Skip to comments.Ryan is a good man, but does not redeem the abortionist/homosexualist statist Romney
Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.
But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.
And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.
And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.
That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.
Lastly, we're having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon "bigot" on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.
Exactly the same with me. God Bless You!
A few previous articles have cracked a window on this:
* Mitt Romney mirrors his Mormon church [Lds writer says Romney flip-flops 'cause Lds church has/does]
* Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]
In the first linked article above, Mormon Neal Chandler highlights how in the 19th century...
* Mormons forced communism upon its people -- and then not (United Order)
* Adhered to theocracies under its first two "prophets" -- and then slowly drew back
* Encourage its Utah Territory voters to be Democrats -- and then told whole groups of people wholesale to "balance it out" as Republicans as statehood approached
* Excluded blacks -- and then late in the 20th century not
* Said polygamy was a condition of the highest degree of glory -- and then not (and that was after polygamy was condemned as an "abomination" in the 1830 Book of Mormon and monogamy fully embraced in the 1831 and 1832 Lds "scripture" Doctrine & Covenants...all as Joseph Smith supposedly had polygamy "secretly" revealed to him to start it up in 1831!
We can see from these historical examples how the Mormon "god" loves to change his mind on a whim!
From the second article linked above: What makes Mitt the kind of person he is ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other? My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).
IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!
There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.
So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!
Mitt may never have had much reason to truly care about issues of social morality that most religions of the civilized world care about, at least on paper (even the LDS cares about it on paper — but they are toothless it seems when it comes to reining Mitt in). He does seem to have carried on decently enough in his own love life. One wife, Ann Romney, whom he still loves, and even though his sons may be fairly criticized for shying away from military service they are not noted as being crooks or libertines.
We truly can’t know from the evidence at hand. Mitt is a sinner badly in need of salvation. However Mitt does appear open to being influenced in a way that Barack never would be. A waffler may waffle in the right direction. A demonic doctrinaire, never.
A larger issue for the future is how can the less-liberal body politic be unfrozen from its apathy with respect to primaries. People complain about elections never offering good choices; well that’s mostly because they only think general elections. The same complainers will by a proportion of 9-1 not get off their duffs in a primary. Mitt became prominent in the lack of competition from Sarah Palin. When Sarah Palin did not run, the body politic said meh. And We Got Mitt. Better strategeries (pace GWB) are needed.
That’s kind of what you would expect out of a religious organization without any actual divine leadership. It evolves, fitfully and directionlessly. If social mores around it progress, so will it. If social mores regress, so will it.
No you did not read properly.
He called us “Romney Republicans” as if there is some non-Romney Republican faction.
There are zero prefixes in the Republican party: you are either a Republican or you are not. Tom Hoefling/EV is not a Republican.
Really, you say this was NEVER a site where fiscal conservatives were active and welcome? Wow, I must’ve hallucinated that march on Washington with the Taxed Enough Already crowd. Or the mega threads and organized call campaigns against Porkulus. Or against TARP. Or making airline security workers private employees instead of fedgov ones. Or against Obamacare. Or against Medicare Part D. Or against the non-stop bailouts.
You’re right. It’s been about social conservative issues the whole entire time.
(Doncha think he has to do something first about that "I'm-a-god" complex???? I mean, per Mormon doctrine, he's already a god-man... (see below for documentation)
The truth is man is a child of God a God in embryo. Mitt Romney's father's cousin, Marion G. Romney one of the top three Lds hierarchists a generation ago...in Conference Report, April 1973, p. 136; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 14).
* "What is [man]? He had his being in the eternal worlds; he existed before he came here. He is not only the son of man, but he is the son of God also. He IS a God in embryo, and possesses within him a spark of that eternal flame..." (3rd "prophet" John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, pp. 52-54, as cited in Teachings of the Presidents: John Taylor, p. 2, 2001 -- compiled & published by its "intellectual reserve" publishing trademark).
* "If we take man, he is said to have been made in the image of God...being his son, he is, of course, his offspring, an emanation from God...He...came forth possessing, in an embryonic state, ALL the faculties and powers of a God." (Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, p. 52, as cited in Teachings of the Presidents: John Taylor, p. 3, 2001).
Many people know of Spencer W. Kimball, the 12th "prophet" of the Lds church (1973-1985), as the man who allowed blacks to become Mormon priests in 1978.
But did you know Mormonism teaches you are all "gods in embryo"??? (And Kimball was one of its key proponents)
Did you know that Mormonism teaches the false "gospel" of self-transformation -- of pulling yourself up by the bootstraps to become a god? (And Kimball was one of its key proponents)
Spencer W. Kimball on these very topics:
1969 "Being a GOD IN EMBRYO with the seeds of godhood neatly tucked away in him, and with the power to become a god eventually, man need not despair...he must...transform himself..." (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 173-174)
A couple he was advising in Kimball's office "did not understand that forgiveness is not a thing of days or months or even years but is a matter of intensity of feeling and transformation of self...This couple seemed to have no conception of satisfying the Lord, of paying the total penalties and obtaining a release..." (Ibid, p. 156)
To Kimball, you had to "pay the total penalties" for your sin -- vs. that being a role occupied by the true Jesus Christ.
September, 1974: Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility. Source: http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=6057 (Spencer W. Kimball speech entitled Be Ye Therefore Perfect 9/17/74 devotional address @ BYU)
1975: Man is created in the image of God. He is a GOD IN EMBRYO. He has the seeds of godhood within him, and he can, if he is normal, pick himself up by his bootstraps and literally move himself from where he is to where he shows he should be." Source: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/LovevsLust.pdf, "Love vs. Lust," Spencer W. Kimball, Provo: BYU Publications, 1975
November 1977: Self-mastery, then, is the key, and every person should study his own life, his own desires and wants and cravings, and bring them under control. Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility. To be perfect, one can turn to many areas as a starting place....As we have stated before, the way to perfection seems to be a changing of ones lifeto substitute the good for the evil in every case. Source: By President Spencer W. Kimball An address given to students of Weber State College, Ogden, Utah on 4 November 1977 http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=244ed0640b96b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD
July, 1978 Ensign Magazine: Lds church officially endorses Kimball Weber State College comments by publishing them in their official magazine
This quote also becomes part of Chapter 19 of what Lds officially teach college students in their Institute curricula: See http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/doc-gosp-11-20-19.asp
I have been admonished in many threads on FR for taking this stand, standing for the truth, not how I see but as our Lord Jesus Christ sees it as he and others said in the the Word of God. Mary is not needed for salvation either as an intercessor, helper or encourager, The Pope is not the infallible interpreter of scripture, and its heresy to constantly symbolically crucify our Lord. See where I could say as false as the Book of Mormon is , the Catholic religion is false also. Only difference is the Catholic religion(Notice I do not say faith) has numbers on their side and here on FR one mans cult is another mans doctrinal differences. We should dislike Romney for his political stances nothing more. The Lord himself does not have much use for politics, See 1st Samuel, Judges, and Exodus. I think relgious bigotry is not a good thing in a forum where we claim to be in the spirit of Jerffersonian Democracy like our Forefathers. I do not agree with Catholics, I do not beleive most of them are Christians but would I vote for one, absolutely if his politics and his honesty and integrity are demonstrable.
Are we at the part where they start sacrificing the chickens and speaking in tongues yet?
“I agree that Mormonism is a false non-Christian religion, but the Muslim religion is worse. Muslims are actively killing Christians in Arab and African countries, which the mainstream media chooses to ignore. And our current president is either a huge sympathizer or a Muslim. He supports the Muslim brotherhood and other known Muslim terrorist organizations.”
One kills the body- the other kills the soul.
Neither is my choice
We’d have thought if a viable third party were to arise, it would have been in the face of someone like Barack who was not just a loser but markedly evil and wicked. If Barack, forever dedicated to Doing The Wrong Thing, did not inspire this to happen, why should we expect that Mitt with his mere wafflings will?
Will the Democrats produce a reasonable candidate in the face of R&R? I doubt they have it in them any more to produce even a Bill Clinton. Blue dogs now get quickly euthanized.
My actions will be for a conservative. If you plan to vote for Romney, you might consider changing your screen name.
Neither is Harry Reid, also Mormon. Yes, there are higher authorities in the church. They tell you what you SHOULD do, not what you MUST do Then you either go as you’re going or try to get closer to what they have been telling you, and depend on Jesus’ s mercy to get you the rest of the way home. Much as Baptists & Catholics do. I do not know if Romney & Reid are satisfied with their choices or not.
Awww, but don't feel so sad. You didn't miss much :-)
All of that drivel is irrelevant and signifies nothing. The day for that wordy band width hogging balderdash is over. It no longer matters other than to show you for what you are.
That would be an American misfit unable to accept the reality of going forward out of the confines of you personal rut.
There are people on this site, posting on this very thread, who are going against the core tenets of conservatism itself.
I don’t think we can make an accurate statement categorical across all Catholic congregations about how many have put personal saving faith in Jesus Christ and how many are following a mere philosophical system hoping that the rites will carry them along to glory. Churchgoers who are spiritually dead are a big problem in the evangelical world, too.
Bandwidth? Get with it bro. This is the day of DSL and Wifi and Clear and cable modems and etc.
Your right Jim Rob. I get SICK and TIRED of not getting to vote for someone decent, and having to vote for puke RINOs like McScream and RomnieCare. We are always having to vote to KEEP someout out of the White House instead of voting to put someone we can really feel good about to get them in.
Okay Kevmo, you are number three... Let’s see how you answer his question:
In my state, there are two major candidates for US Senator.
Candidate A has an ACU lifetime rating of 89ish. Candidate B can barely pull a 10 lifetime rating.
One candidate is a Mormon. The other is Jewish.
I am Jewish.
1. Which candidate should a Jewish conservative vote for? A or B?
2. Which candidate is the Mormon? A or B?
Thanks and God’s speed to each of you. We’ve been posting back and forth and being involved to work to preserve our nation and constitution for 14-15 years here.
I am grateful for all of that time, all of that work, and all of the people I have nmet and worked with in the process. It has all built up to this, where the very life of our Republic is on the line.
Although I did not agree with all he did, particularly his using the term “compassionate conservative,” to imply that somehow government is a huge source of compassion in heliping the needy when they take from others by force and compulsion to give their goods to other people on the government’s terms...just the same, I believe what George Bush said about the War against the Jihadist applies here, “We shall not falter.”
We simply have to remove Obama and his marxist administration from office...and we have to work together to do it. This November is that opportunity and I will vote for Romney and Ryan in the effort to do so, and do all I can to help conservatve, loyal Americans be elected in the House and Senate and throughoput the states. If we do that, we will win and turn things around.
If Obama stays in office, we will be in absolute mortal peril of losing our cherished Republic and will all too soon, I fear, face the same options our founders faced. Either relent and submit to tyranny, or out and out fight. I pray we can avoid that because the consequences will end up being terrible beyond belief...but would not shirk from that either if it comes to it, because out and out tyranny would be far worse.
Again, thanks for your kind words and support.
Go ahead. Allow Mitt to pretend he's a "god-in-embryo" -- when, if Paul Ryan announced that SAME belief tomorrow, nobody...not the MSM; not the Dems; not even most FREEPERS, would give Paul Ryan a "pass" on that.
It simply shows that you & many others have made Mormonism into a "sacred cow" -- not to be gouged; and not to be cut up into steaks & hamburgers for consumption!
IMHO, like it or not, the best conservative running for POTUS, this time around, is Tom Hoefling! It’s a real shame that the majority of voters will never get to know Tom, as a person and as a candidate for ‘12 POTUS.
Let me know and I’ll get some popcorn ready.
Thank you, Jim. On the announcement thread I was starting to feel like the only one who “gets it” anymore.
God bless you for your integrity, your sentiments, and for your service to this Republic Master Sgt.
America at the Crossroads of History
My witness for Christ
Okay lets play a game.
In my state, there are two major candidates for US Senator.
Candidate A has an ACU lifetime rating of 89ish. Candidate B can barely pull a 10 lifetime rating.
One candidate is a Mormon. The other is Jewish.
I am Jewish.
1. Which candidate should a Jewish conservative vote for? A or B?
2. Which candidate is the Mormon? A or B?
Your failure is that you don’t realize that it doesn’t matter. The trivial issues you flog are so far down on the list of that which is important they don’t even raise a single glimmer
You using that analogy is what is silly.
JFK didn’t initiate same sex marriage nor a socialistic healthcare w/abortion
and JFK was not a BISHOP in his church.
Nor did JFK take an oath to his church hierarchy that supersedes any oath to America
nor was JFK godless! .
RepoGirl’s account has not been closed.
We criticize liberals for their condemnation of the CEO of Chic-fil-A. Are you not doing the same thing? America stands for freedom of religion. [New Jersey Realist]
We criticize liberals for the basis of their crit; not the means they use to express it (The First Amendment). You, on the other hand, turn this around vs. Ron H.
Somehow, because of your fancied notion of "freedom of religion," Mormonism seemingly is supposed to be teflon proof. And I say that on the basis of your last line as well: "As a conservative I find it abhorant to criticize ANY man because of his religion."
In this "world" you've created, no falsehood is ever to be critiqued -- all because you have a faulty notion of "freedom of religion."
And what's worse, Ron spoked "religiously" when he labeled Mormonism a "cult." Those were his religious views spoken under the very same "freedom of religion" you accord Mormonism. But then you critiqued him for it.
Wanna 'xplain why Mormonism gets your free pass under your faulty "freedom of religion" notion, but Ron H.'s religious expressions don't? Do you see how you're being inconsistent here? (You have essentially refuted yourself)
That is certainly true however what does his religion have to do with anything? [New Jersey Realist]
You also "tip your hat" here by treating "religion" as some separate compartmentalized entity. The article I posted from the Christian Broadcasting Network yesterday -- written by David Brody, an Emmy-award winning journalist (see The First Mormon President? Does Faith Matter? [Yes, indeed!!! Lest we have a false god leading USA]
Brody pointed out in that article that among Mormons, "This gospel is not a Sunday only gospel. It's an everyday gospel day for us," Hinckley said. "If it doesn't infuse one's life, what good is it? We try and we teach that this is an everyday religion," he continued.
This is actually a value that Mormons and Christians agree upon. That it's an around-the-clock faith -- not simply a "religion."
It's usually posters who neatly compartmentalize their life -- or have largely let it go -- that have this secular-sacred dichotomy.
Sorry, but Mormons -- like Mitt Romney, don't; and the Bible, upon which is one of the ways we evaluate Mitt Romney, doesn't, either.
Btw, if you're from New Jersey, Obama will win there, anyway. Why don't you vote for a third party candidate, even if you have to write in a true conservative. You're vote wouldn't help Romney, anyway.
Zot me then, who cares.
And less Republicans all the time...Once it's official for Romney IN, I'm out of the GoP.
The GoP is now only 29% of all registered voters; and the erosion is still underway.
I've been a member of the Free Republic for many years, and I enjoyed much of the content here, albeit not always in agreement with some viewpoints expressed, and I am sure others felt the same about mine.
I don't think I've ever commented on any of your remarks, but today, I believe I need to. For the record, I do consider myself to be a conservative; I do not support abortion, I do not support “gay marriage”, however no issue with civil union, and I do not support big government.
As a Nation built upon Christian beliefs, we can't continue to make our point or wrap our disagreements with each other around one or two quotes of scripture; The Bible and in particularly for Christians, the New Testament is something to consider as a whole as it covers in far greater detail much bigger issues then false profits and gays.
The notion of religious freedoms, religious expression and spirituality is evaporating in these United States, all because of extremism; the extremists that do everything possible to move everything that is spiritual or simple expressions of Religion under the banner of “Separation of Church and State”, to the other extreme who use religion and scripture to condemn anyone that does not conform to some very narrow interpretation of the Bible and religious belief.
Where in your Christian Bible does it is say its ok to refer to other human beings as a “POS”? The Bible I read talks a lot about love, kindness and tolerance and its seems to go to great lengths to reinforce love, kindness and tolerance in many many passages; so while you are forewarned about “false prophets” and it also says “He who is without sin shall case the first stone”. Who do you think God will judge more harshly; a gay man that lives a loving, caring, faithful life or the man that engages in name-calling, standing in judgment of others?
The arena of public debate has adopted a hate-based philosophy; one side will play the role of the victim and the other side will “demonize’, and the vast overwhelming majority of us in the middle are losing out (largely to our own fault) to these extremes and the direct result of that has been the loss of freedoms. In addition this extreme environment drives the best and brightest of people, away from the public service arena.
All we talk about, write about, broadcast about, is our differences. Gay vs. Straight; faith vs non-faith, rich vs. poor, fat vs. skinny, man vs. woman, black vs. white, young vs. old, and I can go on. When do we focus on what we have in common?
We've moved this line of tolerance so far, we've become intolerant. Did we really need the Congressional Black Caucus, Gay Pride Parade, Black History Month, Race quotas, etc.? Maybe we did in order to change, but when does the discussion begin to get rid of these establishments? And if there isn't going to be discussion for that endeavor; when will the discussion begin to create the Congressional White Caucus, the Straight Pride Parade, White History Month? I don't truly advocate these things, its simply an illustration.
I think there are core issues that most agree on; most want religious freedom, peace and prosperity. We want a system of government that is not intrusive, that doesn't over burden us with taxes and fosters of a culture that encourages hard work and is intolerant of lazy cheaters that look to live off the public. When do we united around some of these notions?
I too have concerns about Governor Romney being President. I don't share all of his beliefs, but I can find what I do identify with and believe him to be decent man. He's obviously a blessed man; and has much to be grateful for, which is something that I believe God plays a huge part of.
We need to return to civil discourse, issue focused, and not extreme taking points and rhetoric focused. We need the return of intellectual and spiritual honesty. Name-calling only brings more of the same, regardless who's doing it and its an intentional distraction created to keep us unfocused on the real issues.
“You using that analogy is what is silly.”
Really? How so? Both claims against JFK and the ones being made against Romney were baseless and intended to frighten people into not voting for a particular person.
Both were based in groundless claims with no real proof to back them up other than the person’s own imagination/bigotry.
As for your other burning straw men you tossed in...nothing in Romney’s campaign platform says he’s going to do any of what you are saying.
You’re doing the same thing the Dems and the MSM are doing with the birth control issue...creating something out of nothing in order to smear someone.
Nowhere has he said he’s going to support same sex marriage or Obama care.
Like the MSM and Dems on birth control...you’re making up things he’s never said he’s gonna do.
So I guess you should be proud...you and the DNC/MSM now have something in common.
Romeny godless? Hardly. He’s no more godless than a Buhddist or a Muslim.
I’d think one lesson of the bible is that you want wise secular leaders in the land where you live. It’s wonderful if they also acknowledge the Eternal God, and it is to be hoped that eventually all will, but that can’t of itself do in place of being competent at their calling. God uses even non believers for the purpose of bringing blessings in the world.
I’m the offspring of mixed marriage, Dad was the Jew so I am officially gentile. But Dad was a die hard political conservative. Mom was the bleeding heart liberal. I still haven’t totally gotten over the shock.
#1...Since when did Kennedy ever make the following promise to the Catholic church -- like Mitt has to the Mormon church? Here is the "The Law of Consecration Oath" that Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple):
"You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]
#2...Did Catholic officials in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, give solid signals of political overreach -- like Mormon leaders have for the last 30-50 years? [See chart next post]
Go vote for Obama them. You people are really sick if you are so desirous of Obama for 4 more years.
[continuing last post]
#2...Did Catholic officials in the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, the 1950s, the 1960s, give solid signals of political overreach -- like Mormon leaders have for the last 30-50 years? [See chart below...look beyond the first three quotes for the more recently published ones]
|Lds Leader||Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)||Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The LDS Church -- in 2001 -- thought it well to pull this quote from John Taylor to emphasize it: "The Lord...is desirous to show us how to save ourselves, how to bless ourselves temporally and spiritually, intellectually, morally, physically, POLITICALLY..." (Lds Church owned Deseret News, Nov. 19, 1865, p. 2, as quoted in Teachings of Presidents of the Church: John Taylor (2001, p. 178). Also from p. 178: "The idea of strictly religious feelings with us, and nothing else, is out of the question...Our religion is more comprehensive than that of the world...it embraces all the interests of humanity in every conceivable phrase..." (Original source: The Gospel Kingdom, 1943, p. 168)|
|Orson Hyde||President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)||What the world calls Mormonism will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)|
|Heber J. Grant||Lds 'Prophet' #7||"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)|
|Harold B. Lee||Lds 'Prophet' #11||...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)|
|Spencer Kimball||Lds 'Prophet' #12||"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)|
|What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?||Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')||"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)|
|Ezra Taft Benson||Lds 'Prophet' #13||Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #5||5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #9||9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #10||10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)|
|B.H. Roberts||LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!||[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED. The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180|
|Mitt Romney as POTUS???||Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?||The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]|
At its heart it is about Mormons. It it wasn’t you would be able to see the danger of 4 more years of 0bama.
And if you don’t see that a vote for anyone but the GOP candidate help get us the 4 more years of 0bama then there is no explaining math to you or your principled lot here.
Please pull my account.
To think I used to be a donor.
This would be hilarious if it were not so sad.
OBAMABOT! MITTBOT! OBAMABOT! MITTBOT!
When very very few are truly blind defenders of their choice. Almost all have reasons for coming down on their side of the question of what vote should they cast in November.
Third party movements have not done well in this country. They usually end up helping the other side as will be likely be the case this year, at least at the National/Presidential level.
Where the Tea Party has succeeded is at the local level and in the primaries. The next Congress will have a stronger Tea Party contingent and many state legislatures will be changed for the good. The Republican Party is being shaped by this movement, but from the bottom up and that's the best way to do it. Of course the great danger is that Conservative movement spends years in the wilderness following an Obama victory.
Again...the point I’m making is flying over your head. Continue kissing JR’s ring.
Not sure what that silly chart proves..other than you’re extremely paranoid and unable to comprehend the simple point I was making.
In principle the LDS are poised for a world dominating jihad. In practice, this is looking about as feasible as conquering the world by means of a herd of cats.
Great post Heff.
Here...for the obtuse and reading challenged in the group...any of this sound like you?
Kennedy on the Campaign Trail
From May 21, 1960
MARY MCGRORY | ARCHIVED ARTICLE
C harleston, W. Va. — It may be possible to overestimate the triumph of Senator Kennedy in West Virginia. No one who was here, however, thinks so. For here the expressions of doubt or resentment over his Catholicism were rendered with a forthrightness that was hair-raising to those who are accustomed to a slight glossing over of statements of prejudice.
It was impossible to be in this State for half a day in this campaign and not be told: “I could never vote for a Catholic,” or “He would have to take orders from the Pope.”
The expressions on the faces of the Kennedy staff during the last week here were a measure of their dismay on being confronted by such a seemingly unscalable wall. True, there was evidence in the last week that a reaction had developed among more fair-minded people, some of whom felt that injustice was being done, and others of whom saw West Virginias good name being blackened beyond cleansing.
It was not, however, until Senator Kennedy went on television the Sunday night before the election and assured the people of West Virginia that he would not take instructions from the Pope that hope began to flower in the Kennedy camp. Immediately following that appearance, telephone calls began pouring into their headquarters. Several Protestant ministers pronounced themselves convinced that Senator Kennedy understood and honored the separation of Church and State.
Senator Kennedys handling of the thorny religious issue was brilliant. He protested its inclusion in the campaign several weeks ago in a speech before the American Society of Newspaper Editors. He repeatedly told the people of West Virginia that he refused to believe they would reject him on those grounds. Finally, with his frank statement on television Sunday night, on the eve of the voting, he apparently won them over.
The roots of prejudice are a little obscure to trace in this lovely, rugged State, where visiting reporters were often told by the natives: “We dont know no Catholics here.” Why should they reject what they do not know and what represents no economic menace in a State where jobs are hard to find? Apparently their feelings were not fed to any great extent from the pulpits of their Fundamentalist churches. Nor were those feelings exacerbated by the furious discussion of the birth-control issue which raged in the press last December. They simply existed, and flared up when a man seeking the greatest national office materialized in their midst.
The conquest of prejudice, however, means that Senator Kennedy need no longer name his religion as an obstacle to nomination. More than that, as he said at an early morning press conference at his jubilant headquarters in Charleston: “I think that, after the campaign in this State, it will not be necessary to mention it again.” All present would certainly say a fervent “amen” to that.
I couldn’t even see civil unions, unless perhaps they want to be open to the idea of unions of such things as three men, one woman, and a greyhound dog. (Being a little sardonic there.) States have good enough reason to honor the existing age-old society-wide institution of marriage, but should never be used as the roots of establishing whole new arrangement. Things were going to hell in a handbasket with that, let alone the modern gay marriage.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.