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 ...
++++++++
All I have asked of you is to give me what your faith is based on, without throwing in what you think my faith is. I even asked for the long version. I am not playing “twenty Questions”, I am repeating the same question. I feel like it is you who is playing twenty answers.
If you are a member of a worshiping group, and believe they are right, the easy reply would to link me to your “belief’s page”.
I am a descendant from Joseph Jr. (not through Emma and not through Sylvia).
I don’t know where you got the information that Eliza was a purported virgin at her death. Eliza miscarried Joseph’s child when Emma pushed her down the stairs - that is recorded in the history of the Smiths. The covering up of Joseph’s other wives and children had more to do with Emma than any other person. I don’t blame her, certainly, but if the RLDS church was under the assumption that Joseph married but did not consumate the marriages it is because of Emma. She probably taught them that herself. There are many misrecorded facts due to the circumstances of the times.
As far as many LDS church members not knowing that Joseph had descendants beyond those of Emma, that has somewhat to do with the turmoil in his short life. His daughter that I descend from was kept from public light but her existence (and her brother’s) was known by those close to him. His extended family took care of her after his death - even though his mother was still alive and had already remarried.
I am LDS. I respect your disagreement, so artfully made, with Mormonism. I, myself, have at times questioned my beliefs as well as religion in general. I could just as easily tear apart the Bible as you have the Book of Mormon - though I hold them both as close and sacred to my heart. I could tear apart the disciples in the New Testament the same way you tear apart the early leaders of the Mormon church - though, again I hold them as great men who hold a special place in my heart. The same goes for Old Testament prophets - they were imperfect men.
I would never argue point by point for the truth of my religion. At this point in my life, I could argue for or against the existence of God with the same degree of passion. I do not pretend to be emphatic on many points - if there is anything I have come to learn in my life it is that you should never stop learning. You should never be so closed up in an emphatic notion that you can’t see something in a new light or in a new way. The term flip-flopper is such an idiotic label. The greatest fool is one who can’t see that he/she may have been wrong at a given moment in time. Truth is not always manifest in a lump sum.
One thing I do emphatically believe in is living a life you can feel good about. My five children are all still fairly young, but I teach them to be honest, kind and disciplined. I teach them to pray and to study. I teach them to love the history of our country but also to apppreciate the history of other lands and people. I also teach them to play and enjoy life. My children are not weird religious fanatics, rather they are athletic, good looking, intelligent and very popular. My home is constantly filled with their friends and our neighbors. We do not make it a practice to exclude any because of their beliefs or religious persuasions. Their friends and admirers come from various backgrounds and religions. Not one of them has ever been in trouble at school or elsewhere.
My children know politics. We follow elections and keep up on current events together. We watch opposing viewpoints. Two of our favorite shows are the Daily Show and Colbert (though I have to prescreen episodes for graphic content for the little ones). We would never vote for a candidate because of his/her religion. Believe it or not, Mormons disagree with one another on many issues. If I don’t agree with people I personally know about politics -then why in the world would I presume to agree with everything a personally unknown to me member of my church believes? My brother campaigned for Kerry in the last presidential election. I’m not a George W. Bush fan but I didn’t think Kerry was worth two cents, despite his immense monetary fortune. (I still don’t). I am not schooled or coached about my political beliefs at church. I was taught to think for myself and develop my mind.
Whether God lives or not I can only say with honesty that I hope He does and I feel in my heart that He must. Regardless of whether He is real or not, I still believe in living a good life that one can be proud of. A person who lives a life helping others is worth more than a thousand men who argue for the truth of this point or that. While real men and women in this country struggled with so many quality of life issues our country was focused on whether or not the president was fooling around with an intern. Take that last sentence after “whether or not” and fill it in with just about any pointless piece of nonsense you want and it will just about fit. Why do we get stuck on issues we can’t agree on (like abortion) while other issues that desparately need addressing (like health care) remain in the shadows? Why argue about the religious persuasion of any candidate when what we really need to know is whether or not there is a candidate who will actually address any of the real problems this country is facing? I have researched all the candidates and not one of them stands out from the others. They are all different versions of the same model. It’s actually quite sad... I guess we can’t expect any real progress any time soon.
Really? You are a descendant of Prophet Joseph Smith. Would you dare tell us from which wife.
Telling us would give you credibilty since you just signed up on FreeRepublic, and it is a full moon. ,-)
ping to post 662.
A lot of Mormons have given up on finding proof of the BOM in the USA.
Now they have turned their search to Mexico. Mayan ruins.
LOL.
And what was your FR name yesterday?
http://www.sidneyrigdon.com/RigWrit/M&A/Return1.htm
Excuse me FC but I never even read this. sidneyrigdon.com is an apologist site for Sidney Rigdon and is not balanced in its views. The sight that you referred me to in post 401 is the one I enjoyed reading. Here is that link.
http://www.boap.org/LDS/Early-Saints/ERobinson.html
You posted me earlier asking about Brother Robinson's take on Joseph. I don't agree with your assessment and I will respond to that post as soon as I can find the time. I felt that it was necessary to correct you on this post first.
Grig, I should have posted you to the above as you were alerted by FC to the original. Cheers
PING
Even though you thought the title was misleading. Uh huh.
I already showed that the text they ‘quote’ there is altered from the original to change the meaning to suit their claims. Christ had people spreading lies about him too.
Do you mean THIS? From FAIRLDS?
Now, let's look at the entire quote from Brigham Young…
The Lord did not come with the armies of heaven, in power and great glory, nor send His messengers panoplied with aught else than the truth of heaven, to communicate to the meek the lowly, the youth of humble origin, the sincere enquirer after the knowledge of God. But He did send His angel to this same obscure person, Joseph Smith Jun., who afterwards became a Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, and informed him that he should not join any of the religious sects of the day, for they were all wrong; that they were following the precepts of men instead of the Lord Jesus; that He had a work for him to perform, inasmuch as he should prove faithful before Him." (Journal of Discourses 2:170-171)
So, now we get the full picture. Brigham doesn't say that the Lord didn't come ever; he says that He didn't come with the "armies of heaven, in power and great glory." In other words, He didn't come with a bunch of pomp and circumstance. And, as a matter of fact, when you look closer with the entire quote, Brigham specifically says that the Lord did come. It was the Lord who "informed him," not the angel. Read the sentence, "But He did send His angel…AND [He, the Lord] informed him [Joseph]…" So the quote from Brigham takes on a whole new meaning when you look at the whole thing.
What part of ANGEL = Messenger is so hard to understand??
Brigham specifically says that the Lord did come - well, you'll have to SHOW ME just where, in this ENTIRE quote, that HE did!
He, the Lord is NOT in the 'quote', but inserted by the apologists at FAIRLDS, who are trying VERY hard to get you to miss what the TEXT plainly says!
(Christ did NOT have an organization like FAIRJESUS explaining something other than what HE plainly said.)
One can ignore whispers.
One can even ignore other insults.
It’s only light on a screen folks.
Let the TRUTH; the TRUE Light, shine out of those screens!
Who cares??
Yet, if a wart is exposed on any Mormon leader, it's explained away as...
"just a man - not perfect - what's yer point? - look at his works - you must hate US!"
It’s amazing the “wisdom” that comes crashing in one second after we take that step of faith. The angels are cheering over YOU!
Sounds like someone is inferring...
"Bite Me!"
Since you was quoting the KJV of the Bible, are you saying that LDS organization members know better than to believe the JST?
Nope; just trying to condense the output from LDS headquarters into a simple, concise sentence.
Even historical documents provided by FastCoyote as to the events in Missouri are called "hearsay" because there is no living "eye-witness" to them.
You LDS haters call it a double standard; while we call it a HIGHER Standard!
--MormonDude(You'll get NO apology from ME!)
Amen!
Something we BOTH can agree on!! ;^)
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.