something with his “too perfect” or “not an everyman” thesis. It seems Romney is running against a three-headed monolith in the form of McCain-Guiliani-Huckabee. Huckabee should bow out, but staying in the race certainly favors McCain. I sometimes wonder if Huckabee is staying in just to piss off Romney. |
Who wants to elect an “everyman”? We’ve got an average person (though lucky enough to be born into a powerful family) running the country right now and he’s been a disaster. I want to be ruled by the elite! |
Has DKL stated how he intends to vote if it comes down to McCain or Hillary? I think I’ve heard Rush Limbaugh say he might choose to not vote if McCain got the nomination. I’m supposing DKL is of a similar mind. |
#49/Ann: The Florida exit polls don’t bear out your analysis. See here: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#FLREP Although the Evangelicals in South Carolina gave Huckabee the win there, in Florida, he split the Evangelical votes with McCain and Romney. Furthermore, he garnered the most Protestant votes. Where he fared poorly against McCain was amongst the atheists or those who never attend church. |
a random john said: Who wants to elect an “everymanâ€? We’ve got an average person (though lucky enough to be born into a powerful family) running the country right now and he’s been a disaster. I want to be ruled by the elite! I think it’s more ‘everyman’ versus ‘successful’ than ‘everyman’ versus ‘the elite’. For whatever reason, business success usually does not translate into political success. I’m hard-pressed to think of anyone who was a successful business person and was able to parley that success into winning a Presidential election, at least in recent history |
dpc, So you’re claiming that GWB is a business person but not a successful one? I’d agree with that. His career mirrors Romney’s except that he got worse grades, only has one Harvard degree, did not do well in business and wasn’t as successful of a governor. Also W has the added advantage of a father that ran for president and won. |
a random John, GWB relied more on his connection to the Republican establishment and Evangelicals rather than rely on his business credentials. No one mentioned his successful investment in the Texas Rangers much while he was running for President (although people were aware of it). Plus W had blemishes on his record; the worst that can be said about Romney is that he is a ‘flip-flopper.’ |
“Someone explain why this is? Is is his reputation for being less than honest, a flip-flopper. Or is the elephant in the room his Mormonism? Or are there other factors? I don’t get it.” Since he started his campaign, I’ve thought he was trying to run a 2002 campaign in 2008, with his praise of GWB, his support of the war, and stuff like saying he wanted to double Guantanamo. He lost my vote based on that alone. I think his mannerism and speaking style seem condescending and phony to many people. My mom’s neighbor, up in Utah, says Romney reminds him of the people from church who come by and act all friendly when they’re really just trying to get him to come back to church. |
I really want to see Romney go after McCain in the debate tonight. McCain is at his worst when he is at the top–as we saw last Spring and in the post NH debates. Mac is vulnerable on many issues–immigration, economy, etc. My hope, however, is that Romney goes beyond the obvious and gets personal (as McCain has now done) and attacks (it will be the first time) McCain’s negative campaigning hypocrisy as well as the political Cronyism (recent endorsements) upon which McCain is so dependent. Mitt also needs to let Ron Paul become an ally in the debate against McCain and Huckabee–who will unify their attack against Romney. Now is the time to lay it on the line and make some headlines. |
I’d prefer to just see Romney call it quits. There’s no way he can win at this stage. Get McCain ready for battling the Clintons (or in the remote chance, Obama). |
Thanks Ann. Sorry to the rest of you who think I’m simply a “mormon basher”. I would rather have an atheist as president, then at least there would be a CHANCE of him/her coming to know the saving grace of Jesus, therefore becoming Heaven bound. There’s no chance Romney will ever see the light as it truly shines. On the other hand, someone else in this blog mentioned that they wish Mitt would just get out of the race so that the “spotlight” would be off the mormon faith. Actually, my sincere hope is that after all this light has been shone on the man and his faith, more mormons will have the ultimate courage to really dig into what it is they have been led to believe, and thus will truly find Christ, as your now dead leader knows all too well now. |
Ronald, don’t you have a veteren’s funeral somewhere to picket? |
Sure Ronald ‘baptist’ P, I want the spotlight off us so we can go back to the normal mormon life of making Gods out of ordinary & faiful people. Romney may be wrong on some policies but he can change them (which goes to his strengths) but one thing is certain, and that is that he will be a full participant of “the light as it truly shines”. You, my friend (as McCain says), will only ever get to see that light from a distance. Now don’t get me wrong here, if you know the saving grace of Jesus you are probably heaven bound, my friend, to live with Jesus. But Romney will not only live with Jesus but also have everything that Jesus has because he will be a God too! Amen |
Ronald P, Please pick a name and stick to it. Also, please try to stay on topic. Once again, there are other posts on this very blog where your favorite lines of discussion would be more appropriate. |
Ronald P, your false religion will land you in hell. I truly pity the fate of your soul. Too many valuable souls — sons and daughters of our Eternal Father — have been fooled by Satan exactly as you have been and will suffer the exquisite pain of eternal damnation exactly as you will. Not only will you be turned over to the buffetings of Satan, but Jesus will smite you again and again, because that’s just what he does to people like you. But it doesn’t need to be so. There is truth within Christianity, and it’s name is Mormonism. If you can say unto Satan, “Get thee behind me,” then it will be through Mormonism that you will learn to love Jesus and experience His saving grace, instead of using Jesus as your tool to whack away at the faiths of others. It is my sincerest hope that one day, you’ll wake up, get out of bed, take a shower, get a job, and join the Mormon church. Missionaries are standing by. |
Ronald P, “and thus will truly find Christ, as your now dead leader knows all too well now.” So, how often do you talk to dead people? And how’s Joseph doing over there in the spirit world, does he have a car, computer, tv? |
McCains debate performance tonight was reprehensible. Among other It’s just that I would prefer that the nominee of my party get elected I’m sure Romney would have appreciated having the endorsements of most |
Bob Beckel predicts that McCain will have to chose Romney for VP due to the delegate count. (foxnews) Strange world the political one. |
“I’d prefer to just see Romney call it quits. There’s no way he can win at this stage. Get McCain ready for battling the Clintons (or in the remote chance, Obama).”–Clark I’m not so sure about that. America will be thoroughly sick of both parties’ nominees by November, ten long, painful months from now. If one of the parties held off in selecting a single candidate a couple months longer than the other and kept Americans’ attention spread among several possible nominees, then that party’s candidate could be the one people are less sick of. Didn’t work for Rudy, though, did it? |
Well, as the great author and great-great grand daughter of Brigham Young would say…..”check out our website and learn the truth”. http://www.utlm.org/ Funny that Brig’s FAMILY found the ONE true light, and it wasn’t from Joe Smith nor the book of mormon. A “God” huh? More like a cohort of satan himself. |
John Mansfield, #70, Exactly. Ten months ago, Mr. Giuliani was the Republican front-runner. Now he is thankfully out of it. A lot can happen in ten months. |
Ronald P, Anyway,let me ask you a couple of questions : Second question: If a person or being is assured of getting to heaven(saved by FAITH ALONE or by GRACE) or is already living in heaven,is it possible for him to lose his heavenly abode? |
Ronald, You know, you’re not doing anything right now to convince anyone here to follow you. Your message may be right (though it really isn’t), but you’re coming off quite hateful. Why should I throw my lot with your kind? |
Ronald – do you prefer Jonathan Edwards’s or Charles Finney’s understanding of how to be saved? (Hint: You can’t say both.) |
Way to ruin a perfectly good political thread with religion. ;) |
#69: Democrats have been hoping Romney would be the nominee; so for Democrat strategist Beckel, the next best thing is Romney as VP. Whoever McCain chooses to run as VP will be someone the Democrats can target hard since he will very likely be the one running in 2012 (who wants a 74-year-old president?). |
Ronald P., you need to get out more. Seriously, is the Utah Lighthouse Ministry the best you can muster? You’re talking to the guy who wrote Jerald Tanner’s obituary for the bloggernacle. Try reading the truth sometime, if you’ve got the stomach for it. And you’ve got things backwards. We Mormons believe that we can save our ancestors, not our descendants. Brigham Young can’t be held responsible for every crack-pot idea that his great-great grandchildren come up with. |
I don’t think Ronald P is very familiar with Ezekiel 18 |
Wow, #66 just takes my breath away. So much hate. |
#80, Hate? I don’t think so. I see indignation. n. strong displeasure at something considered unjust, offensive, insulting, or base; righteous anger. |
Macy #77. Dems have been hoping McCain will be the nominee. They have dirt on him that will be trotted out once he gets the republican nomination. McCain is the one that they think they can most easily beat. If McCain gets the republican nomination, then I hope he wins. Kind of like how given a choice between eating a dog biscuit or dog poop, I’d choose the dog biscuit. |
tiredmormon: Wow, #66 just takes my breath away. So much hate. Really? I thought it was pretty funny! It’s chock full of gems like: “Jesus will smite you again and again, because that’s just what he does to people like you.” So I’ll let you in on my secret: It’s a Mormon parody of the Evangelical practice of “witnessing,” which (as I’m sure you’re aware) Evangelicals always offer under the pretense of love and the utmost concern for our souls and our spiritual welfare. Perhaps this hatred you insist on reading into my joke tells us more about what you see in Mormonism than what I mean by my comment. |
http://bycommonconsent.com/2006/10/obituary-jerald-tanner#comment-70855 got my attention when you mentioned the Tanners. I also like the rejoinder: “Mike, it’s all about decorum and context. DKL wrote a fine obituary, one respectful of the dead. You should know better than to post mudslinging comments about Jerald Tanner on his obituary, even if your analyses are correct.” Not to mention the penultimate comment in the thread: “The Catholics wrote the Bible?” Back to political attacks and analysis. http://ethesis.blogspot.com/2008/01/political-attack-add.html |
Glad to hear it was a joke, DKL. I just assumed it was an insult because your posts are rarely without them. What is really humorous is your attempt at armchair psychology. Maybe you should stick to “witnessing.” |
tiredmormon, I don’t think that my attempt at armchair psychology is humorous at all. Perhaps you’re the one who should stick to “witnessing.” |
Bookslinger: I agree that there’s a lot of dirt that can be trotted out against McCain. But Democratic strategists had to be hoping that Romney would be the nominee. Why? Because in head-to-head polls before the Florida primary, Romney loses DECISIVELY to either Hillary or Obama (also see Margaret’s post/#1). McCain, meanwhile, either ties or wins by a few points. McCain’s win in Florida has bumped his winning margin even higher. See here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html Rather than eat doggy poop or biscuits in Nov., I might choose to fast. |
Macy, head-to-head polls mean nothing at this point. Polls had Carter beating Reagan’s as late as October, 1980. Earlier polls had Carter trouncing Reagan. There is still more than 9 months to the election, which is a political eternity. At this point, there is no “decisively” when it comes to measuring who can beat whom. McCain loses to Hillary, because she’ll eat him alive, and he won’t know how to respond to her except by being surly and arrogant. |
Let’s not forget that this will be played and replayed and replayed over and over throughout the summer to emphasize just how dumb Mr. McCain really is. |
DKL, you DID write a fair and fairly balanced obit on Jerrald Tanner. Have you read the many posts afterward? I don’t have to add any other “reads” or other sources except to refer any and all comers back to the simple, unabridged truth of the Holy Bible. You and your cohorts may ridicule it’s authority and constantly repeat the montra “The Bible is correct and authoratative…..as far as it is correctly interpreted/translated.” Such an “out”, convieniently crafted so as to seem to make Joe Smith’s babblings seem true and correct are laughable at best. It’s not that one “faith” is correct and another isn’t, or whatever similar arguments are put forward. We’re talking truth vs. lies. Nothing more profound than that. Christ taught truth, Joseph Smith (and many others after him) did not. No more simplicity than that. I won’t get stuck “arguing” the downfalls of his “teachings”, for there are many too many too list. Nor will I get stuck on Brigham Young, again….there are too many flaws to list. What I WILL get “stuck” on is the teachings of Christ. Not withstanding anything He taught, whether or not we like it, whether or not we agree with Him and His teachings…they are simply truth. Plain and simple. Seriously, put various “translations” side by side with ORIGINAL transcripts, ORIGINAL writings on REAL paper from the time, and you will see, they haven’t materially changed worth arguing about. You can’t add to that. You can’t subtract from it. I didn’t write it. It’s authenticity was attested to by Jesus Himself. Argue with Him if you choose. You’ll lose. Every single time. Nuff said. |
Ronald,
really? You have access to the actual original writings? You have access to the actual parchment that John used to write his letters and revelations on? You have the actual original letters Paul wrote to the various churches in the Roman Empire? Please, share the originals with us. |
DKL: I am not predicting a McCain win over Hillary or Obama. It’s much too early for that; I agree. I am stating that based on head-to-head polls leading up to the Florida primary, Democratic strategists had to be hoping Romney would be the nominee—Obama supporters even more so. Hillary will eat anyone alive, and McCain is all that you state. No polls are needed to prove those things. |
Ronald, the problem with you evangelicals is that they don’t really know much about the Bible. I don’t give a rip about the “translated correctly” thing. The problem runs much deeper than that. New Testament is simply a collection of variant readings, some of which are favored over others for various reasons relating to tradition and scholarship. Not the kind of thing one might consider sure-footed enough to base a religion on. (Note that the Old Testament does not have this problem.) The New Testament isn’t any better on the theology front either. To the extant that Christ’s teachings are good, it’s because they’re altogether derivative of the 1st century Judaism that the New Testament (implausibly) has him railing against. Then there’s the issue of the moral flaws in Christ’s teachings, like the continuing polemic against the family (e.g., “let the dead bury their own” and addressing his mother with “woman, what have I to do with you”). Then there’s the tendency of the Prince of Peace to lash out against anyone who disagreed with him. There’s quite a lot of “oh, ye brood of vipers, how shall ye escape damnation…”. This calls to mind the image of a 1st century, Jewish Dan Quayle going around saying, “If you don’t do what I want, my father is going to get you!” He performed some miracles and recited some run-of-the mill Jewish morality, but it always confuses me to hear people talk about being Christ-like. There’s really no rational way to take the preponderance of his behavior in the New Testament as anything that is worthy of emulation. Joseph Smith is the one who makes it all palatable. His doctrinal innovations actually make sense of the whole mess. Without Joseph Smith, Christianity is just a fools game. If you want to chalk up everything Joseph Smith says to dishonesty, then you’re stuck with what’s left; viz., your barren, false religion. If that’s the brand of grace that you favor, then you can keep it. |
Dan. Do your research first, please. It makes one appear to be simply biased to put forth ideas and folklore without evidence to back themselves up. Check out the Bible and it’s accurateness, it’s as easy as using google. Here’s a start for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_Testament_papyri SEVERAL actual documents survive today from Jesus’ day. I haven’t yet read them all, nor probably will I, unless you would underwrite my extensive travels. Therefore, I will simply and faithfully believe what is widely reported……”The Bible is a as complete and literal a translation as can be had on this earth.” |
Ronald, dude, did you even read the link you cite?
They are NOT the ORIGINAL you claim to have. I’m quite familiar with these papyri you cite there. I was looking for evidence of the actual original documents. Last I checked, we had none. Sorry, Ronald, you’re going to have to try again, or stop claiming you have the original writings. |
Ronald P, you’re engaging in a losing argument with Dan. No New Testament-relevant document survives from Jesus’s day. The list that you provide from Wikipedia offers zero 1st century documents and only three 2nd century documents. The rest are 3rd century or later. We do have some non-scriptural Christian literature that dates to the early 2nd century, and (no surprise) it shows no evidence of acquaintance with any of the New Testament gospels. The first credible sign that we have that anyone is aware of what we call the New Testament occurs in Justin Martyr’s apologetics, the earliest of which dates to around 150 AD. In spite of the prevalent dating schemes that place the gospel authorship between 60 and 90 AD, there’s really no evidence that the gospels even existed in the 1st century. Paul certainly had no biographical knowledge of Jesus, and whatever biographical information accumulated after that was (a) scant, and (b) not based on the gospels as we know them until much later — too late to date them as documents that are in any sense contemporary with anyone who may have offered an eye-witness account. |
Joseph Smith, the founder of the Mormon church, claimed to be a prophet of God. Was he? In determining whether Joseph Smith was a prophet of God we need first to look at Smith’s so-called “first vision,†in which God supposedly instructed the would-be prophet to start a new church — what was to become the Mormon church. The evidence shows, however that Smith’s testimony suffers from a host of internal discrepancies. For example, the earliest recorded account of Smith’s “first vision†makes mention only of Jesus Christ, whereas other accounts report the appearance of both Jesus and God the Father, or of an angel, or a group of angels. Whatever the case may be, it’s clear to see that such conflicting reports only serve to cast doubt on the veracity of Smith’s testimony. Keep in mind that several of these accounts came from the same man — Joseph Smith himself. Turning now to prophetic accuracy, we find that Smith fares no better than he did in recounting his alleged encounter with God. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, God’s prophets have a one hundred percent rate of accuracy — that is to say, their prophetic predictions never miss the mark. Unfortunately for Smith, such standards proved too much for him. We note, for example, that Smith predicted that a Mormon temple in Missouri would be constructed before all of the people living in 1832 pass away. This did not occur. But even if Smith were flawless in all his predictions (which certainly was not the case), according to Deuteronomy 13:1-3 he would still not qualify as a prophet of God because he was speaking for a false god — a god other than the One revealed in Scripture. The facts lead us to draw only one conclusion: that Joseph Smith was indeed a prophet, but a false prophet. And remember, the irony is that is was Joseph Smith who attacked Christianity by saying that all its teachers were corrupt. |
Nice to see you’ve shed all pretense of actually engaging in discussion, Ronald. Are you really this guy, or do you two just plagiarize from the same place? |
“. . .If we compare the historical, prophetical, and doctrinal parts of the Book of Mormon with the great truths of science and nature, we find no contradictions–no absurdities–nothing unreasonable.†Talmage’s Articles of Faith, page 505 1. Compare I Nephi 1:2 with Nehemiah 13: 23-27. The Egyptian language was a very corrupt language from idol worshiping people who had persecuted the Children of Israel as Hitler did the Jews during World War II. No Prophet of God would have ever used a corrupt language to convey God’s message at this point in history. See the above quote from Nehemiah as to that prophet’s reaction to a mixed language. 2. The Book of Mormon speaks clearly that it was not inspired by God when you compare it with what God has already said about inspiration. I Nephi 1:3; 19:4-6: II Nephi 11:1; 25:7; 33:1; Mormon 1:2-6; Jacob 7:26-27, contrasted to Deuteronomy 4:2; 1 Corinthians 2:13; 2 Peter 1:20-21. 3. I Nephi 2:5, Sam is a Yankee name, Samuel would have been a Jewish name. 4. I Nephi 2:8. There is no river in all of Arabia now or ever in recorded history, and no river which empties into the Red Sea! 5. I Nephi 5:14. How could a devout Jew not know what tribe he was from until he saw the “plates?†6. I Nephi 8:4, “Methought,†an Elizabethan English poetic word. 7. I Nephi 10:8, exact quote from John 1:27. (An example of plagiarism.) 8. I Nephi 10:11, “Holy Ghost†is a King Jamesism and was not known in 600 B.C. 9. I Nephi 10:17, “Faith on the Son of God.†A term never used by an Old Testament Prophet, keeping in mind that was allegedly written between 600-592 B.C. The Messiah, who would be King and Deliverer was expected but not, the Son of God. 10. I Nephi 10:18, “same yesterday and foreverâ€; a quote from Hebrews 13:8, 600 years before it was written. 11. I Nephi 11:21, “Lamb of God,†strictly New Testament language. Compare with John 1:20. 12. I Nephi 11:27, baptism of Jesus–John 1:29-34. The one who wrote the Book of Mormon had read much of the New Testament. 14. I Nephi 13:23, why the explanation to Nephi when they had these “plates†containing this information all the time (cf. 5:11,16)? 15. I Nephi 16:18, bows of steel? “Iron, steel, glass, and silk were not used in the New World before 1492 (except for occasional use of unsmelted meteoric iron). Nuggets of native copper were used in various locations in pre-Columbian times, but true metallurgy was limited to southern Mexico and the Andean region, where its occurrence in late prehistoric times involved gold, silver, copper, and their alloys, but not iron.†(National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution) 16. I Nephi 16: 28,29, faith given to the “ball.†Does God ask us to have faith in anything but Him? 17. I Nephi 21 and 22, copied from Isaiah 49, 50 (another example of plagiarism). 18. II Nephi 4:17, “O wretched man that I am,†exact quote from Romans 7:24 by the Apostle Paul, 600 years before he was born? 19. II Nephi 1:3, “land of promise†for the Jew was the land of Canaan. See Genesis 13:14-18. 20. II Nephi 4:21, the love of God causes his flesh to be consumed? 21. II Nephi 5:21, black is not beautiful! 22. II Nephi 5:23, don’t marry a Lamanite or you will be cursed. Mormons tell us that the Lamanites are the American Indians. 23. II Nephi 6-8, compare with Isaiah 50-51. (Example of plagiarism.) 24. II Nephi 10:7, a false prophecy. The Jews are back in their own land, only in unbelief. Compare with Deuteronomy 18:20-22. 25. II Nephi 12-24 are Isaiah 2-14. (Example of plagiarism.) 26. II Nephi 13 compare with Isaiah 3. (Example of plagiarism.) 27. II Nephi 25:19, “Christ†was not His last name. Christ means “The Anointed One†or the Messiah. The name “Jesus†was not foretold in Old Testament times. Check Isaiah 9:6. The first time the name was mentioned was when Gabriel told Mary as recorded in Luke 1:31, “and shalt call his name JESUS.†28. The Book of Mormon is purported to be “a second witness to the Bible.†Who needs the kind of witness that condemns? See II Nephi 29. 29. II Nephi 28:8-9, seem to condemn Mormonism’s doctrine of repentance after death. 30. II Nephi 29:11-13, God dealt only with the Children of Israel and commanded them speak in His name in Old Testament times. In the New Testament, John 12:47,48, Jesus tells us we are to be judged in that last days by the the things He has spoken. 31. Jacob 2:23-3:12, condemns polygamy, see Doctrine and Covenants 132. 32. Jacob 7:27, “Adieu,†French in 544 B.C.? 33. Mosiah 2:3, “. . .offer sacrifice and burnt offering according to the law of Moses.†The Book of Mormon “Nephites†and “Lamanites†were from the tribe of Manasseh, (Alma 10:3). No Manassite could give attendance at the altar according to the law of Moses. Exodus 28-31; Numbers 3:7; Nehemiah 7:63,65; Hebrews 7:12-14 tells us only the tribe of Levi and particularly the Sons of Aaron could give attendance at the altar. 34. Alma 7:10 Jesus born at Jerusalem? See Micah 5:2; Luke 2:4. The Mormon argument is that “Jerusalem†referred to the general vicinity, but in I Nephi 1:3 it is called a “city.†35. Alma is supposed to be a prophet of God and of Jewish ancestry. Alma in Hebrew means a betrothed virgin. Hardly a fitting name for a man. 36. Alma 46:15, “Christian†in 73 B.C., contradicted by Luke in Acts 11:26. 37. Alma 44:12-16, the bad guy gets scalped and suffers nothing but anger, causing him to fight more powerfully afterward. Incredible! 38. Ether 1:34-37, the language of the Jaredites not confounded at the Tower of Babel, contradicts Genesis 11:9. 39. Ether 1:43, the Jaredites are promised by the God of the Book of Mormon to be the greatest nation on earth, and that there would be no greater nation. However, in the Abrahamic Covenant (Genesis 15:1-5; 17:1-9, 19; 18:17,18; Romans 2:2) this promise is made. The seed of Abraham is still with us and the Messiah came through that lineage. The Jaredites destroyed each other and within a few generations ceased to exist. 40. Throughout Ether chapter 2, we find the God of the Book of Mormon needs to be given instructions and corrections, for his instructions are foolish. See Job 38-40, for God’s reaction to anyone who might try to instruct Him. 41. Ether 3:9-13, 19, redeemed from the fall because the brother saw the finger of the Lord. Compare Hebrews 9:11-15, 22. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin. See also Abel’s offering (Genesis 3:7). 42. Ether 15:30,31, Shiz struggles for breath after his head was cut off. 43. IV Nephi 6, 57 words are used to say 59 years had passed away. The question should be asked: “HOW MANY LIES DO YOU HAVE TO FIND IN A BOOK TO KNOW IT IS NOT FROM GOD?†|
You’re changing the topic, Robert. From your unwillingness to respond to a discussion of the merit of the New Testament, you seem to be conceding that the New Testament is fiction. Even so, you’re still showing your ignorance of the Bible. You can quote Deuteronomy all you want, but it is bad scripture by any Christian standard. Jesus predicted that he’d come again in glory before everybody there passed away. Deuteronomy’s standard of prophetic validity relegates Jesus to the asheep of prophetic history. Your devotion to Deuteronomy 18:22 is self-defeating. And Deuteronomy is equally self-defeating for the Old Testament. Hosea, who is the most overtly political prophet in the Old Testament, gets everything wrong. He says that the abandonment of Syria in favor of Assyria was where the Israelites went wrong, and every portion of his prophecies castigates Israel for it’s alliance with Assyria and Egypt over Syria. But it was exactly this alliance that provided some modicum of stability to Israel after the overthrow of Omri by Jehu. Furthermore, when Israel finally followed Hosea’s advice and changed from an Assyrian alliance to an alliance with Syria, it led to the destruction of both Syria and Israel — not a good move. Poor Hosea is an interesting example of a prophet who just can’t seem to get anything right. So how is it that Hosea is so wrong, yet he’s a prophet, yet Deuteronomy says he has to be 100% right in order to be a prophet, yet the Bible is infallible? Lastly, your reasoning is circular. What’s the basis for adopting the Bible as scripture? Because it testifies of Jesus Christ and provides the definition of prophecy. What’s your basis for saying that Jesus is our savior and that the definition of prophecy is a good one? Because it’s in the Bible. Seriously, Ronald. This is a losing argument for you. It’s a heck of a lot easier to argue from my point of view than yours. But I have a sneaking suspicion that winning this argument isn’t going change your mind about Mormonism. This isn’t just a disagreement about a few facts, as it would be if we were discussing last week’s weather. There’s something deeper going on here, and that’s why you’re coming to Mormon sites and try to inform us that we’re mistaken. |
Robert, You can rail all you want on the Book of Mormon, but the Bible has many times more problems. Why? Because it’s longer and more convoluted. You ask, “How many lies do you have to find in a book to know it is not from God?” If you believe in the Bible, that number has to be at least 1 or 2 orders of magnitude greater than the number of errors in the Book of Mormon. You’re making promises that your religion can’t keep. Every standard by which you condemn the scriptures specific to Mormonism condemns the Bible several times over. Again, Christianity is the fools game without Mormonism. |
“4. I Nephi 2:8. There is no river in all of Arabia now or ever in recorded history, and no river which empties into the Red Sea!” Really? I guess I ought to go home and burn my copy of Herodotus’ Histories because he wrote that “There is a great river in Arabia, called the Corys, which empties itself into the Erythraean sea.” (Book Three, Paragraph 9). Or maybe because Herodotus believed in a false God, he was lying as well |
DPC. Maybe you SHOULD burn those books you quote, or at least quote them with the WHOLE story being told. It takes LITTLE research on Herodotus to see that he wasn’t always quoting FACT…. To quote a source easily found on the subject, Wikipedia: Herodotus of Halicarnassus (Greek: ἩÏόδοτος ἉλικαÏνᾱσσεÏÏ‚ HÄ“rodotos HalikarnÄsseus) was a Greek historian from Ionia who lived in the 5th century BCE (ca. 484 BCE–ca. 425 BCE) and is regarded as the “Father of History”. He is almost exclusively known for writing The Histories, a record of his ‘inquiries’ (or ἱστοÏίαι, a word that passed into Latin and took on its modern connotation of history) into the origins of the Greco-Persian Wars which occurred in 490 and 480-479 BCE — especially since he includes a narrative account of that period, which would otherwise be poorly documented, and many long digressions concerning the various places and peoples he encountered during wide-ranging travels around the lands of the Mediterranean and Black Sea. However, some of his stories are not always completely accurate. Herodotus however does state he is only reporting what is told to him….. There are many cases in which Herodotus, not sure of the truth of a certain event or unimpressed by the dull ‘facts’ he received, reported the several most famous accounts of a given subject or process and then wrote what he believed was the most probable. Though The Histories were often criticized in olden times for bias, inaccuracy and plagiarism (for example, Claudius Aelianus attacked Herodotus as a liar in Verae Historiae and went as far as to deny him a place among the famous on the Island of the Blessed), this methodology has been seen in a more positive light by many modern historians and philosophers, especially those searching for an example of relatively objective historical writing. Of course, given the sensitivity of the issue, the very founding of the discipline of history, this has not become a consensus view; attacks have been made by several scholars in modern times, a few even arguing that Herodotus exaggerated the extent of his travels and invented his sources.[citation needed] Discoveries made since the end of the 19th century have greatly helped restore Herodotus’ reputation. The archaeological study of the now submerged ancient Egyptian city of Heraklion and the recovery of the so-called ‘Naucratis stela’ give extensive credibility to Herodotus’ previously unsupported claim that Heraklion was founded under the Egyptian New Kingdom. Because of this recent increase in respect for his accuracy, as well as the quality and content of his observations, Herodotus is now recognized as a pioneer not only in history, but in ethnography and also anthropology. |
Actually, our friend’s not railing at the Book of Mormon. He’s plagiarizing Marian Bodine’s “Book of Mormon versus the Bible.” I fear he’s degenerated into the equivalent of a spambot. |
One of the most recent developments in Herodotus scholarship was made by the French ethnologist Michel Peissel. On his journeys to India and Pakistan, Peissel claims to have discovered an animal species that may finally illuminate one of the most “bizarre” passages in Herodotus’ Histories. In Book 3, passages 102 to 105, Herodotus reports that a species of fox-sized, furry “ants” lives in one of the far eastern, Indian provinces of the Persian Empire. This region, Herodotus reports, is a sandy desert, and the sand there contains a wealth of fine gold dust. These giant ants, according to Herodotus, would often unearth the gold dust when digging their mounds and tunnels, and the people living in this province would then collect the precious dust. Now, Peissel says that in an isolated region of the Dansar Plateau between India and Pakistan there exists a species of marmot (a type of burrowing squirrel) that may solve the mystery of Herodotus’ giant “ants”. Much like the province that Herodotus describes, the ground of the Dansar Plateau is rich in gold dust. According to Peissel, he interviewed the Minaro tribal people who live in the Dansar Plateau, and they have confirmed that they have, for generations, been collecting the gold dust that the marmots bring to the surface when they are digging their underground burrows. Even more tantalizing, in his book, “The Ants’ Gold: The Discovery of the Greek El Dorado in the Himalayas”, Peissel offers the theory that Herodotus may have become confused because the old Persian word for “marmot” was quite similar to that for “mountain ant”. Because research suggests that Herodotus probably did not know any Persian (or any other language except his native Greek), he was forced to rely on a multitude of local translators when travelling in the vast polylingual Persian Empire. Therefore, he may have been the unwitting victim of a simple misunderstanding in translation. (It is also important to realize that Herodotus never claims to have himself seen these “ants/marmot” creatures – he may have been dutifully reporting what other travellers were telling him, no matter how bizarre or unlikely he personally may have found it to be. In an age when most of the world was still mysterious and unknown and before the modern science of biology, the existence of a “giant ant” may not have seemed so far-fetched.) The suggestion that he completely made up the tale may continue to be thrown into doubt as more research is conducted.[2][3] However, it must be noted that this theory of the marmots fails to take into consideration Herodotus’ own followup in passage 105 of Book 3, wherein the “ants/marmots” are said to chase and devour full-grown camels; nevertheless, this could also be explained as an example of a tall tale or legend told by the local tribes to frighten foreigners from seeking this relatively easy access to gold dust. |
Hi, Ronald. Want to answer my Edwards versus Finney question? |
sounds like another nut we know of…..Joe Smith??? couldn’t always be relied upon to tell the whole story as it actually happened. Hmmmmmm…..let’s found a new and updated religion based on tall tales and made up stories, then let’s elect a president from this group of people who are so gullible as to follow such a nut, and you wonder why there are plenty of folks worried about Romney and what he believes in his inner core? As I said, an athiest would be a better choice, knowing that even athiests can be saved and shown the truth. |
Guess not. Oh, well. I confess I scrolled through most of your cut and pasting, but stopped when I saw the phrase ‘theory of the marmots.’ You might want to italicize it or something so nobody else misses learning about that. |
Ronald: I agree with what you say about Herodotus, but you claim, and I quote, There is no river in all of Arabia now or ever in recorded history (Emphasis my own) So if the writings of Herodotus is not considered recorded history (and I am fully aware of the historical deficiencies in the writings of many classical authors (Livy, Plutarch, etc.), what else can we look to? Are you suggesting we are limited to the 19th century and later? |
Ronald, I’ve been willing to allow, for the sake of argument, every historical issue that you’ve alleged about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon, but you haven’t answered a single one of my arguments that the problems surrounding the Bible and the rest of Christianity dwarf the issues surrounding Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Moreover, I’m arguing from memory — everything that I’ve written is my own. You’re basically cross-posting other people’s critiques, and you don’t even know enough to ascertain which ones of them hold water. I think it’s pretty clear that you’re not interested in truth, and if you’re not interested in truth, then you cannot have accepted Jesus as your savior. It follows immediately from this (both among Mormons and among other brands of Christianity) that you’re damned. I’ll tell you what: when you’re ready to be a good Christian, we can talk about whether I’m a good Christian. Until then, at best, you’re playing the part of the pot calling the kettle black. |
Ronald, You, me, and everyone here has no idea what Romney really believes in his inner core. Only he does. If weren’t so biggoted, you would judge the man on his merits as a politician. But you don’t. You don’t even care what his record is. I know your kind. You hide behind the name Jesus Christ to spew forth bile among your fellow man. You don’t seek to understand. You seek confrontation so you can brag about bashing Mormons to your friends on Sunday. Romney’s campaign just gives you a chance to practice your hate mongering. |
Ronald, Like DKL, I’m also assuming that you concede that you do not have any access to any ORIGINAL document written by Paul, or John, or Peter. Thank you. That’s all I was hoping for. You are fighting a losing battle here, dude. |
Back on subject of THE ELECTION, a friend just sent this to me. http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/01/audio-rick-santorum-and-laura-ingraham-endorse-mitt-romney/ I think the next presidential term is going to be brutal for anyone who wins. I don’t see painless, easy answers for the economy, Iraq, healthcare, etc… It will be interesting to see how much “patience” americans have with our next president and congress when even with a new face issues are really difficult to resolve. Romney did balance the MA budget, but it cost (there were serious cuts & accountability, oh my!), and that upset people effected by the cuts. I thought it was interesting how before Romney jumped in to the running for governor, it seemed that literally weekly the price of the Big Dig reportedly increased. It was out of control. As soon as Mitt threw his hat in the race, the press backed off the story. Mitt got elected, Big Dig wrapped up (finally!!!), and our economy improved. Our economy is tight now (who’s isn’t?), and our current governor is facing the reality that there really isn’t money to pay for every pet project, and he’s not getting a lot accomplished. He’s been pretty disappointing actually. Better have an ineffective Democratic governor than a Republican, right? That’s MA for ya:) Thank heavens we’ve got amazing clam chowder to compensate for the politics. |
I just want you all to know that I was thinking about leaving the Mormon Church and becoming a Baptist, but because of the discussion prompted by Ronald P’s posting, and the superb refutations by others on this post, my faith has been restored and I will be in church on Sunday. Seriously, this has been quite faith-promoting. Thank you. |
Seriously. Seriously. |
Jota G, I can’t tell you how pleased I am to hear that. Seriously. |
to see that there are those of you who hate Jesus and His teachings so much brings much sadness to me, both personally and practically, as well as a sense of such garbage that is spewed by the likes of what would otherwise be “intellegent” people, if it weren’t for the stupidity shown by some in specific. I will keep you in my prayers….TO JESUS, IN HIS NAME, as commanded by Jesus himself. My sincere hope is that you will intensely parse your “faith” as us mainstream Christians are to do, measuring everything against the Bible, a document breathed into existence by none other than God Himself, brought to life by Jesus’ birth, life, death and resurrection. Don’t listen to me, don’t listen to anyone who has studied and tested your “faith and beliefs”, don’t listen to any realistic and informed members of the clergy outside the mormon cult. Do the research yourselves (although your church doesn’t like that, for fear you may just find your genesis will be found to have became existant based on such hogwash as spoken by Mr. Smith). Keep on believing….some day soon you’ll all know the truth, and it WILL set you free, DESPITE yourselve and your “faith”. Good day. Oh…..and in case any of you care (which I’m not sure is possible in your state of derangement) I am NOT a Baptist, but WAS once considering becoming a mormon, but have no doubts now that I made the only true decision, Thanks be to Jesus for that !! |
Yeah. Thanks be to Jesus !! It’s through his atonement that you’ll be able to repent if you come to your senses, get out of bed, take a shower, get a job, and join the Mormon church. |
Rebecca, you raise a good point. Though Romney winning the nomination is quite unlikely, it’s not impossible. It hinges on a strong anti-McCain coalition and a primary voting pool that takes less interest in the election thanks to the fact that there is now a solid frontrunner in McCain. Romney’s certainly not calling it quits at this point. |
Ronald,
Okay. |
Rebecca raises another good point. The way things are looking, the next four years could be a disaster for the candidate that wins. I have more than one Republican friend that is hoping McCain loses to Obama or Clinton, because they believe the President will have such a difficult time that people will be rushing back to the Republican party and they’ll be able to go back to being the Reagan Republican party instead of relying so heavily on Evangelicals. |
My Heroine, Ann Counter, said on Hannity and Colmes that she’ll vote for Hillary if McCain is the Republican nominee. That’s how bad he’d be for the country. See the link to the video on drudgereport.com |
ronald: “Hmmmmmm…..let’s found a new and updated religion ” That’s how the Egyptians mocked Moses. Ho-hum. It’s the same old story. |
Actually, Bookslinger, Coulter said she’d even campaign for Senator Clinton, if McCain got the republican nomination. It almost makes you suspect she’s on Obama’s payroll to discredit Senator Clinton. After all, what worse “endorsement” could any rational politician ever receive? Then again, somebody said above that Rick Santorum endorses Romney. That should be enough to frighten away any voter with an IQ over 75. |
My Heroine, Ann Counter, said on Hannity and Colmes that she’ll vote for Hillary if McCain is the Republican nominee. That’s how bad he’d be for the country Sweet, just another reason I’m for McCain! |
Just another reason to vote for Obama. |
Coulter said she’d even campaign for Senator Clinton Generally, I avoid Coulter like the plague, her brand of humor doesn’t appeal to me. But I did watch the interview clip and it was interesting. Of course, living in Texas, my vote generally doesn’t matter on a national level (the state is rarely, if ever in play), though I vote in all the primaries, my vote in national elections is often contrarily cast. Given the chance, I’ll vote for Obama. But the entire process is really interesting, including the talk shows. They are wall-to-wall solid anti-McCain and pro Romney, which is amazing (and gets in the way of traffic reports). I generally don’t end up driving that much while they are on, but due to recent random events have gotten a year’s worth of listening in during the past week or so. I don’t expect them to have much of an impact on voters, but it is amazing. |
I hope Coulter isn’t really your heroine. Her hatred and vitriol doesn’t mesh well with how you come across in your posts. |
Coulter is less hateful or vitriolic than Al Franken or Daily Kos or most of the people that participate at Daily Kos. She’s an exceptionally talented polemicist, and I like her for several reasons:
|
Funny if you have an underdeveloped juvenile sense of humor. It’s hard to get too angry with a court jester. My frustration comes less from her than from people who take her seriously. |
Then you must find me tremendously frustrating! |
DKL is absolutely correct. It is amusing to listen to people voice their objections to Coulter on the grounds that she is a hater, but who see nothing wrong with parrotting the KosKids when it comes Bush and Cheney. You can call GWB a nazi and a war criminal, claim he caused 9-11 on purpose, and believe that he started the war in Iraq in order to boost his stock options, and nobody objects. Coulter says that Gore is a goof and people say she is filled with hate and vitriol. Go figure. |
I’m not sure how Franken came into the discussion, other than Coulter fans needing to constantly reassure themselves that “there are people just as bad on the other side”. Have you sen me post anything positive about Kos or Franken? I don’t pay attention to either one. Even if I did Mark, I don’t thing calling Gore a goof is full of hate and vitriol is, but calling someone a faggot is. |
I don’t object to Coulter because she is a hater. I don’t think she really is much of a hater. Her sophomoric hijinks got her attention at Dartmouth and she quickly saw that the spotlight could be lucrative. Growing up and becoming serious would have been a bad career move. She appeals to that kind of immature thinker who loves feeling a little frisson every time he hears the conventional wisdom contradicted, whether or not the conventional wisdom happens to be right. |
Actually, it depends on who one is calling a faggot. Calling John Edwards a faggot isn’t hateful, it’s just pointing out the white elephant in the room that nobody is willing to talk about. As far as whether she’s actually funny, anyone who prefers John Stuart’s ham-fisted attempts at satire and his glib self-righteousness to Coulter’s cutting polemical wit can have him. |
jjohnsen, I will agree that her remark was offensive. I also think that calling someone Chimpy McHitlerburton is offensive, and there are literally thousands of instances of that occurrence that we need to overlook in order to come up with a single faggot remark. That is what bugs me. |
Ronald P, Even if you’re not a Baptist you sound and think like one. You profess to be a Christian but your words falls short of a true Christian. You pretend that you know the bible but you seem to avoid doctrinal questions. What you have done so far is to copy extensively from somebody else’s work which is basically not a new issue. I tried to ask you a couple of questions in #73 to understand your belief in Salvation by faith or by grace. I hope that you’re going to respond according to your own words and understanding of the scriptures. You see, there is only one bible as they say but there are quite a number of christian denomination in the whole world simply because of mis-interpretation and possibly mis-translations. You have the Protestants, evangelicals, Adventist, Jehovah’s witnesses, etc., and they all believe that the Bible is the sole authority when it comes to Christian faith. I guess you will agree with me that Jesus Christ instituted only one true Church and the rest are of the devil. I tried to ask you a couple of questions just to prove a point, and that is, there are varied interpretations in the different verses of the bible (and who is going to interpret it for all of us? Born again pastors? Catholic Priests? Evangelicals? You? and why favor one over the other?) I hope that you learn to respect people regardless of race or religious persuasions and that you stop ridiculing the intelligence of people of other faith under the pretense of knowing and accepting Jesus Christ. Listen to the Jewish Priest Gamaliel in Acts, chapter 5:
So Ronald, go and do something good and obtain the virtues that Christ has taught in the bible like charity, kindness, understanding, tolerance, fairness, and love. |
Hello there. |