Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Mormon Reporter On The Romney Bus
Buzzfeed ^ | Novermber 14, 2012 | McKay Coppins

Posted on 11/14/2012 3:52:19 PM PST by greyfoxx39

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 561-575 next last
To: ansel12
Do you know what your denomination teaches about Mormonism and why they are not Christian?

he probably does...and Catholics are not a "denomination" they are the true Christian church on earth....the protestants have exploded into 20,000 or so "denominations" all of which assume that they are right....sad

61 posted on 11/14/2012 5:44:22 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Oh, what a shame . . . no one is religious. No one but you, and Mitt Romney.


62 posted on 11/14/2012 5:46:42 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
. no one is religious. No one but you, and Mitt Romney

how on earth did you come up with that conclusion based on what I said??????????

63 posted on 11/14/2012 5:51:26 PM PST by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I didn’t call you a liar, I pointed out that it is common for anonymous posters claiming to be Catholics, to be the biggest fighters for Mormonism, and very anti-Christian.

You do seem to fit into that category.

Do you know what your denomination teaches about Mormonism, and declares it an entirely new religion?


64 posted on 11/14/2012 5:53:43 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

Rereading it, I missed it . . . mu bad.


65 posted on 11/14/2012 5:55:14 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

mu = my


66 posted on 11/14/2012 5:55:58 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; 1rudeboy

I doubt that he does know what his claimed denomination teaches about Mormonism.

I think that 1rudeboy just likes to tweak conservatives and Christians.


67 posted on 11/14/2012 5:57:23 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39

’ Rewriting Romney as a hero doesn’t wash for those of us who watched him destroy good men in his quest for power. ‘

i think the MSM had more than a little something to do with the fact that all the other good men who were running for the GOP nomination lost out during the primaries. I thought that Newt would have been a stronger candidate, but that was not to be either.

Too bad Romney wasn’t able to dethrone the Won who has quested for power for some time. but then again, you and your ilk here on FR, never missed an opportunity to bash our only chance to defeat BO after the GOP convention.

i’m sure, tho you would never openly admit it, that you are more pleased that Romney lost, than that you are upset that a man who obviously despises all that has made America great, our Muslim-hiding-in-plain sight prez, won reelection.


68 posted on 11/14/2012 5:58:04 PM PST by IWONDR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Isn’t that “vision” contained now in Mormon “scriptures?”

What? Does McKay Coppins not know either the Mormon “first vision” or their “scriptures?”
__________________________________________-

“Our entire case as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints rests on the validity of this glorious First Vision.”
-Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, Nov 1998


69 posted on 11/14/2012 6:00:21 PM PST by Tennessee Nana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
Do you know what your denomination teaches about Mormonism, and declares it an entirely new religion?

Thank you for re-focusing on the issue that really pisses me off: do you know that the First Amendment mentions the "free exercise" of religion?

70 posted on 11/14/2012 6:00:38 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

No, think of it as a liberty-thing. You might not get it.


71 posted on 11/14/2012 6:02:19 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: terycarl; ansel12
Catholics are not a "denomination" they are the true Christian church on earth....the protestants have exploded into 20,000 or so "denominations" all of which assume that they are right....sad

And all of these Catholic-based "religious orders" from the chart below (& many other dozens/hundreds NOT included) exploded from how many originally?

And all these Catholic-based orders assume that their rule--their order-- is the right one...because obviously...if a previous order had it all correctly, then they were a needless overlap overkill...superfluous

Hence, haven't all these Catholic-based religious splinter orders operated as a sort of “mini-denominations” operating under the broader umbrella of Roman Catholicism?

Sorry...but Catholicism isn't as "united" as Catholics LOVE to pretend...It's not -- as is oft' presented by Catholics -- one giant monolith.

Even theologically, it's not monolithic. Liberation theology has invaded Catholicism. Solid theological reform movements – like Jansenism – hit Catholicism in the 1600s.

Some of the Roman Catholic order jumpstarters themselves bounced around before getting them off the ground. Take Isaac Thomas Hecker, founder of the Paulists (latter 19th century). Hecker was a Methodist-turned-transcendentalist-turned-member of the Catholic Redemptorist order before founding the Paulists. Hardly a “model heritage” deeply rooted Catholic.

And the “Romanizing party” was itself a party that grew stronger in the 7th century. As I look at the book of Acts, I don't see mention of “the Romanizing party” in the earliest church. Do you?

Instead of all these diverse Catholic orders, why couldn't have one said, “This is the rule of Christ. We'll follow it – and Him” ??? And then the rest of these man-made orders could have followed suit if generational stability and a unified front is so important.

Year Founded Name of Order [a 'Mini-Denomination' of Sorts] Man-Made Founder
6th century onward Benedictine-Based [Break-offs Included]
525 Benectines Benedict
Early 6th century Female Benectines Scholastica
Early 10th century Cluny [many Southern France orders were reformed under 'Clunaic lines] Odo
11th century Vallumbrosians John Gualbert
1100 A.D. Fontrevault Robert of Arbissel
1701 Mechlarists Mechitar [w/16 others]
Dominican/Augustinian Rule-based Note: The Dominican order was NOT initial order based on Augustinian rule; hence not listed first
1120 Premonstratensions [also known as Norbertians] Norbert [German-born who set up French orders and died residing in Italy]...so hardly a Middle-Ages localized presence only
Late 12th century Trinitarians [reformed group called 'Barefoot Trinitarians' still exists] John of Matha
1206 Dominicans Dominic
1210 Franciscan-Based Francis of Assisi
Franciscans also known as Friars Minor; Some Lay Franciscans known as Franciscan tertiaries; some Franciscans came to be known as 'Observatist Franciscans' others as 'Recollect Franciscans' and then 'Discalced Franciscans'...Such 'unity' of names even within the Franciscan bunch, eh?
1557 Alcantarines [Spanish Discalced Franciscans] Peter of Alcantara
Late 16th century Camillans Camillus [break-off of first Capuchins and then recollect Franciscans]
1540 Jesuit-Based
1540 Jesuits originally known as The Society of Jesus Ignatius Loyola
Cistercian-Based
About 1099 Cistercian Robert of Molesne [with Stephen Harding as key early leader]
1084 Carthusians Bruno
1128 Knights of Templar Bernard of Clairvaux
Mid-12th century Gilbertines [no local presence only; a network of 25 monasteries] Gilbert of Sempringham
Latter-17th century Trappists Armand-Jean le Bouthillier De Rance'
Ursulines/Carmelites-Based
Early 1500s Ursulines Angela Merici [Later, Barbe Jeanne Acarie helped establish Ursulines]
Latter 16th century Discalced Carmelites John of the Cross a leader, but not founder
1603 Carmelites Barbe Jeanne Acarie
Other Orders – Listed chronologically
961 Mt Athos Athanasius the Athonite
Early 1000s Camaldolesians Romauld
1113 Victorines William of Champeaux
Early 1200s Poor Clares Clare
1235 Mercedarines [Our Lady of Mercy] Peter Nolasco and Raymond of Penafort
Latter 13th century Celestines Celestine
1346 Bridgetines Bridget
1360 Gesuati John Colombini
14th century Sisters of the Visitation [the Jesuatesses] Catherine, cousin of John Colombini
Latter 14th century Brethren of the Common Life Geert de Groote and Florentius Radewijns
1425 Oblates of Mary [Later called Oblates of Torde' Specchi] Frances of Rome
1436 Minims [Ordo Fratres Minimorum] Francis of Paola
1524 Theatines [break-off of Orators of Divine Love] Cajetan and Giovanni Pietro Caraffa (Pope Paul IV)
1532 The Somaschi Emiliani Jerome
1548 Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity Philip Neri
1572 The Brothers Hospitalliers John of God
Cistercian-Based
1575 Oratorians Philip Neri
16th century Volokolamsk Joseph of Volokolamsk
1597 Piarists Joseph Calasanctius
Early 1600s Jansenism [not an “order” but a theological reform movement] Cornelius Otto Jansen
Very early 17th century Visitation Francis of Sales and Frances de Chantel
1633 Sisters of Charity, Lazarites Vincent de Paul
1737 Vincent de Paul Society Frederick Ozanam
1737 Passionists Paul of the Cross
1835 Pious Society of Missions/Pallottini Fathers Vincent Pallotti
1843 Similar Pious Society of Missions for women Vincent Pallotti
Mid-19th century Sisters of Providence/Fathers of Charity Antonio Rosmini-Serbati
1859 Salesians [Female version: Daughters of Our Lady Help of Christians, 3rd largest Catholic order today] Giovanni Melchior Bosco
1880 Sisters of the Sacred Heart Frances Cabrini
Latter 19th century Paulists [break-off of Redemptorists] Isaac Thomas Hecker
1903 Catholic Daughters of the Americas
1917 Baptized and Unbaptized Disciples Narayan Vaman Tilak
1933 Little Brothers of Jesus/Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald
1939 Sisters of Jesus Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald
1958 Little Brothers of the Gospel Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald
1965 Little Sisters of the Gospel Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald

72 posted on 11/14/2012 6:04:03 PM PST by Colofornian (“...those outside the Church who say Lds do not believe in the traditional Christ. No I don't."-GH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You could say yes or no, or even that you refuse to answer if you know what your claimed denomination teaches about Mormonism, thinking that you need to dredge up constitutional protection for it seems a little overly dramatic.


73 posted on 11/14/2012 6:04:34 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Kind of like Card Check, or performing a loyalty oath? Only the proper response is worthy, right? LOL


74 posted on 11/14/2012 6:08:12 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; ansel12; All
I just have a thing for religious bigots. 1st Amendment, and all that . . . .

Yeah, rudeboy's been typically hostile & intolerant toward anybody who critiques Mormonism.

Could it be that he thinks that the lst amendment doesn't somehow apply to critiques of Mormonism and those who make them?

If so, pure hypocrisy...lst amendment for me (Mormon types & rudeboy types), but not for thee (those who critique Mormonism)

75 posted on 11/14/2012 6:08:42 PM PST by Colofornian (“...those outside the Church who say Lds do not believe in the traditional Christ. No I don't."-GH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

That post didn’t make any sense, being able to speak against Mormonism IS liberty, banning speech, is tyranny.


76 posted on 11/14/2012 6:09:22 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

By the way, the whole Constitution-thing? It’s kinda’ important to me.


77 posted on 11/14/2012 6:09:48 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: greyfoxx39
A whole thread about smelly underwear (smelly because mentioned in the article about being laundered.) Obsess much?
78 posted on 11/14/2012 6:11:21 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Bad things are wrong! Ice cream is delicious!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You seem to be fading, your posts are getting drifty and odd.


79 posted on 11/14/2012 6:12:21 PM PST by ansel12 (Todd Akin was NOT the tea party candidate, Sarah Steelman was, Brunner had tea party support also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Here we go, Bozo arrives to inform everyone that I’m silencing their 1st Amendment rights. LOL


80 posted on 11/14/2012 6:13:23 PM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 561-575 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson