https://www.rightwingwatch.org/post/perry-stone-mitt-romney-might-support-impeachment-to-fulfill-the-white-horse-prophecy/

Right-wing pastor Perry Stone posted a message on his Facebook page this morning suggesting that Republican Sen. Mitt Romney may vote to remove President Donald Trump from office because Romney believes doing so might result in him becoming president in accordance with Mormon prophecy.

In 1843, Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, supposedly delivered a message known as “The White Horse Prophecy” that declared that one day, when the U.S. Constitution was hanging by a thread, the Mormon people would rise up and save the nation.

In 2010, the LDS church issued an official statement that “the so-called ‘White Horse Prophecy’ is based on accounts that have not been substantiated by historical research and is not embraced as Church doctrine,” but Stone thinks that Romney, who is Mormon, might be attempting to fulfill the prophecy by voting to remove Trump from office in hopes of creating a constitutional crisis that would eventually lead to Romney becoming president:

There is the Mormon prophecies. Mitt is a strong Mormon and the Mormon religion has numerous prophecies that have been recorded and accepted concerning future (or end time) events, of which Mitt is familiar. The founder of the Mormon religion, Joseph Smith, gave a “White Horse prophecy,” that a Mormon would one day be President of the United States, and I personally believe this is why Mitt ran for president (too complicated to explain on Facebook), to hopefully fulfill this prophecy. These prophecies from the late 1800’s were given in alleged dreams and visions to Mormon elders, and were made public outside of the Mormon religion by John O’Sullivan, a journalist from New York, at the turn of the twentieth century.

The prophecies include future fighting between the states, in which farmers would be suffering; a battle with the people at the southern border. Government division and confusion would cause riots in the streets against the politicians in Washington, causing politicians to go into hiding for fear of their lives. There would be a Constitutional crisis, in which afterward a Mormon would step in, form a new political pro-Constitution Party and become the nations hero. If Trump is impeached, much of this could be fulfilled as his supporters would create an uprising against those who used fake documents to create a model of opportunity to undo an election! Is Mitt for impeachment, thinking HE is the man who will raise up after a huge crisis?

I am only asking – not predicting.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2020 01:59AM by anybody.

Who are these White Whores who are going to save the Constitution?

And it’s not like they have to be whores! They could be very good and proper women, who get called whores by the enemy.

Oh, I thought you meant Dershowitz.

I'm sure he has shared it at work with those fence sitters who don't dare leave the church because of their big bad wives.

It doesn't take much in the way of the gift of prophecy to know that the White Whores Prophecy was an easy one to get right.

The pastor isn't very careful, is he? His article is replete with grammatical mistakes--"There is the Mormon prophecies."--and with some pretty serious stylistic problems as well. Either divine inspiration does not channel Fowler's or the good pastor doesn't make enough to employ an editor, either of which suggests the enterprise is pretty undisciplined.

Far more important, however, is his distortion of the prophecies. He writes, for instance, that the LDS believe in "future fighting between the states, in which farmers would be suffering; a battle with the people at the southern border." Clearly he's referring to the D&C Civil War prophecy. But that is hardly "future" at this point in time and the battle is with the Southern States and not "the people at the southern border." Apparently Mr. Stone intends to resurrect an 1840-ish prophesy and pretend it applies to current events and the Right's beloved fixation with all those rapists, murderers, and Islamic terrorists entering from Mexico.

He may be right about Mitt's wanting to oust Trump and assume the presidency, but that has nothing to do with most of the prophecies Stone is touting. He cares more about riling up the base against an ambitious Romney than getting his facts right or expressing them cogently.

Those old prophecies are about as valid as the Journal of Discourses is. They are about as unchanging as the endowment ceremony is.

Can’t people see. There are no prophets in the LDS church. Only change agents. Heck. Early members like David Whitmore left because Joseph changed the church into something they didn’t like.

The only doctrine that never changes in the church is follow the leader.

Now if only we could find a modern prophet to tell us what will really happen...

I sure wouldn't want to follow this prophetess:
During a fast and testimony meeting, a woman got up and said that she had had a dream that Mitt Romney won for the office of President of the United States, and that this would fulfill the saving of the Constitution.
That was during his first run for president.

OP, we live in reality. This is not fantasy land. What you described will never happen. Life will go on and it will be very boring until the end of time. Like, really boring.

I thought of that angle too. It would be hilarious years from now if Mormons end up claiming they saved the constitution via Romney (by voting for righteousness or whatever) and the prophecies. They can make ANYTHING fit whatever happens.

I like this subplot of “Celebrity Apprentice, White House”. It’s always good to stir in some crazy.

White house, white horse goin' messin up my mind..



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2020 05:07PM by donbagley.

donbagley Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> White house, white horse goin' messin up my mind..


Don't forget my White Whores theory!

Hah hah!

Wild Whoreses couldn't drag me away...wild, wild whoreses, we'll ride them someday.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2020 08:50PM by donbagley.

If Romney teams up with Stormy Daniels, you might have something.

Inquiring minds and all that.

B & B were never even my radar.

I'm totally self-taught. An original, if you will.

A pity indeed. Imagine how much you could have earned writing for them!

Heh heh. You said boobs.

This is so laughable. Let's assume there is a white whores prophecy, and Mitt planned to ride her to the WH. How would that even work?

He votes for removal from office, as the sole republican (or one of two or three). Removal requires 2/3 of the Senate. So nothing happens.\

Okay, let's say he persuades 2/3 of the Senate to vote for removal. That doesn't create a constiutional crisis; it creates a President Pence. How does that end up with Mitt as president? The entire prediction is, huh?

When Romney decided to run for president on a pro-choice platform with respect to abortion, I realized that he has no core set of values. As a Mormon Bishop he once shamed and condemned a woman for having a life-saving abortion, after her Stake President had said to her that the abortion to save her own life would be okay. A personal friend of Romney's reported in the article that when she cornered him on his pro-choice platform (she was pro-choice herself, and a personal friend of the woman Romney shamed for the abortion),Romney told her that "the brethren said a pro-choice platform would be okay because otherwise it was unlikely I could win the election". Romney has no core. Whether you're pro-choice or pro-life is irrelevant to this story. Romney has no core beliefs. He is a member of the swamp.

I was with you till the final sentence.

Does reversing oneself from pro-choice to pro-life make one a swamp creature? Or is that a standard that only applies to people whose politics you disfavor?

It depends why you reverse your platform. There are valid reasons, none of which had anything to do with Romney's decision making process. If you reverse your previous platform to win an election while promoting something you don't believe in and then you justify your change of position based on what the church leaders say (who don't believe in that new platform either), that makes you a certified swamp creature. I don't have strong positions on abortion myself and am somewhat torn on the issue, sympathizing with both sides and not claiming to have the right answer myself. Romney was wrong to shame and guilt-trip that woman (just my opinion). But this has nothing to do with my opinions on that issue of abortion and whether it is right or wrong. I absolutely wouldn't promote anything I don't believe in to get a job representing people who believed that I really represented their beliefs when I don't believe as they do. If the brethren sanctioned Romney's pro-choice platform against their own docterines, then they have no core either, regardless of what is right with respect to abortion. You've got to have a core and be honest with people about what you really believe. The church didn't change their docterines in this case. Changing your own beliefs is okay if you do it for the right reason. To top it off, I would wager that Romney never fealt remourse for how he treated that woman. He feels justified by doing what the church said was okay, while denying that woman the same privilege. Most of all, any concept of morality was long lost in his justifications after condemning her for doing the same thing for more noble reasons. I am sure that the woman who had the abortion suffered greatly and had to weigh her own life and the lives of her other children (who needed their mother) against the life of her unborn child. Meanwhile, Romney just wants to win elections and he will tell any lie to do it.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/jezebel.com/the-curious-case-of-mitt-romney-an-abortion-and-eliza-5851050/amp



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2020 11:50PM by azsteve.

Yeah, with that we are have entered farcical territory.


---------------
> It depends why you reverse your platform. There
> are valid reasons, none of which had anything to
> do with Romney's decision making process.

I'm confused here. What reasons are "valid" for changing one's view on whether fetuses are alive? It's a binary question, is it not?


--------------
> If you
> reverse your previous platform to win an election
> while promoting something you don't believe in and
> then you justify your change of position based on
> what the church leaders say (who don't believe in
> that new platform either), that makes you a
> certified swamp creature.

Being a swamp creature is not dependent on being Mormon. Swamp creatures profit from their offices, sell offices to their friends and relatives and donors, and have no core principles. Romney does not rank high on the list of Washingtonian denizens on that scale.

Anyone who uses that term solely to criticize a man with no principles is missing the point. Swamp creatures are lobbyists and politicians who PROFIT from their lack of principle.


------------------
> Romney
> was wrong to shame and guilt-trip that woman (just
> my opinion).

Agreed. What he did to her was terrible.



----------------
> I absolutely wouldn't promote
> anything I don't believe in to get a job
> representing people who believed that I really
> represented their beliefs when I don't believe as
> they do.

This is a general principle that would render some of the politicians you so fervently support swamp creatures. Why don't you apply the logic consistently?


----------------
> If the brethren sanctioned Romney's
> pro-choice platform against their own docterines,
> then they have no core either, regardless of what
> is right with respect to abortion. You've got to
> have a core and be honest with people about what
> you really believe.

See above. You are applying a standard to Romney that you refuse to apply to your favored politicians.


----------------
> Changing your own beliefs
> is okay if you do it for the right reason.

What are the right reasons for moving from a pro-life to a pro-choice position or vice versa? Oops, the fetus isn't alive after all? Well, it's only a little life so it doesn't matter? I need to change my position to win an election?


-------------
> To top
> it off, I would wager that Romney never fealt
> remourse for how he treated that woman. He feels
> justified by doing what the church said was okay,
> while denying that woman the same privilege. Most
> of all, any concept of morality was long lost in
> his justifications after condemning her for doing
> the same thing for more noble reasons.

Yeah, you don't know what is in his heart any more than I do. I agree with you that his behavior is unprincipled and in many ways reprehensible. But again, tergiversation is NOT a Mormon issue and he same standard should be used measure all politicians regardless of religion or lack thereof.


---------------
> I am sure
> that the woman who had the abortion suffered
> greatly and had to weigh her own life and the
> lives of her other children (who needed their
> mother) against the life of her unborn child.

The woman chose not to have the abortion. Then she left the church because of Romney's refusal to recognize the sanctity of her own life. It was a very powerful story.


-----------------
> Meanwhile, Romney just wants to win elections and
> he will tell any lie to do it.

Very probably true. And by no means unusual in Washington. But you deem him immoral and a "swamp creature" without reaching the same conclusion about people whose corruption is even egregious than his.


-----------------
What you wrote about Romney and the woman was, in my view, correct. But the minute you described that as swamp behavior, you both distorted the meaning of that epithet and rendered your judgment hypocritical.

Goose and gander.

I didn't want to get in to a discussion of partison politics here. It was within the scope of this forum to point out Romney's unethical behavior that is supported and encouraged by the mormon church leaders who themselves participated in the hypocracy. Let's agree to disagree on whether or not certain other politicians are hypocritical in situations that go out of the scope of this forum. In my opinion, swamp behavior is unpartison and can be done by anyone. There are swamp creatures in both of the bigger parties. Anyone who compromises their own principles or who knowingly violates a fiduciary or trust relationship against their own people are swamp creatures. Both parties are doing that wholesale right now. There is debate about whether or not certain actions meet that threshold or even what the actual truth is when considering the views of opposing television news networks. That's one reason not to debate those details on this forum. Just because you have judged me and some of the politicians that I support as low integrity Lot's wife, doesn't mean that I don't really have principles and a consistent code of ethics that I stick to out of principal. I really don't know what is in Romney's heart. But years later he refused to agree to be amacible toward a former friend because she had once called him on his abusive behavior and he still does not communicate that he regrets what he did. It's not hard to watch patterns and to know where someone stands. In my opinion, if they don't apologize then they are not sorry. They are free to communicate something different any time they want to. If they have harmed someone and are not sorry for their own actions after harming someone, they go back to the swamp of no integrity. Whether or not someone's beliefs and actions match my own beliefs is not as important sometimes as much as how they are honest or not honest with themselves and others. An honest person changes their mind because they decided that they were wrong previously. A dishonest person changes their mind because they benefit from changing what they claim to believe in while not having any critical thinking skills nor core values of their own.

Personally, I don't agree with abortion and would almost never encourage it except in cases like the one in the article. But I also don't agree with forcing a choice on women about their own bodies under force of law either. Granted, the fetus is a real person and not just a part of her. This is why I can't claim to have the right answer on this one. Late term abortion should be prohibited in my opinion. The decision should be made earlier and there is plenty of time to make that decision before it becomes later term. As for the choice of abortion or no abortion, it's mostly not a binary decision, but is a slippery slope of more analog decisions in many cases. The woman in the article had tough choices to make. Should a doctor have assigned a percentage of risk that she would die if she didn't have the abortion? If so, what should the percentage threshold listed in the statute be, that decides whether or not she would be allowed to have an abortion because of a health risk to her own life? Who should set that percentage? Every decision that goes in to the ultimate binary result, is a very analog slippery slope. This is one area that is not black and white to me. As a man who could never be in that situation myself, I feel less qualified to make some of the many tough decisions that could result in a statute if I vote for one person vs someone else based on their position on abortion. But a flawed decision-making process based on lies and hypocritical inputs from church leaders is easy to spot and call-out.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2020 06:10AM by azsteve.

It could have been maturity that changed Romney’s mind, just as it does the attitude of women toward abortion. You don’t know about life until you’ve lived it. I’m all for libertarian beliefs, but self harm usually has legal restraints. Abortion has psychological repercussions. Being a guy, I don’t know much about being a woman. But having spent some time in the war business, I know a little about killing. Taking a human life is no small thing. Once you do, you’re never the same. So I’m glad I never got to do my job. Combat vets get suicidal for a reason. This is my rationale for mellowing my pro-choice stance. In America, women get very little support in rearing the next generation so it’s really their call. The GOP should either put their money where their mouth is or STFU.

I thought there was supposed to be a balance of powers to prevent this big swamp of critters from accumulating in the first place. Or was my Civics class fake news?

> I thought there was supposed to be a balance of
> powers to prevent this big swamp of critters from
> accumulating in the first place. Or was my Civics
> class fake news?

What is true in one generation is not necessary so in the next.

I think he likes money. I think he's one of those mormons who believes that making a nice profit is proof that ghawd loves him.

He connives, strategizes, cuts corners, goes morally blind when needed, and if he ends up richer than when he started, it means ghawd approves of not only him, but his methods.

Mr. mormon ghawd wants his people to come in first; second place is for weenies.

Agreed. Which is why most of us think so little of him.

But he is by no means the greatest swamp creature in Washington nor in either party. In terms of nepotism, using governmental office to pad his own pocket and those of his friends, or violating legal and ethical standards he is a novice.

I actually agree with you on this one Lot's Wife. In spite of our agreement on this issue about Romney's character, you found it necessary to attack me in another post in this thread (even questioning my integrity) because of your judgements about me from my previously stated positions in my other posts in a different thread from weeks or months ago. That is shallow and hypocritical in itself, based on the very nature of the accusations you made against me and the topic of hypocracy and theorized selective logic based on theorized partisonism, which is based on some imagined ignorance that I suffer from, based on your own beliefs. Put quite plainly, your position seems to indicate something like 'those Trump followers are so bad that nothing they say should have value, even if I agree with some of the points they make'.

Romney is not the worst of the swamp creatures and is not the most effective at dirty politics. But he is the swamp creature that I understand better than others, based on Mormon paradigms which are also so clearly illustrated in the article which was probably written by a non-member. Was I ever like Romney in this respect? The fact that I left the church on my own, in to an unknown and scarry world and at great personal cost to me would indicate, probably not. I sincerely hope not. I know that the paradigms that Romney operates under have harmed my life by the actions of others who are similarly not sorry for their harmful actions either. I think that the paradigm moves from just dysfunctional and harmful, to swamp creature activity when it moves out from the mormon society that I was free to leave from, and in to mainstream national politics where our nation's laws are formed and enforced. But the actual bad behavior is the same. When the church leaders actually take part in the bad behavior, the pain that reminds me of is difficult to ignore. But yeah, Romney is not as bad as many others in politics. Hopefully the mormon people don't actually see him as a white horse redeemer and vote Romney's not-as-bad swampy behavior in to any position of real power. I don't have much faith in the mormon people to exercise good critical thinking skills in anything that could affect my life.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2020 07:01AM by azsteve.

> you found it necessary to
> attack me in another post in this thread (even
> questioning my integrity)

I questioned your consistency and noted that you are hypocritical in that you have never named any Republican but Romney of "swamp" behavior. You have conversely been quite expansive in accusing Dems of that. If I have that wrong--if you are in fact consistent in your application of moral principles--please refer me to posts where you have named other GOP politicians as "swamp" denizens and I will apologize for my mistake.


-----------------
> because of your
> judgements about me from my previously stated
> positions in my other posts in a different thread
> from weeks or months ago. That is shallow and
> hypocritical in itself,

Actually, no. Hypocrisy is, by definition, a contradiction between present and past actions and statements. Declaring past statements and actions irrelevant is silly.


-----------------
> based on the very nature
> of the accusations you made against me and the
> topic of hypocracy and theorized selective logic
> based on theorized partisonism, which is based on
> some imagined ignorance that I suffer from, based
> on your own beliefs.

Really? Have you not many times praised a single political leader and his allies? Please show me the posts in which you have either condemned that clique or praised the opposition. Until you do that, I'll note that your present attempts to obfuscate the record aren't working.


-----------------
> Put quite plainly, your
> position seems to indicate something like 'those
> Trump followers are so bad that nothing they say
> should have value, even if I agree with some of
> the points they make'.

That sentence makes no sense. If I agree with some (actually most) of the points you made in your original post, I clearly value what you said.


------------------
> I think that the paradigm moves from just
> dysfunctional and harmful, to swamp creature
> activity when it moves out from the mormon society
> that I was free to leave from, and in to
> mainstream national politics where our nation's
> laws are formed and enforced.

"Where our nation's laws are formed and enforced?" You assuredly do not do not apply that standard across the board.


----------------
> I don't have much faith in
> the mormon people to exercise good critical
> thinking skills in anything that could affect my
> life.

That problem is not limited to just active Mormons.

The thread is about Romney's politics as could potentially be related to the White Hourse Prophecy. No one here should have to go off topic -as you suggest- to meet your political tests (Lot's Wife) for anyone who writes here to be treated with reasonable respect about what they have just written and that is both on-topic and is a reasonable response to the thread. Suffice it to say (and if you really need to know) that I do not always vote along party lines. It would be really nice if I wasn't stalked on this forum by someone who has pre-judged me and who refuses to take my posts at face value, especially when the topic of the thread and the focus of my post is not related to other posts that I have made weeks or months ago in other threads. Attack, attack, attack... give it a break Lot's Wife. I see you do this all of the time against other people here too, who you have pre-judged in off-topic areas from long-past other threads. People here should be treated with respect, even if you disagree with who you judge them to be. What you are doing (Lot's Wife) is tolerated here. Granted, you have some friends here who will pile-on to anything you write. But that doesn't mean that what you are doing is respected by a majority, those who silently lurk and wonder why you see the need to treat people this way.

The fact that I personally see you (Lot's Wife) as a law-breaker and a supporter of societal chaos and of financial irresponsibility, a purveyer of mis-information and of unhealthy bias and who has psychological obsessions to control the discussions of others to match your personal paradigms (topics that I will not discuss further here) doesn't prevent me from treating a majority of your posts here cordially and in not letting my opinion of you taint valid positions that you do have in other areas of discussion. I figure that despite what I see as conflicts in who you are and who you claim to be, that most of the time, the best course of action is to recognize the elements of truth in some of your words, to see if I can learn from them, and to dismiss what I see as conflicting positions. Like myself, I figure that you are not perfect and that I don't need to know or to internally reconcile everything about others and what they say. You don't seem to be capable of doing the same and appear to want to control the public narrative to force a match to your own world view.

If we're talking about someone else like (for example) Romney, we can debate. When we're talking about who the core person is, of either you or I or others here, the attack-and-expose-conflict approach isn't so productive. So please, let's just agree that we have some fundamental differences in what we value... And please stop stalking the person you judge me to be and others here who you don't understand as well as you think you do. Maybe there is something to be learned that way.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2020 08:31AM by azsteve.

> The thread is about Romney's politics as could
> potentially be related to the White Hourse
> Prophecy. No one here should have to go off topic

Ironic, is it not, that you are accusing me of going off topic? You, who have spoken many times about your beloved president, whom you assure us is "not who people say he is;" you, who have spoken many times of the need to build a wall to prevent (dark-skinned) people from immigrating into the United States but have no concerns about (white) people from Canada; you, who in this instance introduce your "swamp" metaphor, which is nothing but a dog whistle in today's politics.

Pot, Kettle.


-----------------
> I do not
> always vote along party lines.

I know that; it is clear that you view yourself as a conservative or libertarian and not just a Republican, which is more than fine. But that does not change the fact that in today's world you come down on the side of one politician every single time.


-------------------------
> It would be really
> nice if I wasn't stalked on this forum

You need to invest in a dictionary. Disagreement in a public forum is not stalking. You have floated this little balloon before and seen it fall out of the sky. You are not a victim, azsteve.


--------------------
> by someone
> who has pre-judged me and who refuses to take my
> posts at face value,

I have not prejudged you at all. You have expressed your views many, many times. And when I have a question, as in this thread, I ask you to clarify your point rather than assuming that I know what you mean. That is the definition of "reasonable respect," a concept that in no way requires that I agree with you.


---------------------
> especially when the topic of
> the thread and the focus of my post is not related
> to other posts that I have made weeks or months
> ago in other threads.

Your past posts and this one are intimately related; they are consistent. What is one to do but take you at your word? When you say the same thing time and again, then refer to those arguments with a dog whistle like "swamp," it is unreasonable to turn around and say, "no, this thread is NOT related to my other threads saying the same thing."

It assuredly is.


------------------------
> Granted, you have some friends
> here who will pile-on to anything you write.

Have you considered the possibility that those people may in those specific instances agree with me?


-------------------
> But
> that doesn't mean that what you are doing is
> respected by a majority, those who silently lurk
> and wonder why you see the need to treat people
> this way.

Perhaps. But I am not sure why that would mean you are immune to critique.



--------------
> The fact that I personally see you (Lot's Wife) as
> a law-breaker and a supporter of societal chaos
> and of financial irresponsibility, a purveyer of
> mis-information and of unhealthy bias and who has
> psychological obsessions to control the
> discussions of others to match your personal
> paradigms (topics that I will not discuss further
> here)

Pardon me, but this is difficult to take given the image you have conveyed of a man standing outside his ex's apartment banging on her windows to stop her from having sex with other men. THAT is an attempt to assert "control;" "law breaking;" and, if done repeatedly and in a threatening manner, "stalking."


----------------
> doesn't prevent me from treating a majority
> of your posts here cordially and in not letting my
> opinion of you taint valid positions that you do
> have in other areas of discussion.

And yet our exchange started by my saying that I agree with 90% of what you wrote. That seems a pretty "cordial" acceptance of your "valid positions."



----------------------
> Like myself, I figure that
> you are not perfect and that I don't need to know
> or to internally reconcile everything about others
> and what they say.

I am about as flawed as one can be. But I hope to get closer to internal consistency in part by subjecting my ideas to consideration and critique by others. I'm not sure why you find that process inappropriate.


--------------------
> You don't seem to be capable of
> doing the same and appear to want to control the
> public narrative to force a match to your own
> world view.

That is a strange way of construing disagreement.


-----------------
>
> If we're talking about someone else like (for
> example) Romney, we can debate. When we're talking
> about who the core person is, of either you or I
> or others here, the attack-and-expose-conflict
> approach isn't so productive.

I did that. I agree with what you wrote about Romney. That is what I said.


------------------
If you don't like having your express views criticized, which is actually a sign of respect, perhaps you should join an association in which older men have institutional power over younger people and women and whose opinions are immune to examination.

I could suggest one.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2020 01:55PM by Lot's Wife.

I guess no one can stop you, Lot's Wife, from reading-in toxic opinions like racism and pure blind partisonship in to your judgements about others. I have posted here in several different threads on this forum, the best and worst of me without the masks that some people try to project. In fact, there was no worse chapter in my life than the one I touch-on in the last paragraph below. If this whole RFM forum is just one big thread with a single theme controlled disproportionately by one person and full of unrestrained judgements and no empathy (except where that one person here deems it appropriate) based on this one person's own world view that is routinely hammered out as gospel against targeted individuals, then there is less hope of recovery for anyone who comes here. I am also done being bated in to partison arguements for your entertainment.

One tries to understand others. To do that, we carefully consider what they say/write, and try to be cordial when we disagree. Sometimes we fail at being cordial. But we keep trying. Most importantly, we try to see what motivates them, looking for positive things in them if we possibly can. When they attack us, we can even get angry and express that anger. But ultimately, we can't change the thoughts or behaviors of people who routinely choose a toxic path. It's one thing to point out errant behaviors of public officials in a public forum in issues that are definitely within the rules of the forum and even to put labels on them (the public figure who is probably not on this public forum) to describe how that behavior makes us feel. It is something quite different to follow someone around from thread to thread, on a public forum, to try to bate them in to going out of the forum rules, and attempt to make sure that everyone else sees the person the way you see them in an unfavorable light. I am not a victem. But what you are doing to several people in this forum Lot's Wife, is a form of stalking. I am not saying that your form of stalking is illegal, just toxic and not consistent with the purpose of the forum. It is okay for me to be me and for you to not understand me. If you think you see conflict in me that you can't reconcile, look deeper in to yourself instead of attacking me, or dismiss it. You are always free to politely ask questions. I certainly shouldn't be forced to endure stalking behavior, or to be forced to justify anything to you against my will. That is not what this forum is for.

In another post I described a situation quite candidly, where a man (myself in that case) was subjected to some of the worst kind of provocation that a man can possibly experience in this life (literally), and that the provocation was brought to me against my will, in to my own apartment where I slept every night and for weeks on end. And somehow I came out of it without being violent and with a Superior Court judge not finding any pattern of harassment (stalking) by me, as was stated accurately in that post where I recounted that terrible experience. I described the psychological damage that resulted to me from that experience. Others on this forum over years now may have possibly seen some level of recovery in me based on the evolution of what I have written over a period of years here now. And yet all you can take from that situation is an example of law-breaking and stalking by me which was not what really happened, in support your harsh and unfounded judgements while trying to bate me in to going out of the forum rules and in to a partison political debate. What you are doing to several people on this forum Lot's Wife is wrong. I am going to keep revealing my vulnerabilities and candid views in to my life here where appropriate for as long as I think that others might be interested in learning from my experiences, whether or not you continue your following me around from thread to thread with your unfair judgements or not, with these attacks. Hopefully I will handle your attacks going forward, better over time. That is the last thing I have to say in this thread.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2020 06:29AM by azsteve.

Many of the things you say about Mormonism are insightful. I have said that before and I say it again. You don't have the right to keep throwing out political nonsense, nor to tell others to shut up because you dislike what they say. Stick with Mormonism and we'll have a lot more commonalities than differences.

the way the Impeachment trial is going, I could definitely see a need for a White Horse person to take the reins away from current POTUS, it's not going at all well for Donald.

Rmoney? I don't see anyone else out in front of the pack.

The president will prevail in the senate. The question is whether the spectacle will change the public's views enough to alter the electoral outcome. My guess is that the answer is negative.

The white horse is still in the barn.

1. As soon as ChurchCo disclaimed WH, that guaranteed the story would Never Die.

2. Has anyone who's lost the POTUS election come back later & Won?

The only possible merit this story has is that the R's don't have ANY plan 'B', NONE.

Nixon, Harrison, Andrew Jackson, Thomas Jefferson.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2020 12:43AM by Lot's Wife.

I think / believe voters are a little bit more careful now (?); they seem to have assessed Rmoney pretty well when he ran. Who was his VP running mate?


a lot depends on the Impeachment Trial, that's for sure.
We really don't know what twists/turns it's going to take even tho MM wants to follow his pre-written script.

Paul Ryan.

On the question of whether defeated candidates deserve reconsideration, I think Jefferson (whom I generally consider an over-rated president) shows that it is not always a mistake to give a loser a second chance. Some might say the same thing of Jackson, others perhaps of Nixon or Reagan (who had been defeated in primaries).

C'mon, now!

You and I might disagree, but a lot of people think he did some important things.

Oh, I understand. Let me first state that I think he was a lousy president with little respect for the constitution and reprehensible policies towards Native Americans and African Americans.

What I tried to convey is not my view but, as I said, that of others. The positive spin on Jackson is that he forged a compromise position on slavery that preserved the Union for decades. If the Civil War had occurred in the 1830s, the South would almost certainly have won because the economic and population differentials were much less favorable to the North. The argument concludes that without Jackson the Union would have fractured, the South would have gone independent, slavery would never have been eradicated, and France and Britain would have used the division to occupy various American territories at the expense of the United States.

I think that logic is reasonable but ignores the cost imposed by Jackson's compromise on black Americans, who were doomed to another 35 years of slavery. Again, I do not and cannot approve of someone who treated non-white Americans the way he did. My point, again, is that some thoughtful people--including some who consider slavery an atrocity--disagree with Beth, me, and you.

"Has anyone who's lost the POTUS election come back later & Won?"

"Who was his VP running mate?"

Oh for god's sake. You could have found those answers yourself with ten seconds on Google.

Don't forget Grover Cleveland

Grover Cleveland. How could I have overlooked him?!

well, Grover Cleveland wasn't exactly an unforgettable character - although he did sign the act granting Utah statehood. He also has 2 towns in Utah named after him - Grover and Cleveland not suprisingly.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/22/2020 01:10AM by caffiend.

Utah voted for President Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/soprano-won-t-sing-trump-quits-mormon-tabernacle-choir-n701571

Pun intended.

What I said was that Trump didn't get 50% of the utah vote referring to the popular vote; he got 45.9%

https://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president/

So what? There was a mormon who siphoned off a lot of the R vote. Clinton got less than 28% in Utah, lower than almost any other state.

Without Egg McMuffin in the race, Utah would have looked like Alabama, Tennessee or West Virginia.

There's a lot of:


   "This is what I think, based on this reasoning"

                                 v.

      "This is why I'm right and you're wrong"


going around, and ever will it be so.

The problem as I see it is when people assume their opinions are closer to "The Truth" than others. I'm guilty. There is a very distinct possibility that all of my opinions are toxically wrong.

When we assume our thinking is really reasoning and not what it is, very emotional laden evaluations based on our acquiring information during various mental states, then we put our computers in place of our selves and other people within those computers or savages banging out their thoughts with sticks and clubs.

There's some really heartfelt commentary in this thread.

It reminds me that the reason I tend to post anonymously these days is because I don't want certain posters antagonizing me in other threads about other topics. The best way to ensure disconnecting my posts is to not tie them to my ID.

Topics other than Mormonism are way too polarizing. They ruin this place.