anatess2

I disagree with this fully. The first paragraph: How we die is not just a matter of a just a few seconds. Nobody willingly dies from one second of decision. Not even suicide. How we live can reflect choices that extend for years by how we live AND how we die. The second paragraph: I left the Catholic Church to get baptized LDS. That wasn't a decision that was "in a heartbeat". Rather, my FAITH IN CHRIST led me to be a devout Catholic as that was where my testimony of Christ led me. I got baptized LDS even as I was already baptized Catholic because of my FAITH IN CHRIST that leads me to my testimony in the power of the Priesthood of the LDS Church instituted by Christ. That is not something that can be put aside in a heartbeat as it is part and parcel - an important part, even - of my Faith in Christ.

duplicate.

I'm not trying to speak for Steve. I'm only answering from my experience. The question that I asked about Muslims is the "flip side" of the answer that I asked about Mormons. When I asked this question, I asked it to my husband, so I had the advantage of not having to worry that he would misinterpret the intent of my question. So, I asked him - how do you know that Joseph Smith is a prophet? And he gave me his answer. Now, that would have been sufficient if I understood what he meant by testimony (you don't hear that word often in Catholicism) and revelation by the Holy Ghost (another word that has a different connotation in Catholicism). So, I asked him - how do you know that Muhammed is not a prophet? And he gave me a different facet of the same words - testimony and revelation... the other side, or flip side. That gave me a fuller understanding of what he meant by testimony and revelation. As somebody who grew up in the Church, my husband took a lot of things for granted, thinking I understand what he means. It took a lot of questions - different ways of asking the same questions, even - for me to get the LDS understanding of certain religious phrases and religious concepts. And I have said it here many times, a lot of it - and I would even say ALMOST ALL of it - stems from very basic things LDS are taught that are missing from Catholic teaching... like, pre-mortal spirits for example. That very simple, very primary-level thing has VAST ramifications on the understanding of certain concepts. In reference to the OP, what I kept on stubbing my toe on was the concept of open canon, it was not something I was used to and every time my husband would say Testimony, Revelation, Scripture... they all mean slightly different in my brain than in my husband's brain because of it. Scripture is a different thing in Catholicism than in LDS which is also different from Evangelists. Scripture for Catholics is the Holy Bible - the same way it means in Evangelical usage. But, as Evangelicals do not hold anything outside of the Scripture as authoritative, they have a different way of truth-finding than Catholics who hold Sacred Tradition as authoritative as well. Now, not knowing anything about LDS, as a Catholic, I was subconsciously looking for something that equates to Sacred Tradition. An evangelical wouldn't be doing that... rather, they would subconsciously go back to the authority of Scripture which is nothing more than the Holy Bible. It seems like an easy thing to do when I'm trying to explain it in this paragraph. But, as my experience has proven, this "switch" in thinking is a difficult thing to adjust and I found myself asking the same questions in different ways or even in the same way because I never really got it the first time due to my "default" understanding of the role of Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Ahhh... it wasn't and it was.... The reason I say this is because I asked the exact same question when I was researching Mormons and it led me to a greater understanding of my existing testimony of that time in addition to understanding Mormons.

Yeah, we bought our tickets the day Force Awakens showed up on Fandango.

Well... we used to "camp out" for Star Wars and Marvel movies. We would get our portable chairs and picnic basket to sit in line for the movie on opening night... first show. Which is usually at 12:05am. We would start lining up at 6pm and have dinner on the line. But then this new-fangled AMC Reserved Seating started and so we don't camp anymore. It kinda felt weird walking leisurely into Force Awakens right when the previews started rolling. Our new tradition is now to get the blanket for the movie if they sell one... like I got the Kylo Ren blanket for Force Awakens and we would go to the theater, recline the chairs to almost lying down position and snuggle with the blanket...

Avengers 3. I mean... Captain America: Civil War. IT'S THE 2ND BEST MCU MOVIE EVER! The Avenges is, of course, the best one - edged out Civil War because of the awesomeness of the Hulk. If you're gonna see this one, there are 2 extra clips - one after the main actors credits roll, another one after the entire credits roll... It's become a Marvel movie tradition for my family to use that time waiting for the extra clips talking about what we loved/not liked about the movie.

duplicate.

See, that's the thing... he didn't have to act that one... he is H.I. McDunnough. My husband... silly him... loves that movie Face/Off. I see John Travolta acting out the husband and he's awesome... then Nicholas Cage becomes the husband and he's like... ugh. Everytime he tries to arrange his face into this loving expression it just... ah... fails.

I must. Nicholas Cage? Really?

Actually, having extramarital affairs and the like has no bearing on whether one gets the impression of being "establishment". What got that perception to sink in - and a lot of this has to do with Trump effectively burning it into people's minds on the stump - is Cruz's absolutely amazing mechanism of winning delegates and tailoring his stump message to computerized demographic targeting. In previous election cycles, this would be absolutely applauded as a very smart campaign strategy (Karl Rove was hailed a campaign hero for this reason). In this election cycle - that effectively made Cruz "establishment". He didn't help himself when he and PACs sympathetic to him saturated Indiana airwaves with negative political ads. And then when he debated that Trumpster by opening with "Trump behind the scenes with The New York Times...", that was the only thing people heard... they rejected the rest of his message (which was very good, actually - Cruz gave it his best shot) because it smacks of the same establishment playbook that Reid/Romney used about the tax returns. Because, if there is one thing that is smack solid in this election cycle it is that Trump will build the wall and that he will make Mexico pay for it. That is as firm as concrete on the minds of most voters including the Democrats who use it as their canon fodder. So, how Cruz lost the nomination? He, like all the others including the media (including Rush Limbaugh even - but at least he is open about acknowledging he is trying to figure it all out), really failed to understand the sentiment of the current election cycle's voter. By the way, this is not limited to the Republican party - this is also displayed in the Democrat party. In any case, we're past that now...

1.) We used to be okay with electing establishment politicians too. But that's not the case in this election cycle. 2.) The subject of this thread is "An appeal... to not vote for Hillary". 3.) A threat it wasn't. A commentary it was. 4.) The video doesn't mention it as it is a commentary on the changes that have been put into place since Ryan replaced Boehner. It mentions the state of "sickness" (my word) that Congress was in and how they are now finally getting the House to a point where it functions like it is supposed to function.. it mentions that most of the Congressmen in the house has never seen a House that functions properly. Symbolic votes that has to balance tons of pork is not how the House is supposed to function. In case you wanna just see for yourself click on this 30-minute version. 5.) The Republicans have not successfully contained Obama even as they put their political careers on the line to be obstructionists. Now, about openly rejecting conservatism... this Zonation video (Alfonzo is one of my favorites) is short and entertaining so you might wanna give it a glance. It points out the problems with conservatives. Just to prep - Alfonzo is not a Trumpster. Here's the video of "who" he actually endorses - which is also a really good video that puts the issues in a way where you can match it with Presidential nominees (at this time we're left with Hillary, Trump, and the 3rd parties). Just in case you're in the mood for videos.

Cruz IS supporting registering Muslims among everybody else in the Federal government... You HAVE TO register your religious affiliation on an Immigration application form. A recent change adds your sexual orientation under the Gender section. My religious affiliation of Catholic, for example, is registered in the FBI databanks. And that was waaaaay back in the 90's when I applied for entry. And Cruz did support Trump's statement to shut down mosques that harbor radical Islamic terrorists. No Cruz is NOT fine with letting terrorists into the country. That's the interesting part. Trump and Cruz actually agree on this issue. It's Mormon supporters of Cruz who think, for some reason, it's fine if Cruz says it but not fine if Trump says it. But then, from what you're saying, it seems like you believe that Cruz and Trump are diametrically opposed on this. Maybe that is why Cruz got the support that he got in Utah. He just has a better way of expressing the same sentiment. Transgenders: No, this is simply me pointing out to you the contradiction in 2 issues that Mormon conservatives support. Trumpkins applaud the bathroom legislation in the same manner that they support the temporary ban on Muslims until such a time when a proper vetting process is put into place. In that manner they are consistent. That is why Trump had to walk back his comments about the bathroom. I was pointing out the inconsistency of Mormon conservatives who are fine with the bathroom but not fine with the temporary Muslim ban. On a personal note, there is nothing conservative about a government that legislates bathroom usage. And no, you don't have to have legislation to reject "passing inclination of self-identity" from bathrooms. It is working just fine in every other State that has no legislation about it. But that's my personal opinion and not attributable to Trumpkins.

Today must be another one of those days where I just can't seem to get my point across. 1.) I am not suggesting that Mormons only dislike Trump out of loyalty for Romney. I am saying that MY MORMON FRIENDS who I talk politics to SAID that they are not changing their minds about being NeverTrumpers because even Romney didn't. I was answering a direct question from Eowyn. The only answer I have is, of course, anecdotal. I'm not a political statistician. 2.) I said Trumpkins wouldn't turn out for Cruz if he takes the nomination through delegate-wrangling in a contested convention. Even Cruz supporters do not like it if he does this (as shown in the exit polling in Wisconsin). The reason is very simple. This year's election cycle is a backlash against people like Marco Rubio who was elected by the people to carry out their mandate yet did something opposite to it. Delegate-wrangling is basically a microcosm of this same sentiment where people see delegates from a primary/caucus mandate only carrying the mandate through when rules force them to but have no intention of carrying it beyond that. The NeverCruz people is very small. My perception of Trump supporters from my work in social media is that they have no problem voting for Cruz or Kasich or any of the other 14 contestants of the Republican primaries if they win it outright. 3.) Drink the dregs. I have no idea what you are saying here. Are you trying to imply that if Cruz would have succeeded in a contested convention to win on the second or succeeding ballot that I would work to get people to not vote for Cruz? I have NO IDEA how you got that impression simply by me pointing out to you that the Lincoln win was troublesome. I HAD FULL INTENTION of working for Cruz or Kasich if they would have become the nominee regardless of how they got there. I have expressed this sentiment here on lds.net. 4.) The "establishment" has done quite a bit AFTER Ryan replaced Boehner. This was well into campaign season. I'd give you a video (one of my favorite political videos to date of Gingrich - who I'm an absolute fan of - and Ryan - who I'm also a fan of - walking us through what has been happening in the House) but it is an hour long and I know you hate videos. 5.) Trump and trust. I can't convince you to trust him. My reasons for trusting him is what you call in the NFL as "intangible qualities"... it's not something you are interested in (from our previous discussions on the matter). But what I can do is assure you that you can trust that Hillary will continue the implosion of the United States of America.

Now that's funny that you think that THAT Church statement refutes Trump's position on a Muslim ban until properly vetted instead of a statement issued to tame the public's reaction to Trump's statements. Because... Ted Cruz not only holds the same position but even proposed a bill to the senate to that effect for immigration requirements from countries with ISIS presence yet gets the majority of the Mormon vote. And I also find it interesting that the same Ted Cruz-supporting Mormons support the ban of transgenders in bathrooms because of the threat of child molestation yet has no problem with refugees that has been officially declared poses a threat of terrorist infiltration by members of the federal government.... so much so that this guy who has been going to the woman's restroom for over 30 years without having molested anyone can now be sued in court for doing so in certain states:

The second point is simply a connection to Dallin H. Oaks that I found interesting that ties into my first point that challenges Vort's thinking of the American electorate as being fools.

1.) What does a lifelong businessman have to show for foreign policy experience besides rhetoric and a businessman's experience dealing with foreign governments? And what does a lifelong businessman have access to the nitty gritty of treaties? Even Congress does not know what is really involved with the Iran Deal. So, Trump, like any politician running of President, issues a Mission and Vision statement of what he will accomplish. And a lot of it is summed up here and here. These will be beefed up, detailed, and negotiated at the convention with the powers of the Republican Party, especially since Trump's position has never been a Republican position - there will be a lot of hemming and hawing over the details of it. But, from the way Trump has managed his campaign and a lot of his personal profile, he's been known to stick with what he wants to accomplish even if he has to do it a different way than he intended (e.g. helicopter rides at the Iowa State Fair). The Republican nominee comes out of that convention with the party behind his back united under the Republican Mission and Vision statement on foreign policy with Trump as the standard bearer. So, let's discuss this in late July and see how it looks like then. 2.) There's no "phase out" plan. He has been pretty adamant about this statement: " On day one of the Trump Administration, we will ask Congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of Obamacare." Ryan and McConnell already have the bill for repeal... it's symbolic at this time because Obama will, of course, veto. The replacement to Obamacare is also in the works in Congress. Trump met with both Ryan and McConnell a few weeks ago... but this was before he became the presumptive nominee.... to discuss the requirements for the replacement of Obamacare that Trump proposed in his statement among other things.

Interestingly, a lot of people (including myself for a while there) blamed the evangelicals and the ultra-conservatives for sitting out the 2012 elections causing Romney to lose. According to Karl Rove yesterday, the exit poll numbers don't support the claim. But the blame remains... But then, if people don't vote for Trump, then Clinton will win... fact. The current status of American politics is that the general population lean left. That means that if all traditionally blue states vote blue and traditionally red states vote red and we don't count the purples... Blue wins. Now, Florida will vote Trump. Ohio will vote Trump. There are not that many NeverTrump people from the average Kasich voter and Trump almost won Ohio with a record voter turnout. So that offsets the Blue states. So, really, Trump will lose if a red state doesn't stay red... like Utah.

And see... this is Trump's challenge. Everything I have said on this thread comes straight from my brain to my computer. People read it and some think it's condescending. Now, if I would hire post-writers that will pore through all my posts and edit it to achieve the effect that I wanted, then chances are, I will be successful in not making you think it's condescending. Hillary has 100 or so campaign handlers that pores over every one of the issues and tells her exactly the words to say, the tone to use, the adjustments to make... everything to achieve the correct effect of electability. Trump doesn't have any of that. Manafort tried to "campaign handle" him, the voters saw it a mile away and so Trump made the executive decision to instruct Manafort to forget about "handling". So the challenge is... how to achieve the balance of still being quintessential Trump that is one of the main reasons people voted for him but now be a general election candidate that sounds more like your everyday politician so as not to be abrasive with the general election crowd.

I really have no idea how my statement about the people I interacted with on social media who treat politics like football somehow morphed into "if I disagree I must not understand"... I have not even said that here at all. I've never treated any of you like you don't understand because you disagree. I'm trying to get to persuade you not to vote for Hillary... my objective is, of course, to get you to see what I see regardless of what you already do or don't understand.

Okay, let me re-iterate what I actually said: Social media is bad... but that's all because the majority of the ones I have seen treat politics like a football game - they just want to wear their own jersey. Social media is used here in reference to the major social media outlets - Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, and the like.

I've worked in political campaigns since I was 3 years old and my dad would put me on the table to give a "discourse" and then sing and dance to entertain the "donors"... there wouldn't be any campaigns if we all think we can't influence people to change their minds.

But then, I'm not the only one working this. I can only work within my sphere of influence. Yep. But, it is more prevalent by a wide margin - there is even statistics that support this - that the NeverTrumpers outnumber the OnlyTrumpers.

But then, I'm not the only one working this. I can only work within my sphere of influence.

It's looking very good with my non-Mormon audience.... most of whom where Cruz supporters. Social media is bad... but that's all because the majority of the ones I have seen treat politics like a football game - they just want to wear their own jersey. All my NeverTrump Mormon friends are not budging... a lot of them say - Romney is not endorsing him, we stand by Romney.