Yeah!
That's the ticket!
Posted on 03/13/2012 1:01:52 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
Nancy and David French, a couple from Columbia, Tenn., are perhaps the most visible evangelical supporters of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. They started a group called Evangelicals for Mitt back in 2005. Both regularly post to a pro-Romney blog at the Evangelicals for Mitt website. Nancy French just last week began writing her posts from Des Moines, Iowa. And Nancy and David have both contributed to National Review, where they occasionally defend Romney and criticize his rivals.
“We started as a group of friends who supported him – grassroots,” Nancy French says. “We are not connected to the campaign. We do what we want and say what we want.”
Though David and Nancy French deny it, campaign finance experts say the couple’s group looks like a thinly disguised extension of the Romney campaign. “They appear to be able to spend lots of money, but won’t say where it comes from,” says Fred Wertheimer, founder and President of Democracy 21. “It is circumstantial evidence, but it suggests this is a shell group for a Romney operation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at swampland.time.com ...
This is right out of the Bush camp, IMHO. These are the Bushies. They will also be the ones to move to Jeb Bush once qued to do so. Bank on that.
We do what we want and say what we want.”
___________________________________
Yeah but WE dont want your “do what
he wants and say what he wants” Willie Mitty..
Comprehende hombre ??
SCP thank you for all these great threads
:)
They are CINOs, pulling the wool over some eyes.
rofl
Romneybots...cult-promoters...who don't mind voting for a guy who thinks he's a "god-in-embryo..." Once upon this land, we wouldn't be so openly sanctioning idolatry.
There's an old revival phrase for this: Sin in the camp.
The French Connection...hmm..rings a bell somewhere...
#1
(a) Since Romney's supposed pro-life "conversion," he failed to veto a Planned Parenthood board member as a permanent oversight member of RomneyCare.
(b) Likewise, the $50 RomneyCare abortions will simply dovetale into ObamaCare's $1 abortions...maybe Mitt might meet in the "middle" somewhere -- like $25 abortions.
(c) Mitt told Katie Couric about a year into his last campaign -- early December 2007 -- that it was "OK" for parents to give up their embyronic offspring to "research." That was a sentence right after he commended parents for adopting out those same embryos. Can you say, Mitt is schizophrenic?
#2 Next post...
THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS
IOW, let's have a 'Commissioner Gordon' who actually has a REAL 'batphone" direct line to the God of this world in the midst of our worst crises!
Explanation: Obviously God hears the prayers of all people. But we know from reading the Bible that God seemingly responds more favorably to those He is in an actual relationship with...versus examples like Pharisaical religious legalists whom Jesus said were of another source (John 8).
Many, including Mormon leaders, claim that if we start considering the faith of a candidate, that it might "weaken the foundation" of our country.
You mean those who call upon the ONE TRUE ULTIMATE GOD might actually prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? Why, how shocking!
Do we mean that if the Living God was called upon during a Jack Bauer-like crisis by a POTUS who actually is in a vital relationship with Him...that is problematic? What?
To hear some tell it, such a candidate would NEVER be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds!
Which in turn, would supposedly "weaken the religious foundation" of our country?
How does that make any sense?
Even on this, I heard the Rick Santorum interview on Hugh Hewitt Monday...and Santorum went out of his way implying that the Scientologists & other new religionists & world religionists should never be critiqued -- as if that was a mark of "religious liberty."
Sorry...Rick, I support you...but boy...you lack critical thinking skills on this issue!
SOME PEOPLE TURN ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM! [Did the base leave the candidate due to his cult? Or, did the base finally realize that the candidate's cult was less-than-inspiring due to how that cult labels the 'base' as 'apostates,' 'corrupt,' and credally abominable?]
Were we to discuss candidates representing a broad range of alternative religions, I would guestimate that 60-80% of them do not necessarily go out of their way to slam Christianity or badly slander the spiritual reputation of Christian adherents for chunks of 170-180 years at a time. That can't be said about true-believing LDS candidates (in distinction from Jack Mormon candidates).
Simply put, the true-believing Mormon candidate who approaches us historic Christians is saying:
"You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' Can I count on your vote then?" [See below for chapter & verse]
Conclusion: When a candidate mislabels 75-90% of his voting base's primary faith tenets and claims & reduces them to mere "apostate" status--Note that LDS "Scripture" specifically labels the entire Christian church as "apostate" and Note that 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party...
...Then...
...he not only shows open disdain for his voting base, but betrays his ability to inspire confidence in his ability to accurately define a major world religion.
If he cannot even accurately define a major world religion, what confidence does he inspire re: his ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?
Specific citation to above: Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19: I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt... "
LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originated as the supposed description of the very foundation of the Lds church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. They claim that this is their "god's" judgment of Christians and their church bodies; they have since translated this into over 100 languages and circulated this nonsense world-wide with millions of copies.
And Mitt's $millions have undergirded all of this!
The Frenchs are also quietly linked to two wealthy Romney donors in Massachusetts, John Kingston and Kurt Keilhacker, and all four have close ties to Romney’s campaign funding organization through a web of companies and nonprofits. Among other things, the four operate a Christian nonprofit organization that raises money out of a building in Beverly, Mass., at 138 Conant Street. The company that handles the Romney campaign’s finances shares that same address.
Gotta luv ‘em...
Gotta luv ‘em...
(Backdrop to this principle): From a 2009 Mormon news release where Lds "apostle" Dallin Oaks was speaking of "religious freedom": The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.
Now LOTS of conservatives espouse this view...so what's a principled response to this?
My 'Principled' Response: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT. Before outlining them, let's see if Mr. Oaks applies this same standard to his own people:
Q #1 for Mr. Oaks:
Mitt Romney delivered a "Faith in America" speech in Dec 07 that discussed his Mormon faith & some of its peculiar components in early December. Q: If this was so important to not address his religion as a political campaign issue, as Mr. Oaks claims, why couldn't Romney leave "religion out of" his political talks?
Q #2 for Mr. Oaks: Was it relevant then for Mitt Romney to say in 2007 that he would exclude Muslims from his Cabinet? (And where are all the "let's keep religion out of it" commentators on that matter?) See: Remember when Romney said he wouldn’t put a Muslim in the cabinet? He made his Mormonism relevant...for that matter, the "keep-religion-out-of-it" crowd comes across as hypocritical not only on that count, but they usually have said NOTHING when it came to all of the 2008-2012 comments about Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright...Can you say BOTH two-faced AND inconsistent if these people speak out of genuine convictions on this?
Q #3 for Mr. Oaks:
If "the religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign," then somebody forgot to tell Utah and Western State Mormon voters! Why then did Utah residents give 91% of their Republican $ to Romney in 2007? Why did Utah, AZ, Nevada, and Wyoming Mormon voters pile on FOR Romney in the primaries by margins of 93-7% and 95-5%? Why hasn't Mr. Oaks addressed his Mormon faithful, telling these voters to stop making a candidate's religion an issue in a political campaign by voting according to such identity politics?
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not calling these Utah residents "bigoted" or "intolerant" of non-Mormon candidates. It's a free Republic so Utah/Mormon citizens should support who they want to support. My question is not so much geared at Utah and Nevada residents -- and other heavily populated Mormon Western states -- as it is statements like these from leaders who fail to consider the inconsistent application of their claims. I mean, Mr. Oaks implied those who think and act counter to his claims are "anti-religious freedom" simply because some voters take other-worldly commitments into voter consideration. Well, if that's the case, then how do Utah voters, and Western-state Mormon voters, escape Mr. Oaks' implied labels?
Reason #5 - WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)
We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.
Reason #6: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).
If Romney became POTUS, it would = giving the Mormon church more unprecedented PR proselytizing power – even if Romney did zero to promote that.
This would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign. (This especially applies to POTUS and may or may not apply to all political races)
Think about Bill Clinton for a moment as a supposed "presidential role-model" disaster for our young generation re: the scandal. Any president the voting block elevates to the highest role model position in our land accords the highest vote of respectability to the public aspects of what that person stands for. If that person, for example, is a neatly tucked-away communist who's adopted a mask of "family values," & we elect him president, we are telling our kids that communism is OK to emulate. Furthermore, we are handing proselytizing fuel to communists everywhere. It would fuel their door-to-door boldness and other aggressive campaigns to be able to say, "See. Our respectable Communist leader holds the highest office in the land. Come study what helped make the man he is today!"
Mitt? The cousin of Mitt's father was one of the three highest-ranking Mormons in the Lds Hierarchy. So what did Mitt's father's cousin teach who Mitt (& other true-believing Mormons) are:
“The truth is … man is a child of God— a God in embryo." (Marion G. Romney, in Conference Report, April 1973, p. 136; or Ensign, July 1973, p. 14).
This isn't some vague obscure concept for the LDS elite of elite. This is mainstream LDS teaching widely available on its Web site: LDSTeachManIsAGod-in-Embryo and Anne Frank, a Mormon? – see POST #8
Therefore, this would be teaching our nation that it's "OK" for kids to think of themselves as "gods in embryo" on their way to becoming grown-up "gods" -- just like Mitt!!!
Republicans have NEVER put forth a more repugnant potential nominee as Mitt. Even on the question of race alone (Mitt supported the Mormon structure of racism for his first 13 adult years...no "peep" from him about racist concerns during those years) -- will make this THE MOST AWKWARD political race EVER if it came down to Romney vs. Obama.
All Southerners will have it thrown back in their faces by the MSM & Dems they are country-club "racists" who support the White country-club racist Romney. All "Yankees" will also find this accusation tossed in their faces -- guilt by association.
Mitt IS -- and WILL -- continue to create MORE voter alienation among...
...blacks,
...multi-culturalists and Christians who oppose racism,
...Evangelicals for a variety of reasons,
...Jews (Lds continued to baptize holocaust victims despite promises in 1995 to discontinue),
...Independents & secularists who have seen the Book of Mormon stage productions and can't see themselves voting for such a white-shirted, tie-boy as Mitt...
...the jobless & poor who believe wealthy Mitt can't identify with them...
...etc.
Taking this voter alienation into consideration, & taking the potential MSM onslaught into consideration, a smart voter MUST consider candidate viability.
We will see MSM questions like,
“Mr. Romney, why as a 30-31 year-old adult did you belong to a religion restricting blacks from priesthood?”
"Do you believe you are/will be a god?"
"Do you believe conservative voters from other churches are 'apostates?'"
"Do believe that although polygamy is no longer practiced on earth, it's being practiced at now & for eternity in another dimension known as the celestial kingdom?"
And then list the REST of the hundreds of Questions that can be asked about secret, occultic, whacky Mormonism!
They fear obama so much that they’re breaking for the ABO candidate they perceive can win. People hate him so much that nothing else matters this election. The votes are being driven by fear of the loss of their country. That’s what’s going on. IMHO.
(Not sure if this applies beyond POTUS). The Bible shows that true successful leadership in public office is done by those who fear the true Lord & who do not worship false gods/idols. The OT is replete w/ such examples. The Israelites had secular kings, not "pastors in chief." But that didn't mean that these kings' ministrations were any less a "ministry." Romans 13 makes it clear that public office is also a "ministry." Those who contend against this are openly militating against this Scripture. It doesn't mean that public officeholders administrate in a parochial way; it just means that public office is a "ministry of service" just like the soup kitchen down the street. History (biblical & otherwise) shows that the more pagan or counterfeit god that a leader holds, the more trouble that leader's "exhaust" settles on the people-at-large. Kings & presidents need all the grace, mercy, & guidance possible, since God gets more credit for preserving & directing leaders than we care to give Him credit for. Therefore, one who worships a false god & has no true relationship w/the living God is stifling access to God's resources; & a nation may suffer for that.
Indirectly, Mormons concede they do not worship the Ultimate One True God. They admit their god was once a man...appointed by a council of gods to become god of this world...BTW, don't take my word for any of this...read these Mormon leader citations...research them (& context) yourself...:
Smith excerpt #1:
In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it. (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 5, 1844)
Smith excerpt #2:
In the very beginning the Bible shows there is a plurality of Gods beyond the power of refutation. It is a great subject I am dwelling on. The word Eloheim ought to be in the plural all the way through--Gods. The heads of the Gods appointed ONE God for us... (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 372)
According to Smith's worldview, "the heads of the Gods appointed one God for us." [Why, how nice, Mitt: You worship a god chosen by a bureaucracy at a committee meeting.]
More on the Mormon doctrine that the Mormon god and people are 'of the same race:
“God and man are of the same race, differing only in their degrees of advancement” (Lds “apostle” John A. Widtsoe, Rational Theology, 1915, p. 61)
”According to revelation, however, he is a personal Being, a holy and exalted Man, a glorified, resurrected Personage having a tangible body of flesh and bones, an anthropomorphic Entity, the personal Father of the spirits of all men.” (Bruce R. Mconkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, p. 250)
”The doctrine that God was once a man and has progressed to become a God is unique to this Church.” (Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, 1997, p. 34)
”We offend again in our doctrine that men are of the same race with the divine personages we call Gods. Great stress is laid upon the idea that we believe that 'as man is, God once was, and as God now is, man may become.' The world usually shouts 'blasphemy' and 'sacrilege' at one when he talks of such a possibility” (B.H. Roberts, 1992, Defense of The Faith and The Saints 2:570)
”The Father is a glorified, perfected, resurrected, exalted man who worked out his salvation by obedience to the same laws he has given to us so that we may do the same.” (Lds “apostle” Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness for the Articles of Faith, p. 64)
“When you can thus feel, then you may begin to think that you can find out something about God, and begin to learn who he is. He is our Father—the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being.” (Brigham Young, Oct. 8, 1859, JoD, 7:333)
”It appears ridiculous to the world, under their darkened and erroneous traditions, that God has been once a finite being; and yet we are not in such close communion with him as many have supposed,” (BY, Oct. 8, 1859, JoD, 7:333)
“The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man.” (BY, Feb. 23, 1862, JoD, 9:286)
“What, is it possible that the Father of Heights, the Father of our spirits, could reduce himself and come forth like a man? Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this...He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is beomce Lord of all.” (The Essential BY, p. 138)
“Knowing what we know concerning God our Father-- that he is a personal being; that he has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as our own; that he is an exalted and glorified being; that he was once a man and dwelt on an earth – and knowing that this knowledge was had by many of the ancients, should we be surprised to find legends and myths throughout the cultures of the earth concerning gods who have divine power but human attributes and passions?” (BYU professor Robert L. Millet, “The Eternal Gospel,” Ensign, July 1996, p. 53)
”Joseph Smith did in fact teach that God is a Man of Holiness, an exalted and glorified man.” (BYU professor Robert L., Millet, The Mormon Faith: Understanding Restored Christianity, p. 169)
”Joseph Smith's purpose is to show that the Bible teaches that our Father in Heaven was once mortal, as we are.” (BYU professor Emeritus Joseph Fielding McConkie and Craig Ostler, Revelations of the Restoration, p. 1087)
We NEVER will be able to compartmentalize religion from faith -- even if a bulk of people were committed to that lame-brained scheme!
So what does that portend for a GoP who thinks a Mormon should be THE leader of the Free World -- and will be facing the all-out flak of what's to come in the MSM?
Well, on Feb. 1 in a thread...FREEPER poster Ansel12 made an interesting observation:
Unfortunately, for Romney to win the votes of Christians what will first happen, is that conservative writers, radio hosts, columnists, social conservative leaders, all of our talking heads, thinkers, and millions of rank and file conservatives and Christians will be drawn into the largest collection of, the most diverse collection of, the most creative collection of Mormon apologists, in history. Mormonism will be daily rationalized, ways to smooth over Christian concerns will be thought of and delivered on the air waves, just as Hugh Hewitt and Michael Medved already do. Limbaugh and others will fall into a daily routine of countering and defeating Christian protests against Mormonism. New creative thoughts and reasoning will come from National Review, and Fox. The right will be sucked into becoming the foot soldiers of mainstreaming and rationalizing Mormonism.
Source: Special report -Mormonism besieged by the modern age [Lds church is hemorrhaging in member losses]
I injected this reality into a skit of sorts that depicts THE compromise awaiting the GOP: You can read it here: 'What good would it do to forfeit your convictions & not gain your political world?' [Vanity]
ALL: Do not underestimate the anti-Obama vehemence. Watch. People are going to, in effect, "make deals with the devil" in promoting and being apologists for worldviews and beliefs you NEVER thought you'd see in your lifetime...
...and not just cultic ideals, but liberal, socialized healthcare, abortion, etc. ...
...and not just from people you once thought of as "pure, die-hard" conservatives...
...but even conservative "Christians."
Christians...are you going to STAND on principle? Biblical principles? Isn't it time we faced the music?
In fact, EVERYONE who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus WILL BE persecuted... (Apostle Paul to 2 Timothy 3:14)
According to John Foxe's Book of Martyrs (edited by Wm Bryan Forbush), Timothy met a procession of pagans about to celebrate a feast called Catagogion...Timothy severely repoved them for their ridiculous idolatry...and this so exasperated the people that they fell upon him with their clubs -- beating him to the point that he died two days later from his bruises.
Timothy could have "tolerated" paganism in a "live and let live" atmosphere of "religious liberty" where NOTHING is supposed to be critiqued and all claims to truth are supposed to be deemed "EQUAL." But he didn't...and Paul's words to him were a personal prophesy.
It's time to get out there in the public square and make a difference, Christians! The music awaits you!
If they are really Evangelicals, they have no clue about Mitt or what he believes.
I shouldn’t laugh, but that is funny.
It won't matter if Mitt Romney is an "active initiator-agitator" himself -- or not -- on these matters. Mitt has already sworn an oath to "consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you" over to the Mormon church [see last row on chart below]...Eleven Mormons who even gave up their wives -- and another who gave up his 14 yo daughter -- for Joseph Smith to "marry" them...shows you that Lds have a track-record history of being puppet-pawns @ the hands of their "Prophet":
| 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) | |
| 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? Ya hear that Jon Huntsman?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #9 | 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt? Still listening, Jon?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #10 | 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt? What say ye Jon?) | |
| 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."] |
Last October, a chaplain ran an article in WorldNetDaily: 10 reasons Christians should reject Romney
I commend those "diversity" of social-issues within the "unity" of this "Reason #12 why Evangelicals should not support Mitt Romney."
"Governor Romney" per that article -- Reason #5 in that article -- appointed 14 Democrats, 13 Independents, and only 9 Republicans as judges...only 1 of 4 who were Republicans. People who point to how Romney governed as supposedly being "no threat" don't understand our black-robed rogues & how the Democrats abuse that system very well.
Reasons #1, #6, and #7 of that WorldNetDaily article also circumnavigate around Romney's homosexual agenda in the Bay State.
Yeah!
That's the ticket!
Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon'
Flds for Mitt?
I'm for MITT!!!
And YOU soon will be; TOO!
You demon deceived true MORMON you!
Next thing ya know ALL yer buds will be popping up on FR and making light of things.
Uh...
I think you are 4 years too early.
Yes sir; you nailed EXACTLY what I was thinking when I read it!
What’s that bleating I hear??
Touch - a boy that sees patterns...
My, my. How "inspirational" that Mitt's ancestors and more recent leaders taught that. (That'll turn out the base in droves... /NOT)
Joseph Smith himself:
Joseph Smith, Jr.: “…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.” (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60).
Late 19th century:
George Q. Cannon, member of First Presidency with four different Lds "prophets": "AFTER the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon" (George Q. Cannon, Gospel Truth, pg.324).
45 years ago:
Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: McConkie says all non-Mormon churches are "...the great apostate church" [that's us -- the Christian church] "as the anti-christ...This great antichrist...is the church of the devil." ("Apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine p.40)
Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: "What is the church of the devil in our day, and what is the seat of her power?…It is all the systems, BOTH Christian and non-Christian, that perverted the pure and perfect gospel….It is communism, it is Islam; it is Buddhism; it is modern Christianity in ALL its parts. It is Germany under Hitler, Russia under Stalin, and Italy under Mussolini" (Millennial Messiah, pp. 54-55).
Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie: "The church of the devil is the world; it is all the carnality and evil to which fallen man is heir; it is every unholy and wicked practice; it is every false religion, every supposed system of salvation which does not actually save and exalt man in the highest heaven of the celestial world. It is EVERY CHURCH except the true church, whether parading under a Christian or a pagan banner." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:551)
Note, per Mormon doctrine, the "only true and living church on the face of the earth" is the Mormon church (D&C 1:30).
BTW, the Doctrinal New Testament Commentary was cited by the official Mormon church as a commentary to 1 Nephi 14:10:
* The church of JC LDS: Seminaries and Institutes of Religion: Book of Mormon Student Manual: Chapter 4: 1Nephi 11–14 : Notes and Commentary
* It was also cited among study guides commonly used in the Mormon church as published by Cedar Fort out of Springville, Utah...in these two 2007 books:
* Randal S. Chase, Making Precious Things Plain: A Book of Mormon Study Guide: Volume 1: 1 Nephi-Alma 16 Cedar Fort, Springville, UT, 2007 p. 40
* K. Douglas Bassett, PhD, Doctrinal Insights to the Book of Mormon: Vol. 1: 1 Nephi through 2 Nephi Cedar Fort, Springville, UT 2007, pp. 62-63
28 years ago -- Official Lds church magazine, Ensign:
The “man of sin,” generally equated with Satan, would exalt himself over all that is divine and assume the place of God in the Church. Of historical and theological significance is the fact that in Paul’s prophecy the church structure survives. But God is not at its head, making that church—following the appearance in it of Satan—no longer the church of God....How appropriate, therefore, is Paul’s description of him sitting in the place of God in the church of the apostasía. Kent P. Jackson, Signs of the Early Apostasy, Ensign, December 1984 Signs of the Early Apostasy
This BYU professor is commenting on 2 Thess. 2:1-12 here...which Christian commentators reference as future. Lds leaders constantly reference 2 Thess. 2:1-12 as past tense -- evidence of the great apostasy...Jackson calls it a "drastic" apostasy. Lds doctrine is that it was total or all but a handful...and those handful were never "public."
” Uh... I think you are 4 years too early.” - - -
I said “on que”. There are still those who have not ruled out Jeb Bush at convention, however unlikely, and are of the Bush camp, a camp which is not dead by any means.
Chill a little, brother , or you may accidentally get targeted for a zot.
‘Twould be a mere flesh wound, once the targeting co-ordinates were re-checked.
Mt 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
Mt 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
Mt 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:
Mt 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.
Mt 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.
Mt 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.
Mt 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Mt 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.
Mt 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
Mt 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
Mt 22:33 And when the multitude heard [this], they were astonished at his doctrine.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Gal 1:6 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
Gal 1:7 Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.
Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
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.