Posted on 08/26/2007 2:54:35 PM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, on Tuesday in an interview with Nevada television station KLAS said that if elected president he would allow individual states to keep abortion legal, the Washington Post reports.
Romney earlier this month in an interview with ABC News' George Stephanopoulos said he supports a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion nationwide. According to the Post, the "two very different statements" reflect a "challenge" for Romney as he attempts to be a "champion of the antiabortion movement".
In an interview with the Associated Press Tuesday, Romney said that giving states control to "fashion their own laws with regard to abortion" should be the "next step" in the abortion debate. Top Romney advisers on Tuesday said the governor supports a two-tiered process in which states first would obtain authority to regulate abortion after Roe v. Wade -- the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case that effectively barred state abortion bans -- is overturned. The second step would be a constitutional amendment that bans most abortions nationwide.
James Bopp -- an attorney who has represented antiabortion groups and a top Romney adviser on abortion -- said, "There's no flip-flopping. There's no contradiction. There's simply step one and step two." Jon Ralston, a columnist for the Las Vegas Sun who interviewed Romney for KLAS, said he believes Romney's "moral positions conflict" with his "states'-rights opinions," adding, "I don't see how you can be antiabortion, be in favor of a constitutional amendment and be in favor of states' rights". [click to read whole article]
(Excerpt) Read more at medindia.net ...
Nauvoo stake president William Marks suggested in 1853 that Smith came to have doubts about polygamy before his death:
When the doctrine of polygamy was introduced into the church as a principle of exaltation, I took a decided stand against it; which stand rendered me quite unpopular with many of the leading ones of the church ... Joseph, however, became convinced before his death that he had done wrong; for about three weeks before his death, I met him one morning in the street, and he said to me, "Brother Marks ... We are a ruined people." I asked, how so? he said: "This doctrine of polygamy, or Spiritual-wife system, that has been taught and practiced among us, will prove our destruction and overthrow. I have been deceived," said he, "in reference to its practice; it is wrong; it is a curse to mankind, and we shall have to leave the United States soon, unless it can be put down and its practice stopped in the church."
…
Another possibility is that the discontinuation of marriages resulted from tensions between Smith and his first wife, Emma, who threatened to leave him during this period. Such a scandal would have been disastrous for him and the church. He was also under pressure from his counselor in the First Presidency, William Law, a confirmed opponent of polygamy. Whether Smith came to believe polygamy was wrong or was merely pausing for tactical reasons, as he had during the Bennett scandal, is uncertain. But the eight-month cessation of marriages at the end of his life is a notable phenomenon.
The twenty-five or so wives whom Joseph married in early 1842 and 1843 bear impressive testimony to the fact that plural marriage was not simply a footnote to his life or theology, particularly since he was well aware of the threat of exposure. When he taught the principle of plural marriage to Sarah Kimball, wife of Hiram Kimball (such teaching usually presaging a proposal), "He said that in teaching this he realized that he jeopardized his life." Furthermore, some of his marriages were polyandrous, which incurred the danger of jealous husbands.
I see the three degrees of glory as no more then different subdivisions for the many mansions.
At the LAST SUPPER, Jesus taught about some of the divisions in our Father’s house. He even speaks of getting one of the places in our Father’s house ready for the disciples at the table. Then he reasserted that there are many different places in our Father’s house
My query:
Care to show me the words of Jesus here(OR any place else besides the words of the LDS) that state that the ONLY way to reach the Celestial kingdom and reside with HIM is to be baptized LDS and obey the LDS requirements to receive their temple rituals? Where does he state that one of the mansions is exclusive to mormons?
That is a lot of great information in a concise and easy to understand format. There is a woman that seems to be left off the list; Clarissa Reed Hancock.
There is a family tradition that lists her as one of the wives of JS. It is my beliefs that her offspring will produce the DNA evidence that researchers are looking for, but it won’t be in the famly of John Reed Hancock, but his brother Mosiah Lyman Hancock who was born on April 9, 1834 long before the doctrine of polygamy was officially announced, and about nine months after the Prophet Joseph Smith “turned out” his mother’s husband, Levi Hancock. In fact it was JS that introduced Levi to Clarissa.
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/DNA.htm
Mosiah wrote in his journal:
“I wish to write now of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The Lord revealed to this Prophet as early as the year 1831 that in consequence of great wickedness which would come upon the earth in the latter days, it would be necessary for great men to take the noblest wives. The Lord had reserved the most noble of His choice spirits to come forth through a pure lineage, as the noble spirits were not willing to come through a lineage that was corrupt.
Father nobly assisted the prophet in his good work. Then the apostates tried with all their power to get Joseph down, but they only succeeded in throwing themselves out of the Church. They put the Prophet to a great deal of trouble, and he had to go to Missouri. We went with him, and it was there on the road to Far West that I learned to love the noble course of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
I hopw the appropriate tests are being conducted on the male lineage of Mosiah Lyman Hancock.
Frankly, I would rather let common sense rule this issue (Smith was as ‘rand’ as sinkEmperor clinton but used an air of religiosity even clinton didn’t stoop to employ) and not intrude on the lives of descendants of those this false prophet may have propagated while women were in marriages to other men and the children bore that name instead of Smith’s.
You have a much more Christian attitude than I, and so I will recognize my error and correct it.
Too, you are right that even should DNA evidence prove that JS had offspring by his polyandrous or polygamous wives, it would change nothing in the minds of the true believers.
Those poor lost souls have openly condoned the actions of Brigham Young. He too was polyandrously married and they glorify in it and so.....what difference would it make.
I will continue to pray.
“the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”
This verse does not mention Jesus Christ though I pretty much know where you’re going with this.
Joh 17:21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
“as he commanded us to be one.”
That’s not what this verse that you supplied says. It says
“that they also may be one in us” meaning one with Jesus Christ and the Father. Who is the “they” Jesus Christ is talking about? Jn 16:29 says “his (Jesus Christ) disciples. What do you now do with this that the disciples should be “one in us?” Are the disciples now part of the Godhead? How can we be at one with God Almighty and Jesus Christ? One in purpose.
“JN 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.”
If Jesus Christ said “he can do nothing of himself except what he sees the Father do” how can Jesus Christ be God? God Almighty can make anything happen He wants but Jesus Christ says he does only what he sees the Father doing.
When Jesus Christ prayed it was always to God, not himself. Later in the NT nowhere does it say to pray to Jesus Christ but it does say to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ. The phrase “Son of God” is used 50 times in the NT. Not once does it ever say “God the Son.”
You know I thought of this same thing in regard to another matter (maybe somebody can help me out if they know anything about how the question I mention below was brought before the Democratic candidates...or if they know anything about the questioner?).
I was listening to the Laura Ingraham Show last week when she was covering one of the Democratic debates. (Laura was playing clips of a few answers from the Democratic candidates to a question that had to do with asking the candidates about their belief in a personal God).
Laura said that the question came from a query from "South Jordan, Utah."
I thought, ah, Salt Lake City area, which is something like 56% LDS--a little higher in SLC suburbs. So the likelihood that this question came from an LDS person is about 56%.
I thought at the time: In light of the constant bigot-mongers' deflection of anything at all faith-based (as tho they'd like to strip everything faith-worthy from its public face), how ironic it would be if we have other Mormons besides themselves who not only disagree with their premises, but openly "hijack" a Democratic debate (to use their constant thread refrain) to "inject" theology & religion as if these Democrat candidates are running for "pastor-in-chief." [There. Do I properly sound like a 'HijackBot?']
[Open invite should anyone want to ping self-id'd 'HijackBots.')
I mean, if this questioner was indeed LDS, they need a proper public verbal whipping from those use to delivering it. (I mean the mute button from these folks over such audacious "abuse" of these Democratic debate participants needs punching/clicking)
You say as you pass judgement...LOL
Here is your record on this thread today:
"you are quite obviously a zealot rather than a true Christian" to amoreperfectunion Post #302
"BTW, proudofthesouth, as a new Christian, I would think that you would be a little less quick to judge who is Christian and who isn’t. “Pride” & “Hubris” are a very un-Christian character traits."Post 291 to proudofthesouth and amoreperfectunion
"Ignorance is a very ugly thing when one presumes to lecture others on certain topics. I find it sadly ironic how harshly judgemental and un-Christian many professed “Christians” are. I pray that you start acting more as Jesus would want you to act toward others of different faiths." Post 293 to amoreperfectunion
And this latest to MhginTN "it is nice to know that you are an ignorant bigot giving the rest of us Christians a bad name. I am an actual Christian who does not so readily display hate for those who do not believe as I do." To MghinTN Post 347
I'm sure we are ALL very happy that YOU do not portray any of the behavior that you so lovingly point out in others, since you are "an actual Christian who does not so readily display hate for those who do not believe as I do."
Moderator, do you agree?
CC, too funny. LOL.
I wish this kind of blinder was rare. But it's so common.
The constancy of this kind of comment by a lot of different otherwise conservative folk makes me wonder at times: It would be like me sending a private email to MHGinTN, saying, "You know, I'm not going to reduce myself to gossiping like that 'gossip-slanderer, CC.' I'm going to leave it to God to punish folks who talk down about others behind their back." :)
The worst part of it is some of them will come back and say, "Yeah, you e-mailed MHGinTN about that...AND???? YOUR POINT???"
.....Just kidding.
I was in the mountains for the weekend. When did Romney get to be the "nominee"?
Sorry but the first thing you do is teach kids RESPONSIBILTY and CONSEQUENCES..
“Christianity is not polytheistic. It is monotheistic.
Mormonism is polytheistic - they believe every male
mormon has the potential to become a god “
So, these guys were Mormons then?
Saint Irenaeus
- “Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods?
Clement of Alexandria
- “Yea, I say, the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.”
and
- “if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God. . . . His is beauty, true beauty, for it is God, and that man becomes a god, since God wills it.”
Justin Martyr
- “[in the beginning men] were made like God, free from suffering and death,” and that they are thus “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest”
Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria
- “The Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. . . . Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life.”
and
- “He became man that we might be made divine.”
Augustine of Hippo
- “But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. ‘For he has given them power to become the sons of God’ [John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods.”
C. S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory
“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship.”
C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him-for we can prevent Him, if we choose-He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said”
Westminister Dictionary of Christian Theology:
Deification (Greek Theosis) is for orthodoxy the goal of every Christian. Man, according to the Bible, is ‘made in the image and likeness of God’...it is possible for man to become like God, to become deified, to become God by grace. This doctrine is based on many passages of both O.T. and N.T. (Psalms 82: (81) .6; 2 Peter 1:4), and it is essentially the teaching both of St. Paul, though he tends to use the language of filial adoption (Romans 8:9-17, Galatians 4:5-7) and the fourth gospel (John 17:21-23).
William R. Inge, Archbishop of Canterbury:
“God became man, that we might become God” was a commonplace of doctrinal theology at least until the time of Augustine, and that “deification holds a very large place in the writings of the fathers...We find it in Irenaeus as well as in Clement, in Athanasius as well in Gregory of Nysee. St. Augustine was no more afraid of deificari in Latin than Origen of apotheosis in Greek...To modern ears the word deification sounds not only strange but arrogant and shocking.
If you want to get the full reference for the quotes, they are at http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Deification_of_man
yep! ;)
I never once inferred or implied that I was Jewish. How can that be my problem when you read into something that isn’t there? How can it be my problem when you will not call a spade a spade? If you believe there is a God the Father, a God the Son, and a God the Holy Spirit that is called a trinitarian period. Whatever label you want to put on the can of green beans there is still green beans inside the can.
Go deal with somebody like yourself, a liberal comes to mind.
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.