Double Mormon Ticket...

He tried to call me out on semantics... I'm not calling you out on semantics. I am asking you to prove your assertion with just one link.

I do know many Mormons, they are part of my family through marriage. It is my experience that among these that I know a "Sealing" is a rare circumstance. I get to know about those but not attend, because you have to be allowed into Temple to attend that. I have, however attended almost all their marriages because they rarely decide to be "Sealed"...

Damo is antisemantic?
 
However, this was my first post.



I explained to you why it was wrong, and why the story is applying the same bigotry that people apply to Obama when they call him a Muslim. I challenged you to meet your previous assertions that Liberals are careful to learn things before they post about them.

I am being truthful. It wasn't until you continued to apply that exact same measure of bigotry to Rubio that others apply to Obama that I directly stated that you are a religious bigot. At that point I had already posted the reality that one could resign from the religion and proved the story to be factually incorrect.

It was only a few posts later where you call me a religous bigot, and nowhere in there did I press the point, reaffirm the point or any such thing.... I only provided the source for my information.
 
Where did I press on argueing that the Mormons belive that once baptised you are always a mormon?

You just have, citing unlinkable evidence that you believe is contrary to the many links that I have provided proving the assertion incorrect. The church does not "officially" believe that once you are a Mormon you "cannot leave"...

I told you where I heard it, I never again vouched for the veracity of the claims, in fact I stated that I now see it as an open question. You have made some good points that they do not belvie as I thought they did, others have made some good points that they do. Those who I know that are truely Mormon or were once Mormon stand by the origional comment.
You should take the opportunity to teach them the truth. They can resign if they wish, there is a process to do so.
 
However, this was my first post.



I explained to you why it was wrong, and why the story is applying the same bigotry that people apply to Obama when they call him a Muslim. I challenged you to meet your previous assertions that Liberals are careful to learn things before they post about them.

I am being truthful. It wasn't until you continued to apply that exact same measure of bigotry to Rubio that others apply to Obama that I directly stated that you are a religious bigot. At that point I had already posted the reality that one could resign from the religion and proved the story to be factually incorrect.


1) I never claimed Rubio was a Mormon.
2) IN this nation we dont have the same prejudice against Mormons as we do against Muslams.
3) I never called anyone a bigot for saying President Obama was a Mormon, I might have called them ignorant.
4) I personaly do not care if Rubio were a Mormon, it makes 0 difference to me, I do belive however it would hurt the ticket with the electorate if enough people ( like my friends) did belive Rubio were a Mormon.
 
You just have, citing unlinkable evidence that you believe is contrary to the many links that I have provided proving the assertion incorrect. The church does not "officially" believe that once you are a Mormon you "cannot leave"...


You should take the opportunity to teach them the truth. They can resign if they wish, there is a process to do so.

1) I dont know what the truth is.
2) You gave me some webcites that have anitidotal evidence that you are correct. (webcites that dont even match the very standard you yourself set out, they are not official Mormon webcites!)
3) A former Mormon came on here and stated that what my friends said was correct.
4) I do not persume to teach anyone about there religen, thats not my job.
 
It was only a few posts later where you call me a religous bigot, and nowhere in there did I press the point, reaffirm the point or any such thing.... I only provided the source for my information.

Incorrect.

This post came before that:

I agree that the idea that they "can't" convert is preposterous, but several of my Mormon friends have told me it is so!

After that I provided you links to how one can resign from the church. True I called you a religious bigot then, but it was only after the assertion that "my mormon friends"... (This smacks of "some of my friends are black") and a reassertion of the original claim that "nobody can leave"...

Seriously. It really becomes obvious once you start talking about the undergarments that people who have gone through Endowment wear that you remain ignorant of the religion. Ask your friends more questions, because you have many poor opinions of the religion that are not supported by the reality.
 
Incorrect.

This post came before that:



After that I provided you links to how one can resign from the church. True I called you a religious bigot then, but it was only after the assertion that "my mormon friends"... (This smacks of "some of my friends are black") and a reassertion of the original claim that "nobody can leave"...

Seriously. It really becomes obvious once you start talking about the undergarments that people who have gone through Endowment wear that you remain ignorant of the religion. Ask your friends more questions, because you have many poor opinions of the religion that are not supported by the reality.
I said, I AGREE THAT THE IDEA THAT THEY CAN'T IS PREPOSTEROUS! Then I told you what I was told, how could that possably be PRESSING THE CASE or Bigotry?

Hell, I was agreeing with you, and for that you call me a bigot?>
 
I said, I AGREE THAT THE IDEA THAT THEY CAN'T IS PREPOSTEROUS! Then I told you what I was told, how could that possably be PRESSING THE CASE or Bigotry?

Hell, I was agreeing with you, and for that you call me a bigot?>

Right. "Not that there's anything wrong with that, but <insert nonsense here>"... That is just a way to do it to provide cover.
 
Right. "Not that there's anything wrong with that, but <insert nonsense here>"... That is just a way to do it to provide cover.

So calling the idea preposterous is the same as "not that there is anything wrong with that"?

Its hardly pressing the case...!
 
So calling the idea preposterous is the same as "not that there is anything wrong with that"?

Its hardly pressing the case...!

Yes, it is the after the "but" that is pressing the case. When given knowledge that showed the information was incorrect you continued to present it as a "fact" based on unlinkable anecdotal evidence ignoring links, many of them, that prove the opposite.
 
Sharing where you got your information, especially after calling it preposterous is hardly pressing your case!
 
Sharing where you got your information, especially after calling it preposterous is hardly pressing your case!

Continuing to promote it as true when you know it to be false is pressing your case regardless of where you claim to get the information.
 
I do not know it to be false. I simply revealed my source, I did not promote it as true.
 
I do not know it to be false. I simply revealed my source, I did not promote it as true.

Right. "Not that there's anything wrong with that, but this unverifiable source says <insert knowledge here>. So your verifiable sources are going to be deliberately ignored!"

Tell me Jarod, how many jobs did this thread help Obama to "save or" create?

You continue to try to defend the false information with unverifiable unlinkable sources only without regard to actual information from verifiable sources.

Tell you what, Jarod. Have fun with the "last word". I'm tired of your deliberate ignorance. I waste my time on a closed mind.
 
Back
Top