Business

Five Wives Vodka May Sue Idaho Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Ban on Allegedly Anti-Mormon Liquor

WASHINGTON (AP) — Idaho officials may face a sobering lawsuit over their ban on a vodka that makes a cheeky reference to polygamy, a Washington law professor says.

In a letter dated Wednesday and published on his website, George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley informs Idaho officials he will sue on behalf of the producer of Five Wives Vodka if the state doesn‘t reverse its decision not to allow the vodka’s sale. He says the ban is unconstitutional and he gives the state 10 days to reverse its position.

Five Wives Vodka May Sue Idaho Over Ban Claiming Mormon Offense

Idaho State Liquor Division director Jeff Anderson said last month that the brand is offensive to Mormons who make up more than a quarter of Idaho’s population and would not be sold in the state. The Mormon church at one time allowed polygamy but abandoned the practice in 1890. Anderson did not immediately respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

“Idaho is the only state to raise religious and social sensibilities as a basis to deny entry to this product,” Turley wrote in his letter.

He said that a lawsuit would raise issues of free speech and other claims.

 

Idaho has defended its decision not to allow Five Wives Vodka, saying state liquor stores already make hundreds of vodka brands available for sale and don’t have room for another brand priced at around $20 a bottle.

Five Wives Vodka is made by Ogden’s Own Distillery in Utah, where the Mormon church is based, and was first sold in Utah in December 2011. It is available in Utah and Wyoming and will soon be sold in Montana, Colorado and other states.

A spokesman for Five Wives Vodka, Steve Conlin, said Wednesday that the company wasn’t seeking to make fun of anyone with its brand name, though it knew people would make the association with polygamy. He said the company would sue Idaho on principle if necessary.

Five Wives Vodka May Sue Idaho Over Ban Claiming Mormon Offense

“They shouldn’t be able to ban a product based on its packaging without substantial reasoning,” he said.

Turley has been involved in a lawsuit involving polygamy before. He represents the family of Kody Brown, a star of the reality TV show “Sister Wives,” which follows Brown and his four wives. Brown, a former Utah resident, had sued in Utah, claiming the state‘s bigamy statute violates the family’s constitutional rights.

Comments (204)

1 2 3
  • Darren
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:34am

    Ideally speaking, this should be entirely up to Idaho, not the federal government, to decide. Under the evolved powers of the constitution, however, if this case win on behalf of the vodka drink, then so be it. Personally, I think the product title is funny.

    Report Post » Darren  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:30am

      Irony alert: here is Idaho getting hypersensitive about a supposedly “anti-Mormon” vodka lable and Idaho’s original constitution prohibited Mormons from voting (a provision that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court). Maybe it’s some kind of collective guilt.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:01am

      Chuck;

      That is ironic. And if the Supreme Court did uphold Idaho’s ban on Mormons voting, then that would be OK with me in an ideal setting. But, of course, wuith the post Civil War “new rules” and “evolved constitutional powers” of the federal government, they should not rule in this manner. I guess that’s another irony. :>)

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:52pm

      Solopocono;

      “Namaste All!!”

      Thank you. Back to you as well.

      Report Post » Darren  
  • Mutiny
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:19am

    @bray

    Judging by your comments your a Satanic kool aid drinker.

    Did you know that a man was stopped less than two weeks ago with a suit case of gold plated baby bodies? Do you know what they were for? They are for dark sick devilish rituals were people eat them. Alex Jones was pointing out its people in groups like the Bilderberg that are buying these things. Its not something to joke around with. Did hear the sickening bit Beck did? He was talking about it cooking and taste with a fire sound in the background. It was sick.

    As far as me accidentally misspelling a German blimps name, GET A LIFE!

    As far as getting off the website, nah I enjoy smacking down dumb little comments like yours.

    Report Post » Mutiny  
  • BrayDeck
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:59am

    @Mutiny

    Judging by your previous posts you’re an uneducated anti-Mormon moron who obviously also has no sense of humor. Beck was mocking the crazy-man Alex Jones, not actual dead babies. Also, it’s the Hindenburg not the Hindeberg and again, he was mocking the guy on camera, not the dead people on the Hindenburg in 1937.

    Pull that stick out of your butt and get off this website bubs.

    Report Post » BrayDeck  
  • brother_ed
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:22am

    @THE_ADVERSARY

    Sorry, this is not the Disney Chanel chat room. You need to drop the “LOL”

    (winking face emoticon here)

    Report Post » brother_ed  
  • anniegtyrgun
    Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:06am

    I d be a widow if I had to share my husband with someone else.

    Report Post »  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:24am

      Are you a Mormon? If so what about this?

      “The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY.”(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)

      Do you not want your husband to become exalted and become a god of his own planet? Yes he will have many goddess wives there but that is only to make the spirit babies to populate your new world. I am sure the Jesus and Satan of your new world will be your sons.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:53am

      @Mutiny

      You’re sick….

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:58am

      @monk

      Why is that? I am just going on what the Mormon faith believes in or at least what its founders preached before they cleaned up the mess.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:14am

      @MUTINY

      A lot of people think we teach false doctrines already, we don‘t need people hating us for what we don’t believe.

      Polygamy is NOT required to attain the Celestial kingdom. A man must be married to attain the highest degree of exaltation, that is true. , This marriage must be done in accordance with the rules of that ordinance, which I prefer not to get into.

      But we don’t practice polygamy, period.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:17am

      @Mutiny

      Don’t you think, with all the economic and political issues we are facing, that being helpful would be more productive than being insulting?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:18am

      @THE-MONK

      Notice that ANNIEGTYRGUN never mentioned her religion. My guess is that she is NOT LDS, MUTINY just looks for any excuse to spread his “I’m only going by what your leaders say” propaganda.

      He hides behind a limited knowledge of the LDS faith that he gets from his inactive neighbor, or the “How to Save Your Mormon Neighbors” book he gets from his Christian book store. You can find it in the ‘cult/occult’ section of most of them.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:22am

      @brother

      Actually I have been given a BOM by a very close friend of mine who is a life long active member of the LDS in Colorado. We have discussed at great lengths his faith and mine. From those discussions I came to the conclusion he is not worshiping the God and Jesus of the Bible and I pray he finds the truth for him and his families sake.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:26am

      @monk

      I agree this is of no importance in the big scheme of things. As far as my comments to her, she is a Mormon and as I believe a lot of Mormons have been tricked into worshiping a false god. Remember there is only two sides God vs Satan. The Bible says there will be many false gods and anti christ. One pushing the idea you can become a god and God was once a man is the one from the Bible. Therefore if not the one from the Bible who are they worshiping?

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:31am

      @brother_ed
      “Notice that ANNIEGTYRGUN never mentioned her religion”

      Did you notice the ANNIEGTYRGUN is a newbie that signed up on May 13′th and is most likely a troll?

      These trolls are sitting in the same office, being paid by Media Matters, and are laughing their fanny’s off while joking with us. They are most likely on their coffee break now and will be back soon.

      Don’t give them any info to mess with you.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:43am

      @Mutiny
      “As far as my comments to her, she is a Mormon”

      What part of, “I d be a widow if I had to share my husband with someone else” makes you believe she’s a Mormon? As I read it she would rather be a widow than share her husband. How is this part of the Mormon religion?

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:46am

      @mutiny I find your remarks here to be highly irrelevant to the story. And although I am not familiar with your posts here on the Blaze, I would tend to agree with one of the above posters that you just seem to find any excuse to “teach” us about Mormonism. And then you give the classic statement “My best friend is a Mormon” line. Give us a break. I think you are obsessed.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:51am

      Mutiny;

      “Are you a Mormon? If so what about this?

      The ONLY MEN WHO BECOME GODS, even the Sons of God, are those WHO ENTER INTO POLYGAMY.”(Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269)”

      What of it. It’s a peripheral doctrine far from anything regarding LDS official doctrine and faith. This was never adapted by the LDS Church nor taught. (Thisi s even more true with the idea of getting one’s own planets) The official doctrine is to enter into a celestial marriage for one’s exaltation. In Jesus the woman is not without the man; nor is the man without the woman and the Apostles, given to Peter, received the power to bound in heaven that which is bound on earth. That’s all that there is to it. If I err here’s the official doctrine below:

      http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/132?lang=eng

      When does it feel silly to bear false witness against your neightbor, Mutiny? You do it a lot.

      Keep up the Christianity, sir. The more you actually practice it, the happier you’ll be.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:54am

      @Mutiny
      “As far as my comments to her, she is a Mormon”

      What part of, “I d be a widow if I had to share my husband with someone else” makes you believe she’s a Mormon? As I read it she would rather be a widow than share her husband. How is this part of the Mormon religion?

      I didn’t think you had a response for that. Nighty night, I’m going to bed now.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:56am

      Mutiny;

      “From those discussions I came to the conclusion he is not worshiping the God and Jesus of the Bible and I pray he finds the truth for him and his families sake.”

      If the setting you described is correct then your conclusion is utterly impossible to make.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:03am

      @darren

      Do you deny Brigham Young said the quote I posted? Is Brigham Young not your second prophet? This would be the equivalent of Christians cutting out parts of the Paul wrote. Just because your church cleaned up all the crazy to make your church seem more like the Christian faiths doesnt make you a Christian faith.

      1. Do you believe you can become a god through exaltation?

      2. Do you believe God was once a man on another planet just like us?

      3. Do you believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

      If you believe these things you are not worshiping the God and Jesus of the Bible. According to the Mormon faith I will end up going to some lower level of Heaven with the Muslims, Hindu, and Scientologists. If I am correct Mormons will be with the Muslims, Hindu, and Scientologists also but it will be in Hell.

      Read the Bible, its all you need.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:08am

      @darren

      How is my conclusion impossible?

      He has confirmed with me he does believe he can become a god because he believes he is a actual child of God’s. This goes against the Bible there is wrong.

      He has also confirmed to me that he believes God was once a man. This creates the issue of more than one God. This goes against the Bible.

      He has confirmed to me that he does believe Jesus and Satan were God’s first children. He tried to twist this one into well God made everything so basically we are his children. Which again is against what the Bible says.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:09am

      @monk

      I can just tell. I didnt answer earlier because its kind of a boring answer.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:29am

      Mutiny;

      This is really stupid:

      “Do you deny Brigham Young said the quote I posted?”

      No. In fact I said that your citation wasa “peripheral doctrine”. By aknowledging that it is a “doctrine” I aknowledged that someone taught it and that is no way near euqaual to denying Brigham Young taught that only those who entered into polygamy can become gods. A “peripheral doctrine” refers to a dctring taught that is NOT central to a certain faith or worship. ALL of Journal of Discourse can be considered peripheral doctrine *unless* it support what *is* a central or “pofficial” doctrine of the LDS Church and thus part of its faith and worship.

      I suggest Richard muow’s approach to talk with mormons:

      http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/57869-new-book-about-mormons-and-evangelicals/page__p__1209124871__hl__evangelical#entry1209124871
      (My first learning of Muow)

      Also, Carl Fullerton does NOT believe LDS to be true but sas the following:

      “all their false teachings concern nonessential issues. Nonessentials are principles that may be important for spiritual growth but on which someone may be in error without losing their status as a forgiven, born-again, blood-bought, heaven-bound child of God.

      The vital question is, “Does the Mormon Church encourage people to make Jesus Christ their personal Lord and Savior?” The answer is unequivocally yes.”

      http://evangelicalsandmormonsforjesus.com/fast-facts.htm

      (con’t)

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:37am

      (con’t)

      “This would be the equivalent of Christians cutting out parts of the Paul wrote. ‘

      LOL. You honestly think that everything Paul wrote is in the Bible? You’re living in a fantasy, sir. Furhtermore, the Catholic Bible contains the books of the Apocrypha while Protestant bibles typically do not. That is because Protestant scholars decded that the doctrinal authenticity of those books cannot be verified. So, are Protestants ture Christians or are Catholics? This is according to your logic, not mine.

      “Just because your church cleaned up all the crazy to make your church seem more like the Christian faiths doesnt make you a Christian faith.”

      Nothing was “cleaned up”. You bear false witness when you say this. I‘ve taken this rodeo trip with you before and I’m tired of it.

      “1. Do you believe you can become a god through exaltation?

      2. Do you believe God was once a man on another planet just like us?

      3. Do you believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?
      ”
      1) YES
      2) The Son? YES. The Father? NO. The Son once being a man and now a ogd is solidly LDS official doctrine and solidly biblical. The Father once being a man is NOT official LDS doctrine, nor has it ever been.
      3) “Brothers”, YES. “Peers” NO. ABSOLUTELY NO. NO. I believe that the father created all things, even Satan and Jesus. But while Jesus has always been one with the Father, Satan fell and forever is damned.

      (con’t)

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:48am

      (con’t);

      Mormons do not believe in “creation ex nihilo” but rather in “creation ex materia”. Theresfore, did Jesus always exist? Absolutely, yes. Was He with the Father “in the beginnig?” Absolutely yes. Is Jesus the Creator? Yes. It is through Him that the Father created “all things” in heaven and on earth. The Book of Mormon, that book your friend gave you says: “5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.” (2 Nephi 9)

      “He has confirmed with me he does believe he can become a god because he believes he is a actual child of God’s. This goes against the Bible there is wrong.”

      That’s exactly what Jesus believed. We are already “gods” so says the Psalms. Jesus himself applied the Psalms ‘ teachings to Jews ready to kill Him. Furthermore, to ne a “joint-heir” with Jesus is infinite as Jesus s infinite. To be one with Him *as* He and the Father are one is godly. Period.

      “He has also confirmed to me that he believes God was once a man.”

      Good for him. I promise you that was not from going to church but his own personal conclusion.

      “Jesus and Satan were God’s first children” – Good for him. It shows he reads the Bible.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:52am

      Mutiny;

      I tire of this circular otion you start. No matter the topic,, if it’s Mormon, you take the chance to bash the Mormons and consistantly present doctrines NOT of their faith and worship. you do so after mormons have, many times, corrected your misrepresentations. Stop it.

      Exaltation, becoming gods, getting panets, etc. have nothing to do with voodka being sold in Idaho and therefore do not belong in this thread at all. This is, what you call, “trolling”. You come to pick debate just to debate. Stick to the topic at hand and there will be no problem with your posts.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:06am

      @Darren Yep, he’s an irrelevant *yawner*. Guess we‘ll see any story on The Blaze related in some way to the Mormon church’s teachings so mutt-tiny can preach his sermon.

      Report Post »  
    • joel228
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:13am

      Mutiny, I see Darren just answered many of your insincere questions but since I already typed it up I’ll throw in my personal take. Not for you but for those that might read your tripe.

      Short answers are
      1. yes
      2. most likely
      3. we all were in the beginning

      I’ll back it up with scripture and logic.

      1. Do you believe you can become a god through exaltation?
      Jesus did. Should we believe something other than what Jesus taught?
      John 10
      34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
      35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
      36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

      2. Do you believe God was once a man on another planet just like us?

      John 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, THE SON CAN DO NOTHING OF HIMSELF, BUT WHAT HE SEETH THE FATHER DO: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

      cont.

      Report Post » joel228  
    • joel228
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:16am

      Mutiny question 2 continued

      First, drop your strange idea that Jesus was his own father.
      Second, understand that the infinite and eternal universe was not created for our tiny spec of a planet in space.
      Third, realize that Jesus was a God as a spirit being, he became a mortal man and was resurrected as a God with a body of flesh and bone.
      Forth and of most significance answer this, If Jesus can do nothing “but what he seeth the Father do” how can Jesus follow the path of spirit to man to resurrected and eternal God unless he saw the Father follow the same path? Though we are not told that directly it is logical.

      3. Do you believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?

      Do you believe God who is perfect and good created Satan who is flawed and evil? If so you believe that God is the creator of evil. How is that better than the believe that Jesus, Lucifer/Satan, and all humans that ever lived were first created from that which was self existent and God is not the author or creator of evil? We are all brothers and sisters in spirit and created from eternal self existent “intelligence” with a degree of truth already built in. Jesus was flawless and we all of lesser intelligence but with capacity to grow. That is what life is all about.

      Report Post » joel228  
    • NC-Badboy101
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:07am

      Why you say that? Think to much in the sack would give him a heart attack?

      Report Post » NC-Badboy101  
    • SonOfThunder
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 6:20am

      @mutiny
      You are right about the Mormons. They worship a false god and are lost. They are peddling their way to hell. Good on you to witness to them about the real Jesus and God. I have witnessed to many Mormons and you are telling them the truth. They are in a cult?

      Report Post »  
    • melthemean
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:17am

      Munity – The public practice of polygamy by the church was terminated in 1890. Have only started reading your comments, but can already tell from your tone that you’re getting your information from anti-Morman sites….

      Report Post » melthemean  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:31am

      Let me throw out one qualifier in what I already posted. I let known that I do not believe that the Father was once a man and then became God. I answered in the negative because it is not LDS offcial doctrine and thus has no part in my faith or worship. While the idea itself makes sense to me and could have happened, it very well could not have hapened and that the Father is lterally the first being to have ever existed. Either way I’m fine with for either way does not change one bit that I worship God the Father through the son, Jesus Christ, and guided, and purified, by the Holy Spirit. That this is all for the glory of the Father. All that is is for His glory and nothing will ever change that.

      So:

      a) The Father’s particulcar origen of once being on a planet like a man is not part of official LDS doctrine.

      b) Thus if some Mormons believe it, fine. If Mormon‘s don’t, fine. Note that Joel 228 said nothing to reprimand me or to correct my post. He made his post and moved on. That’s because no matter what he and I believe on this issue, he and I worship the same way and place our faith in the One Eternal God.

      c) This teaching is nothing more than idea and thus it should be treated as such.

      Now, let’s talk banning vodka, shall we?

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:36am

      Sonofthunder;

      The problem hre is that this topic is about banning vodka in one state; not about Mormons going to hell. Stick with the topic.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:41am

      Continued..

      Romans 8:10-16
      Can you receive something before you exist? This verse is very clear showing we are apart from God until we receive the spirit. This proves we were not spirit children.

      Galatians 3:26-29
      This verse pretty much destroys the Mormon belief we are real sons of God. This verse clearly separates believers from non believers and the believers are adopted children of God. We are not going to become gods like our heavenly adopted father. Just like adopted children on Earth do not receive the genes of their parents we are nothing compared to God.

      1 John 3:10
      This verse even proves further the incorrect belief the Mormons hold. If we are all spirit children of God, how can there be children of Satan also?

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:47am

      @MUTINY –

      You know I can‘t let you get away with the SAME EXACT LINE you’ve used SO MANY, MANY, MANY times on this website and I’ve rebutted you so many, many, many, times with the SAME EXACT ANSWER – then no reply – then you post it again and again on any story you can…

      PLEASE READ THE ENTIRE CHAPTER THAT QUOTE CAME FROM!!! Again, and again, your quote is taken OUT OF CONTEXT!!! This quote from Brigham Young was in reference to people that were directly commanded to practice polygamy – not the world as a whole. It is no different than ANY direct commandment to ANY person – if they disobey that direct commandment to them from God, will not inherit his Kingdom.

      Again, this also dispels another falsity that you seem to purport; that all Mormons were polygamists in our early history. This is absolutely false – only those directly called by God participated in plural marriage – and that was a very small percentage. In fact, most men did not want to take on the burden – they were not sex-craved perverts as you’ve made them out to be. Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not desire to take more than one wife, but were obedient servants of the Lord and His commandments. These men of God, were given plural wives, just as the David was given plural wives in the Bible from the Lord.

      BTW – you have never answered my question… are you or are you not a pastor, preacher, etc.? Otherwise, I don’t know how you have enough time to demean religions that differ from y

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:54am

      @MUTINY

      I think we can all agree however, on two things.

      1. There is not way back to the Father, but through the atoning sacrifice and grace of Jesus Christ.
      2. These new ‘full-screen pop-up commercials’ are pretty annoying :)

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:59am

      @joel

      I will briefly respond to your post because the Mormon discussions get old.

      1. Your “ye be gods” scripture post, do you know what the verse is in reference to? In the time of Jesus and before judges who ruled over life and death sentences were called “gods”. If you read the whole chapter you can see Jesus is speaking to a crowd making this type of judgement. This is a perfect example of Mormon bending the Bible to fit the Mormon ideas.

      2. Wow that is stretching it. So you are saying Jesus could not have come to Earth if the God had not gone and been a man on another planet? That is ridiculous. God had walked on Earth with Adam and Eve. You know exactly what I am talking about. Your Elohim was supposedly a man who lived on another planet and he was exalted and became the Mormon god.

      3. I believe Satan is an angel. Angels were given free will.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:16pm

      @p8riot

      1. The pop ups are annoying.
      2. As horrible as these forums are I am surprised I get as many responses I do in. Hell half of my posts when I click reply its says “you must be logged in” and it deletes what I post. This normally causes me to just quit posting especially if its a long reply because I think we both know we will never make ground on this issue with each other.

      We are both set in our ways, I have had a burden put on my heart to speak to Mormons because of my friend. I am very worried he will not be in Heaven. It lead me to start posting on Mormon topics on the blaze.

      I have no doubt you believe in the Jesus Christ from the BOM. The problem I feel is that the Jesus Christ of the BOM and the Jesus Christ of the Bible are only similar in name.

      Your faith was founded by a boy who had a visit from a “angel” in the woods. I know we have talked about it before but this sounds very similar to the scripture saying “no other gospel, not even from an angel”. Its almost as if that verse was put in for Mormons to help them see the light. Now you will say well its the same gospel. I think differently.

      When a Mormon missionary goes to a house of say a Muslim, does the missionary believe the Muslim is worshiping the same God and Jesus Christ as he is? I am guessing no, its no different for me with my posts and with my discussions with my friend. The missionary is trying to help the Muslim, I am trying to help Mormons.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:37pm

      ha – completely agree about typing a huge post with all sorts of citations only to post it and have it say “you must be logged in”

      As much as we disagree on things, I think all of us (you, me, brother_ed, darren, etc.) all can also agree that we each honestly believe what we are each attempting to defend.

      Just as you feel we have been deceived and follow false doctrine, we too feel you have been deceived and follow false doctrine (i.e. a different gospel than what was ORIGINALLY taught in the days of Christ’s earthly ministry).

      However, the difference is this – we simply teach what WE believe and you are constantly attacking what OTHERS believe. See the difference? Note that I’ve never asked you what religion you belong to, because it doesn’t change or effect the truth of my beliefs.

      If you truly have faith in your beliefs, you will not need to attack the beliefs of others to prove its truthfulness (i.e. don‘t tell people why they’re wrong, tell people why you’re right).

      My proposition is this… PLEASE feel free to share what you believe is true – without attacking what we believe. I encourage all to share what they believe (without attacking others’ beliefs). Truth is eternal and those who diligently seek it with a sincere heart will find it.

      I know that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is 100% true and perfect. Thus, all I need to do is share our beliefs and those who are sincerely seeking truth will find it here.

      …

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:41pm

      @melt

      Utah became the 45th state admitted to the Union on January 4, 1896. The only thing I said about polygamy was it was ended by the church to gain admission to the Union which is true.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:50pm

      @p8riot

      I have told you I am southern Baptist. I understand your point where it seems I am always attacking but I dont see it as attacking. I see it has trying to help the misguided. I mean think about the my views on the LDS. If your friend or a forum combatant was a Muslim would you try to lead him to Jesus? I think you would.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:00pm

      Note to all;

      Note that (at least) one of Mutiny’s posts has been deleted because some poster named Darren reported it based upon the fact that this thread is NOT about mormons being Christian or not, exaltation, Mormons going to Hell, mormons “cleaning up their mess” or anything of the such. It’s about Idaho banning vodka which makes a reference (a humorous one in my estimation) to polygamy. That’s it. I’d really like to stick to that topic. I guess, in a stretching sort of way, we can talk about poygamy but as I see it, beyond that, leave LDS theology alone in this thread.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:10pm

      mutiny;

      “Utah became the 45th state admitted to the Union on January 4, 1896. The only thing I said about polygamy was it was ended by the church to gain admission to the Union which is true.”

      That onnection is totally absurd. The territory of Utah was offered several times to become a state, which the Mormons always wanted Utah to become, if they dropped polygamy. But each of these times was rejected by both the LDS leadership, which also served as the territoriy’s leaders, as well as by the populous. Meanwhile the federal governmet doubled its efforts to crack down upon pygamy, including using military force. That is something I highly think you’d be opposed to. The LDS Church continued the practice while fleeeing the law which made things quite burdensome upon the Church. The revelation came that if the LDS Church did not cease polygamy that the work ofthe lord would not go forward and thus should end. Meanwhile the US Supreme Court upheld federal laws banning olyygamy (somwething I think you’d be opposed to) and I support this decision since Utah was a territory, not a state at the time and therefore subject to federal regulation. Wilford Woodruff then notified the US government that the Church has indeed ceased polygamy and accusations that they were being done in secret were false.

      so, connecting statehood to dropping ploygamy is not as directly connected as you presented it to be.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Misticbuttrain
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:12pm

      @ mut

      Actually Missionary‘s can’t teach Muslims with out written permission from the First Presidency of Church of JESUS CHRIST of latter day saints, simply because if they can be killed if they go back home. While there are a lot of Muslims here that are not from the middle east its still the practice.

      Second of all I do not preach what I believe to others because I think I need to save them. I have conversation with them because they ask me. I do not force my religion on anyone, nor do I tell them they are wrong or going to hell. I do not believe they are going to hell because they are not “Mormon”. There are many righteous people out there who are of all faiths including Muslim, Jews, Hindu, Buddiest (so spelled wrong worry) and others. There are even Atheists out there who are righteous people. All man is free to worship who and as they will. Stop telling me I am going to hell because I worship differently than you. We all have our free will and all that really matters in the end is what we have done with our lives. From there Christ and Heavenly Father will sort it out. I follow the ten commandments, I try to live my life like Christ did. I pray and read my scriptures daily and I try not to judge others. I love my God and I love my neighbors. I am a charitable person, I take the sacrament every week and I attend the temple. If I am going to hell for being like Jesus was than I would hate to see where many others are going who don’t try to be like Him.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:16pm

      Mutiny;

      “I have told you I am southern Baptist. I understand your point where it seems I am always attacking but I dont see it as attacking. I see it has trying to help the misguided. I mean think about the my views on the LDS. If your friend or a forum combatant was a Muslim would you try to lead him to Jesus? I think you would.”

      First off, your previous defense of Alex Jones speaks volumes as to why you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality. Second, I can care less for the type of “Evangleical love” you have demonstrated. Few others would care for it as well. Take the path from Richard Muow which has moved away from talkng about Mormons from the point of view of “getting planets”, “poygamy being essential to becoming gods”, etc. As he points out, these are not core or “official” LDS doctrines so don’t focus on them when “Talking to Mormons”. Third, I think P8triot would very much lead a Muslim to Jesus. And I think he made it clear how he’d do it. He’d share with the Muslim what he believed and move on from there. Perps invite the Muslim to church, attend activites and otherwise fellowship with the Muslim. He would not go to the Muslim and point out how false his teachings are, the Muhammad wasas false prophet and tha the Muslim was not going to be saved.

      Now, about that vodka…

      Report Post » Darren  
    • joel228
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 6:54pm

      Mutiny, I absolutely do know where “ye are gods” came from. It came from the prophet Asaph (see Psalm 82) who also said “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.” The congregation of the mighty is a congregation of gods.

      How can God judge among the gods unless he is judging his children who live worthy of that designation? The apostle Paul said there are gods many and lords many. He is not talking about false gods any more than false lords (1 Cor 8:5). To us there is but one God.

      Why would Jesus use and confirm the validity of what Asaph said if Asaph was teaching anything less than us becoming gods? He told those trying to trap him that they believe, or at least the scriptures teach, something greater than what he was claiming and he was accused of blasphemy. He asked which is more blasphemous – to claim son ship to God or to claim to be heirs to become a god? If he was blasphemous then his accuser were that much more blasphemous. Jesus was pointing out the hypocrisy. Any other interpretation makes Jesus’ argument lame. He was not lame in argument.

      Before the council of Nicene these teachings were well understood.

      Report Post » joel228  
    • SoloPocono
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 10:35pm

      WOW!! Glad I’m a Hindu!!
      Namaste All!!
      (Namaste=I respect the Divine within you)

      Report Post »  
    • Chuck Stein
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 2:53am

      @ Darren (re: Mutiny)
      “First off, your previous defense of Alex Jones speaks volumes as to why you cannot distinguish fantasy from reality.”

      I admit it — I laughed. I have not followed “Mutiny”’s posts, but if what you say is true about Mutiny and Alex Jones, then you sure are right about the fantasy versus reality problem.

      Report Post »  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 11:54am

      @MUTINY –

      I’m a bit late on my reply – so not sure if this will be read or not…

      I do share my beliefs with everyone who will listen, but I don’t do it by telling them why I think they belong to a “cult” or that they “want to have orgies in heaven” or that they “are deceived and lead by Satan” or that the person they esteem to be a Prophet is a pedophile and con-man. Do you really think that you will put anyone in a position to listen to you at all after talk like that? Or that they will be in the state of mind to be receptive to the Spirit? Not likely.

      I’ll be completely honest with you – our conversations have only strengthened my knowledge that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only true and complete church on the face of the planet and is directly lead by Jesus Christ Himself. So, thank you.

      Finally, I hope that you will one day decide to share what you believe and why – rather than attempt to tell me what I believe and why you think its wrong. I think you’ll find that by doing so, you can share your beliefs as well as build friendships rather than tear them down.

      God has revealed to me through the Holy Ghost that the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is 100% perfect. This is revealed to me daily as I read the Book of Mormon AND the Bible with prayer everyday.

      Finally – once again, are you a pastor, preacher, etc? Just curious.

      Report Post » P8riot  
  • Cindyhj
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:53pm

    I am offended at the picture on the vodka bottle because I feel that it denigrates the women, even more so than the LDS. We are not something to be OWNED. We are not part of a “collective”. LOOK at the picture, and what those women are doing, I would say that it is also suggestive in purpose/nature – sex sells? I am GLAD that Idaho has banned it.

    Report Post »  
    • lukerw
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:08am

      Then… you must be for a Michigan Ban of… ‘Raging Bitch’ Beer, too!

      Report Post » lukerw  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:25am

      LOL like 5 women standing for a picture in like 1890.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • TheCurator
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:39am

      CINDYHJ, relax. Those are all ex-wives, and they all collect six-figure alimony. Heck, that’s the point of the alcohol.

      Report Post »  
    • Cindyhj
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 5:54pm

      Ban beer? No – I just think this type of advertising to sell beer should be banned – as it denigrates women. Now that it turns out to be a vaudeville bar picture of five women, it is even more about false advertisiing, as it is NOT about polygamy. The vodka company shouldn’t receive any kudos for that. So, you guys can chill (I assume you are guys.)

      Report Post »  
  • Candyland
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:30pm

    I read this article and was disappointed that it is very misleading. (AP???) I live in Idaho and the ban on the Vodka is just in State Liquor stores. Hard liquor can be purchased in bars, groceries stores, etc. This product can be sold by private establishments. The article assumes that it is a complete ban. It is not.

    Report Post »  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:16am

      @CANDYLAND

      Very astute observation.

      The reason was given by the sentence: “…state liquor stores already make hundreds of vodka brands available for sale and don’t have room for another brand priced at around $20 a bottle.”

      Are they supposed to sell EVERY brand of liquor made?

      When it comes to choosing what to sell, and what not to, the potential “offensiveness” factor should be taken into account by any business.

      Good for Idaho.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:30am

      @brother

      Yes it should be taken into account by any business, not by the government.

      You are misunderstanding the ban. You cannot go into a liquor store and buy this liquor. Rarely does anyone go into a bar and ask for a particular vodka unless its top shelf. The rest is the cheapest they can get. So the liquor company would depend on the sales gimmick of the name to sell it in the stores and then hope people like the taste.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • brother_ed
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:59am

      @MUTINY

      And if they don‘t like the ’gimmick’, do they still have to sell it?

      Can I produce & market a $20 bottle of liquor and sue the state if they refuse to sell it because they have already have plenty of others that fill the bill?

      I remember visiting Utah (SLC) and seeing a beer called ‘polygamy beer’. There motto was “you can’t have one” or something like that. I thought it was hilarious!!

      We Latter Day Saints have a pretty good sense of humor, we have to.

      I am not offended by it, but the State Liquor Store gave it as ONE of their reasons. I wonder what their primary reason was. My guess is that they don’t need another vodka in that category.

      Report Post » brother_ed  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:12am

      @brother

      You are still missing the point. The state isnt selling it. They are not allowing liquor stores to purchase it and stock their shelves with it. That is a business decision that should be made by the store owner not the government regulators. If the people of the state do not want it simple principles of supply and demand will fix it.

      Are you for the NYC ban on +16 oz sugary beverages being banned? I am betting not because that is a no business of the governments, same applies here.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:49am

      Uhm, Mutiny, go back and read her post again. This is NOT about private liquor stores, but about the STATE liquor stores not selling it. It is YOU that is missing the point.

      Report Post »  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:56am

      Are you people kidding me?

      What state has state owned liquor stores? They are not owned by the state!!! They are privately owned liquor stores that the state is not allowing to sell that particular liquor because they dont want to make the Mormons who shouldnt care since they dont drink mad.. The state regulates what comes in and out of its state.

      DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW???

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:22am

      @mutiny Go do your research. In answer to your question “What state owns liquor stores?” The answer is Idaho does! Idaho STATE liquor stores are owned by and run by the State of Idaho. We are not talking about privately run enterprises.

      Here, read all about it: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/A+family+of+stores%3a+the+employees+of+the+Idaho+State+Liquor…-a090529062

      and here, from Idaho’s ISLD site: http://www.liquor.idaho.gov/Website_Pages/Purchasing/LicensesandPermits.html

      DO *YOU* UNDERSTAND NOW??? Unquote.

      Report Post »  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:29am

      And the employees are employees of the State!

      Report Post »  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:35am

      Ken you are a absolute idiot. I am guessing you understand zero about liquor or the laws and regulations surrounding it.

      Idaho State Liquor Dispensary is the group that decides what liquors can come into the state and be sold at privately owned liquor stores. This group has decided that they will not allow that liquor to be sold in Idaho liquor stores.

      Just to prove I am right, I am going to slowly break this down for you in small simple words for you so maybe you can understand it.

      Idaho State Liquor Dispensary sells permits and licenses to sell liquor in the state of Idaho. Can we both agree they are part of the state’s government? Now if a state owned liquor store opened would it make since for them to have to pay fees and such to this state agency? I dont think they would. So would a private company who does have to pay these fees be at a disadvantage? YES!!! What you are saying is so incorrect it is shocking.

      As a joke, what other industries does the state run? Do they have Idaho state hot dog stands? How about Idaho state car dealerships? What is funny though is both the hot dog stand and the car dealership do have a state run agency like the liquor stores they have to get permits and licenses from.

      Do you understand now? If not I am guessing you are borderline retarded.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:59am

      Hey @Mut(t) *yawn*

      Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:14am

      Mutiny
      Sorry to inform you but
      The State of Idaho Own’s an Runs the Liquor Stores
      the people who work there are State Employees
      You can’t buy liquor in a private store.
      You can buy Mixed Drinks in a bar
      but not liquor by the bottle.

      Report Post » flipper1073  
  • pdw
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:56pm

    I see again there is a lot of hate here, people that have no idea what they are talking about but then that is why we have freedom of speech. People love do twist words to suit their thoughts, but Lucifer can quote scripture for his own benefit.

    Report Post »  
  • Blazingbakedbeans
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:33pm

    Idaho is missing a great oppurtunity. They should be running with this vodka. They could have a commercial with one of the women on the label as a spokesperson. She could say I Da Ho on the left.

    Report Post » Blazingbakedbeans  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:53pm

      ha!

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
    • Xcori8r
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:03pm

      Or maybe this is an opportunity for them to change the name to something extolled and embraced in society today like “Five Lesbos”..

      they won’t even have to change the label art.

      Report Post » Xcori8r  
    • Xcori8r
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:34pm

      And anyway, what is the problem anymore with polygamy in a gay marriage society?

      If Heather can have two mommies, why can’t she have three?

      Why is two any better than three?

      Report Post » Xcori8r  
  • powedj
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:25pm

    I think they should change the label to Mohammed and five wives and put up a big billboard outside Mecca and Medina.

    Report Post » powedj  
  • Mutiny
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:21pm

    @singer

    His post was funnier than Beck Monday radio comedy talking about cooking infants or his Hindeberg jokes.

    Report Post » Mutiny  
  • Constructionist
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:13pm

    There is no truth to the rumor that Five Wives is also considering marketing a brand of cognac called “3 EBTs”.

    Report Post » Constructionist  
  • sbenard
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:13pm

    If such a “product” targeted Jews, you can bet that the Anti-Defamation League would go after them. If it targeted Muslims, no doubt CAIR would lead a boycott! What does it say about a company that creates a product specifically to target and mock a religious minority? It’s despicable. Mormons should band together to lead a boycott against this company and ALL its products!

    Report Post » sbenard  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:19pm

      You realize Mormons dont drink right? That boycott would be funny.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • 3monkeysmomma
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:54pm

      Apparently he doesn’t.

      Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
    • Amica
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:48pm

      I’m a Mormon. Not offended in the least. I think the name and the label are clever. It‘s actually one of the least offensive depictions of my religion I’ve seen.

      Report Post » Amica  
    • sacwoodpusher
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:52am

      Stop with the anti-mormon discrimination claims. I have employed mormons…….I’ll take every one who wants to work for me. But stop it with the discrimination claims. Total baloney.

      The mormons are already boycotting this product, I hear. Funny!

      Report Post »  
    • flipper1073
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:57am

      The label doesn’t say anything about LDS or Mormon
      besides you see a lot worse on TV an magazines at Walmart.
      An a boycot of Vodka by Mormon’s is kinda dumb.
      Because We Don’t Drink alcohol.
      Most LDS people would never have seen this label
      Because we don’t go to Liquor Stores.
      But now it’s on every TV news show an both our local
      Newspapers.
      Stupid people in State Government

      Report Post » flipper1073  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 11:57am

      @SBENARD -

      I completely agree with you that if we disagree or are offended by a certain product, that we should use free market channels to make our point – this ban was silly and I agree that it was an infringement on private enterprise.

      PS. I know you’re also a Mormon and I see and agree with your point.

      @MUTINY – I also agree with your point – us Mormons already do – in a sense – boycott all alcoholic drinks :)

      Report Post » P8riot  
  • SingerGuy
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:12pm

    Are you stupid, a troll, trying to be controversial, or just a jack{donkey}?

    Report Post » SingerGuy  
  • MBA
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:11pm

    Actually, it doesn’t say the five wives are married to the same guy (is it inferred because the product comes from Utah that they are)? And, mormons are not supposed to be drinking spirits so what’s the beef? There’s Polygamy Porter and no one is getting bothered about that. Geez, Idaho–get over yourself it’s only vodka–and it’s made in the USA.

    Report Post »  
  • ydaani
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:04pm

    Most of my friends who are LDS (as I am) think this is no different than other states taking political correctness too far. I have no doubt it will get reversed soon, I don’t think much of the state has even heard of the controversy yet.

    Report Post » ydaani  
  • 3monkeysmomma
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:03pm

    Everybody everywhere needs to just flippin get over themselves.

    Report Post » 3monkeysmomma  
  • Chet Hempstead
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:00pm

    I’ve reached an age when I rarely use the phrase “stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.” There’s just too much stupidity in the world for it to be more than an empty hyperbole. However, I will say that the not enough room in the liquor store excuse is a worthy new addition to the top ten list.

    Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:03pm

      Hey Chet,

      That sure was a big lead-up for an anti-climactic finish.

      Does “Navy Corpse-man” have a ranking in your top 10 list?

      Or how about “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian” for “wheeling and dealing.”

      Seeing as how he repeated the “Corpse-man” line THREE times within a few minutes,…… that one ranks #2 or #3 on my list.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:43am

      A mere mispronunciation on the same list as the Idaho spokesman’s amazing flying horse manure? No way! Nor would I include any of President Bush’s infamous tangled phrases like “You’re working hard to put food on your family,”or enemies “who kill at the whim of a hat.” Public speaking is hard and nobody’s perfect. To be one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard, it has to be something that someone took the time to think about and decided wrongly that it would sound like it made sense.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:35am

      Nice try Chet,

      But three times in a short span of the same speech is NOT just a mispronunciation.

      It is nothing less than total ignorance of the word itself. And for the CIC to be ignorant of THAT word while giving THAT speech is astounding. Especially given the supposed high level of education he has. Maybe he was intercepting the joint from his choom buds the day they learned

      If while speaking, you mispronounce a particular word once, your mind will instantly recognize what just took place, and you will not repeat that mistake two more times within the next few minutes.

      That is provided that you actually knew the correct way to say, and or spell, the word in the first place.

      Chet, for something to qualify for the definition of stupidity you just stated above,…..I imagine it might have to sound like the following quote:

      CHET HEMPSTEAD
      Posted on January 23, 2012 at 1:21am
      “God bless our valiant abortionists, noble defenders of liberty, and keep them safe from the vile depredations of the wicked foes of freedom.”

      I’d say that fits your definition quite nicely……..how bout you?

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 4:50pm

      I stand by my words. God bless our valiant abortionists, noble defenders of liberty, and keep them safe from the vile depredations of the wicked foes of freedom. What’s wrong with that?

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 8:20pm

      In your eyes, there is nothing wrong with that.

      And that‘s what’s wrong with you.

      You lost something along the way Chet.

      Hopefully you will find it someday.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • Chet Hempstead
      Posted on June 8, 2012 at 1:26am

      Nah, you’re the one who lost something – respect for the rights of people other than Billy.

      Report Post »  
  • BurntHills
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:59pm

    wait til they put out a water-melon vodka label in Chicago and the label features all of the racebaiters like obama and sharpton and jackson. that’d be the same effect, same ugly intent as this ‘5 Wives’ brand. it’s deliberately provocative.

    Report Post » BurntHills  
  • Mutiny
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:49pm

    How is it anti-Mormon? If anything its pro Mormon. The only reason Mormons today do not practice polygamy is because they wanted to become a state so it was banned and Mormons follow the rules of the land.

    Report Post » Mutiny  
  • THE_ADVERSARY
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:46pm

    Becks favorite Im sure!…LMAO! Sorry Blaze…but you were just asking for that one with this story.

    THE_ADVERSARY  
    • SingerGuy
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:13pm

      Glenn Beck stopped drinking many years before this brand was ever created. He’s never tasted it.

      Report Post » SingerGuy  
  • Conserving Ink
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:44pm

    I’m a Mormon in good standing and I find the Vodka amusing. Anyone who can’t laugh at themselves a little has problems.

    Report Post » Conserving Ink  
    • Matrix22
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:54pm

      I have to agree. As a practicing Mormon, I really find these things funny, and if they’re trying to be offensive, they are going to need to try a bit harder. I once saw a billboard in UT that had a picture of a very busty woman holding a beer, and the caption said, “If you just said, “oh my heck!” this probably isn’t for you.” I was laughing so hard I almost had to pull over.

      Report Post »  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:57pm

      You have to have a sense of humor. It’s cute…not mean or insulting.

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • sbenard
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:17pm

      I suppose the attitude of “laughing at oneselves” was what also lead to Mormons being driven out of 5 states, their people being killed, their homes being stolen or burned, and an execution order being issued against them by the governor of a state. Perhaps a little more cognizance of your own Church history would be a good place to start your attitude adjustment!

      Report Post » sbenard  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:32pm

      @sbernard

      An execution order was never issued for Mormons. They were also not innocent in the problems in their areas.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Amica
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 11:56pm

      Sbenard:
      That was a long time ago, we believe in forgiveness, and the problems had nothing to do with pictures on bottles. If you’re holding a grudge…that’s your problem.

      Report Post » Amica  
    • LibertyGoddess
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:12am

      Mutiny you need to look things up before you post. Yes, there was an extermination order by Governor Boggs. It was legal to kill Mormons. They were driven off because they grew to large in numbers and it scared the government and the voting block it presented. Time and time again, the Mormons did not fight back and yes, they were innocent.

      Report Post » LibertyGoddess  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:56am

      @liberty

      Really? So what was the The Battle of Crooked River? A Mormon army advanced into a non Mormon area and charged into state militia resulting in 2 Mormons and 1 militia dead. So what exactly should the governor have done? Just let a war rage on in his state? No he evicted the problem. As far as I can see no one died on record from the order 44.

      I get why Mormons get bent out of shape about it though. The real results of the order proved Joseph Smith to be a false prophet since his prophecy of the return of Jesus and the temple being built there didnt happen. But hey you got Utah and Idaho instead.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • BrayDeck
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:06am

      No, Mutiny, you uneducated bigot. The Battle of Crooked River was a result of dissenter from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints spreading lies about the Church. We – yes I’m a descendant of the people in question – created a militia to defend ourselves from the mobs that were robbing us of our weapons and forcibly evicting us from our lands. This was due to the Church being a strong abolitionist political threat to the racist, slave-holding bigots of Missouri.

      Haun’s Mill massacre. Look it up. Seventeen killed by the mob including children as young as nine years old. You obviously know absolutely nothing about what you’re talking about.

      Report Post » BrayDeck  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:36am

      @bray

      You Mormons love the word bigot. I mean its like the blacks always using racist. It just fits anything you need huh?

      As far as your VERY UNBIASED comments they are wrong. The executive order to remove Mormons from the state was not issued until after the Mormons had a shoot out with state militia. The Mormons crossed the river into the non Mormon area with an army. The shoot out that claimed three Mormons and one militia man. The “peaceful” Mormons charged the militia’s defensive position during the fight.

      There is no need to look up any other events involving Mormons since the prophet crushing on happened in Missouri. I will pray for you to see through the false faith and find all you need is the Bible and Jesus Christ of the Bible.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:54am

      Hey @Mutiny–

      *yawn*

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:09am

      Mutiny;

      Previously you said:

      “I suppose the attitude of “laughing at oneselves” was what also lead to Mormons being driven out of 5 states, their people being killed, their homes being stolen or burned, and an execution order being issued against them by the governor of a state.” (June 6 @ 9:49)

      Huh?

      And now this:

      “An execution order was never issued for Mormons. They were also not innocent in the problems in their areas.”

      You are exceptionally ignorant of history, sir.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:11am

      @ken

      Yes facts can be boring. Sad thing is I am having to teach Mormon history to Mormons.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:14am

      @darren

      I didnt post that. That was someone else. Go back and check.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:17am

      @darren

      sbenard
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:17pm

      “I suppose the attitude of “laughing at oneselves” was what also lead to Mormons being driven out of 5 states, their people being killed, their homes being stolen or burned, and an execution order being issued against them by the governor of a state. Perhaps a little more cognizance of your own Church history would be a good place to start your attitude adjustment!”

      I accept your apology.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:39am

      @Mutiny Ehh, no…facts are not boring. The yawn was directed at your misconstrued “facts” and statements and mostly at your boring, unending preaching.

      *yawn* again

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:59am

      Mutiny;

      You are correct. Here’s what I intended to by my first cut and paste quote: “How is it anti-Mormon? If anything its pro Mormon. The only reason Mormons today do not practice polygamy is because they wanted to become a state so it was banned and Mormons follow the rules of the land.” My apologies for the error and I stand by the rest fof my post.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • P8riot
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:08pm

      @MUTINY –

      Wow, again, are you only a libertarian when its YOUR rights that are threatened???

      Here is a direct quote from Missouri Executive Order 44 (aka – the Mormon Extermination Order)

      “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state…”

      What if it said:

      “The Jews must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state…”

      or

      “The Baptists must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the state…”???

      How would it sound then?

      Are you seriously defending a government mandated executive order authorizing anyone in the state to “EXTERMINATE” anyone BASED ON WHAT RELIGION THEY BELONG TO?

      This order says nothing specifying it to “only those who participated in crooked river” (which your version is grossly distorted)… it simply states that if a person is Mormon, they may be driven from the state or exterminated at will.

      GEESH – I thought you Ron Paul people stood for freedom from governmental oppression… I learned a lot about you today.

      Report Post » P8riot  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 12:38pm

      @p8riot

      I am completely libertarian. Look if the Mormons had not raised an army and attacked the militia no order to remove Mormons would have been issued. Where they problems prior to the attack and the order, yes. Lets be honest, the Mormon faith has some particular things about that others found to be a problem. The block voting as an example still happens to this day ( Romney will get 98% of the Mormon vote).

      Report Post » Mutiny  
  • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:41pm

    There would be no problem if they had pictures of Pelosi, Maxine Waters, Moochelle, Jackson Lee, and Rosie O Donnell. That way if any of them started looking good, you know you had enough.

    Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • disenlightened
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:00pm

      @THE_ADVERSARY
      Beck was an alcoholic before he became a Mormon…you know that, right?

      Report Post » disenlightened  
    • Blazingbakedbeans
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:05pm

      I think your talking about a different label called Five Sk–ks.

      Report Post » Blazingbakedbeans  
    • Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:23pm

      BlazingBakedBeans:
      I guess a better name would be “5 Witches” Then no one would have a problem with it, except witches, but we can always test them. If they float, they are witches, because they are made from wood.

      Report Post » Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:05am

      @Darmok I loved your first post–hilarious! All I can say is “Temba, his arms wide.” :)

      Report Post »  
  • lukerw
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:40pm

    Looks… tasty… to me!

    Report Post » lukerw  
  • flipp457
    Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:37pm

    islamic countries bans things also that they seem offensive… sounds like Idaho is mimicking Islam

    Report Post » flipp457  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 9:46pm

      Very true. Religions and governments use control over clothes, food, drink, and entertainment for control of their sad little sheep.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Utahcatholic
      Posted on June 6, 2012 at 10:12pm

      Make no misake about it, the Mountain West, the home turf of the LDS religion has many laws and regulations that are there simply in place to appease the Mormons. The lawmakers in these states bend over backwards to placate the Mormons. Utah liquor laws are archaic, stupid and lack common sense. They cost the state big dollars and tourism. But even the non-Moron lawmakers cave to the influence of the LDS lobby……..no lottery either, it’s evil ya know.

      Who’s buying, I’ll have a Polygomy Porter with shot of Five Wives. LOL

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:43am

      Utahcatholic;

      “Make no misake about it, the Mountain West, the home turf of the LDS religion has many laws and regulations that are there simply in place to appease the Mormons. The lawmakers in these states bend over backwards to placate the Mormons.”

      Yup, like restrictions on pornography, strip joints, booze, tobacco, etc. How profoundly uncatholic of the Mormons to do so.

      “Utah liquor laws are archaic, stupid and lack common sense. They cost the state big dollars and tourism.”

      I know. Likewise I guess they should legalize prostitution, casinos, and make sure liquor’s sold at the local conventient store, eh? That should make the Vatican happy.

      “no lottery either, it’s evil ya know”

      Here, keep up with your reading: “Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant. ” (Paragraph 2413 of the Catechsim)

      “Who’s buying, I’ll have a Polygomy Porter with shot of Five Wives. LOL”

      I think you’ve had one too many alreay. Put the bottle down, sir. Just put it down.

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 1:59am

      @Darren Excellent points to UtahCatholic. LOL at your last lines. Great post.

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:10am

      Kenzen;

      ;>)

      Report Post » Darren  
    • Mutiny
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:25am

      @darren

      The problem with your post is the government has banned those things. Your faith has banned those things.

      If you believe in Jesus Christ you dont want to do those things or at least try not to do them. I dont need a law or a command from my church telling me what I can and cannot do. What I am saying is if those things were legal in your state would you start doing all of them? I am betting no. Neither would I. I just dont believe the government should banned things be it large cokes, vodka, or porn. Its my choice not yours or the governments.

      So are you a big government guy who wants the state to tell you and your family what they can do or a limited government guy? Remember if you say big government, one day that big government might turn on your faith because once you give them the power its takes a war to take it away from them.

      Report Post » Mutiny  
    • Kenszen
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 2:58am

      @mutiny *yawn*

      Report Post »  
    • Darren
      Posted on June 7, 2012 at 3:10am

      Mutiny;

      “The problem with your post is the government has banned those things. Your faith has banned those things. ”

      Oh, good grief. If the people *of a state* want to ban booze, then let them. If they want to ban casinos. Then let them. If they want to ban abortions, then let them. Likewise, if the people of a state vote to allow booze, then so be it. If they vote to allow casions, then let them. If they vote for abortions, then so be it. In fact, except for abortions, I would not waste my time outlawing anything mentioned here, despite my opposition to engaging in these activities. If UtahCatholic wants to gamble,, I won’t stop him, not will I care to report his activities to the uthorities if he does. His fait prohibits said activites yet he wants to engage in them. As a citizen he’s 100% free to fight for the “right” to gamble bt likewise, others are 100% free to restrict gambling. But, as a Catholic, he doesn’t stand on any grounds to promote gambling.

      “I am betting no.”

      Ha! that’s a pun!!! :>)

      “I just dont believe the government should banned things be it large cokes, vodka, or porn. Its my choice not yours or the governments.”

      That’s the libertarian in you. Conservatives ike me think differently. I’ve no problem a *state* banning anything. It’s the federal involvement in these matters which concern me. If an activity is resticted within its own state, the fed should stay out.

      “So are you a big government guy ” Ummmm, no.

      Good n

      Report Post » Darren  
1 2 3

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love