Rick Perry backer Robert Jeffress: Mitt Romney not a Christian

You may, of course, be right. But I think the odds are that it doesn’t make any more sense to call Reid and Romney theologically committed Mormons than it would to call Ted Kennedy a faithful Catholic or Obamalini a committed Protestant.

Romney served as a "bishop" & stake president, in which theology comes up often, even as Mormons are less theologically oriented than many religious bodies.

If you would like to translate that to English, I might or might not respond.

It's easy to do...

First; find a suitable rock...
Second; get your hat...
Last; place rock in hat; then place face in same.

Wait for GOD to supplie the answers you wish.

...

"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."

---Joseph Knight's journal.

"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.

(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),

"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.

"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,

as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,

and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.

In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:

"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."

"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"

reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881

in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)

In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:

"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,

Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12

June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)

Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:

"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"

("A New Witness for Christ in America,"

Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)

"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."

---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.

I would expect him to be entrenched in leadership and theologically knowledgeable. I think the only difference we have is whether he actually believes the theology, as opposed to viewing his involvement as mainly expedient. I have a hard time believing that Mittens wears magic underpants AND does so because he thinks God really cares.

. I have a hard time believing that Mittens wears magic underpants AND does so because he thinks God really cares.

GOOD Mormons are Temple Worthy - they pass this test EVERY year:

Temple Recommend Questions

1 Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father, His Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost?

2 Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer?

3 Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4 Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

5 Do you live the law of chastity?

6 Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

7 Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

8 Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and other meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel?

9 Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?

10 Are you a full-tithe payer?

11 Do your keep the Word of Wisdom?

12 Do you have financial or other obligations to a former spouse or children? If yes, are you current in meeting those obligations?

13 If you have previously received your temple endowment:

Do you keep the covenants that you made in the temple?
Do you wear the garment both night and day as instructed in the endowment and in accordance with the covenant you made in the temple?

14 Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?

15 Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord's house and participate in temple ordinances?

1 Timothy 4:1-2
1. The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.
2. Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.

1 Timothy 1:3-4
3. As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer
4. nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

1 Timothy 6:3-5
3. If anyone teaches false doctrines and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
4. he is conceited and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions
5. and constant friction between men of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.

What I have a problem with is he switches his positions based on what he's running for, he has no core values, and he is perfectly willing to buy his way into the WH.

Switch? You mean...like this?

YEAR	Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney	Romney Feigning ‘Pro-Life’
Romney, goin’ back to 1970 when Romney’s Mom ran for Senate	”I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy)	”’He’s been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,’” Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar “flip” acting like a “flop?”
1994 (Campaign)	”I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice.” (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support ¨C ¡°sustain¡± ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word ¡°sustain¡± for support for their own ¡°prophet¡±	Romney has since invoked a “nuanced stance” about what he was in 1994: He says ”Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007)
1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) ¡ú 2001	(a) Romney’s wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: ”Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994.” Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; ”Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie¡¯s house and that she ¡°clearly¡± remembered speaking with Romney at the event.” Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; ”In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event.” Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts	2001: ”I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice.” (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn’t want to be known as a “flop” (so what is he?)
2002-2004	¡°I will preserve and protect a woman¡¯s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word* in that regard¡(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He’s solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: ”I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one ¡ Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government’s.”* (Stephanie Ebbert, “Clarity Sought On Romney’s Abortion Stance,” The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the “flop” saddle again?	Nov. ‘04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life “conversions” linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn’t believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. “It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life,” Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?)
2005	May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being “pro-choice” at a press conference. (”I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.”) = OK, this is at least a flop from November ‘04!	What about his gubernatorial record ‘03-’06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in ‘05 some ‘pro-life’ decisions. ”As governor, I¡¯ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I¡¯ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.” = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an ‘02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, ‘05 press conference commitment as well. So “flipping” is beginning to be routine
2006	April 12, 2006—Mitt signs his “Commonwealth Care” into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women—including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-’06 that ALL of his actions were “pro-life?”). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the “payment policy advisory board” did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details).	”As governor, I¡¯ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I¡¯ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life.” = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So “flipping” is still routine
Early 2007	On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: ¡°Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice.” (Bruce Smith, “Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint,” The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could ”every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life...” AND this statement BOTH be true?	Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering ”I was always for life¡±: ”I am firmly pro-life¡ I was always for life.” (Jim Davenport, “Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion,” The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he’s always been pro-life!
Summer 2007	”I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.” Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at ‘94 & ‘02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he ”never said” he was ”pro-choice?”	Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: ”I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn’t FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn’t pro-choice, and so...” = Whatever he was from ‘70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of ‘04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn’t a pro-abortion ‘inlook’ or outlook ‘cause he didn’t feel “pro-choice...” = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer?
December 2007 (Anything ‘different’ from embryos’ perspective than June 2002?)	5.5 years before ¨C June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife’s multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: ”I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research,” before adding, “I’d be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don’t know if I could budge him an inch.” When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on “therapeutic” or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard	December 5, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable. It should not be made against the law.” Any “inquiring minds” want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions “adopting” embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) — but then in the very NEXT breath says if a ”PARENT” wants to be “pro-choice” (Mitt used the word ”decides” which is what “pro-choicers” say they want) ”to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable.” Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a ”parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that’s acceptable...” No??? What’s the ‘pro-life’ difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo’s mom&dad “parents” — but “parents” w/ ”research” give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic “candidate!”

WOW, that is devistating!

He does, because he is required to. He made oaths to wear them. Also you can see them in some photographs.

I understand your questioning, but as I have pointed out Mormonism isn’t like other religions, it is all or nothing, you either believe and are ‘active’ or you leave (go inactive) - Mormonism isn’t by nature a ‘cafeteria’ religion in any way.

What I have been suggesting all along is that Mittens (and Reid) fakes it because it is useful, just as Obamalini pretended to be Christian because it was useful.

For years Romney was a liberal and campaigned as a liberal, taking positions that are anathema to Mormons. Now he claims to be a conservative supporting positions that are consistent with Mormonism. As I’ve said, I think Romney’s Mormomism is a “Mormonism” of convenience that he fakes (like his “conservatism”).

As George Burns once said, “Sincerity is everything in life, and once you learn how to fake it, you’ve got it made.”

I understand what you are saying, and I know he flip flops and says what he thinks will get him votes.

My point is that rather than it being proof that he doesn’t believe Mormonism, it is a product OF his Mormonism.

He is a true believer and unless you have been LDS, you cannot understand how it is all or nothing.

AFA, his positions being anathema to Mormons, that isn’t true either. Mormons are NOT as conservative as they claim - and their sanctuary cities in Utah and their support of gay rights in SLC is proof of that. Also, they take a much more liberal stance on abortion than most people think. According to their ‘church handbook of instructions’ abortion is OK, if approached by prayer and ‘confirmation’ (burning in the bosom).

Mitt’s lying to get elected is exactly what he was taught in Mormonism.

Both Mitt and Ried’s actions and activity in the LDS church (regardless of their politics) are very clear evidence that they really believe it.

Futhermore, Mitt’s Mormonism doesn’t help him at all outside Utah so your claim that he is faking it for political gain doesn’t make sense.

Futhermore, Mitt’s Mormonism doesn’t help him at all outside Utah so your claim that he is faking it for political gain doesn’t make sense.

Bingo. Already one poll has shown that only 30% of voters would seriously consider a Mormon POTUS. As Reaganaut points out, how is that advantageous? (And yes, there's Mormons in states like Wyoming, Nevada & AZ -- but no more than 8% of the state...I think Idaho is higher)

Both Mitt and Ried’s actions and activity in the LDS church (regardless of their politics) are very clear evidence that they really believe it...I understand what you are saying, and I know he flip flops and says what he thinks will get him votes. My point is that rather than it being proof that he doesn’t believe Mormonism, it is a product OF his Mormonism.

Even Harry Reid told BYU students when BYU ensured that he spoke to ALL faculty & students: "I am a Democrat because I am a Mormon, not in spite of it."
Source: Reid Gets Warm Reception at BYU

Also, Reaganaut's right in that Romney's flip-flops is actually evidential of his Mormonism -- not the reverse. Too many FREEPERS somehow think that Romney's wishy-washiness is "unconnected" to his faith. Well, the Mormon leadership has shown it can be morally wishy-washy whenever it's "convenient."

* It was "convenient" for the Mormon church leadership to pass homosexual rights for Salt Lake City 'cause they were coming off of what the MSM regarded "negative" media play re: Prop 8 in CA.

* It was "convenient" for their missionary program to support aspects of aliens being here illegally.

* And, at times, it's been "convenient" for daughters of Mormon leaders and others to get abortions.

* Certainly, it's been "convenient" for them to have a Harry Reid in Congress "watch out" for Mormon church interests.

* Historically, it was "convenient" for the Mormon god to change his mind about skin color...even if he didn't change Mormon racist "sacred book" passages depicting open racism.

* And it was "convenient" for the Mormon church to slowly rid itself of open polygamy because their church was threatened, their menfolk were in jail, and they wanted statehood. Even then, it was "convenient" for their original leader, Joseph Smith, to engage in sex with many women even though his own penned Book of Mormon called polygamy an "abomination."

I mean, imagine you're God. And you arrange to have the Book of Mormon published in 1830 -- a book that only speaks highly negatively of polygamy and calls it an "abomination." What? Would you then the very next year instruct your "prophet" to have sex with a l6 yo maidservant named Fanny & start your leaders to have many wives the next 14 years & beyond?

Sooooo....If you want to see the evidences of Mormon leadership wishy-washiness -- and why Romney tends to follow in that vein, just look at this evidence of liberal conveniences involving the Mormon church:

* Homosexual rights: Mormon church supports Salt Lake City's protections for gay rights and Mormons Back Salt Lake City Gay Rights Laws

* Illegal alien liberal policy nuances... note these headlines & stories: 2 LDS branch presidents in Utah deported to Guatemala, El Salvador and Considering The Disconnect Between Some LDS Church Members and Leadership on Immigration

And if you need further evidence of just how liberal the Mormon church leadership can be when it wants to be, then look at how Harry Reid was welcomed with such warm open arms by an all BYU student & faculty occasion for Reid to speak there: Reid gets warm reception at BYU

You both provided very interesting posts. If the claim about “burning bosoms” is correct, all I can say is that it conjures hilarious images.

I have also noted that the Mormon leadership seems to be quite happy to change doctrine to take advantage of cultural trends. The action by the SLC government regarding sodomites is a recent good example - one that I am aware of.

I still think it is likely that I am right that Mittens doesn’t deep down believe in Joseph Smith or Brigham Young as prophets or in the Mormon “holy” books. You wrote the following:

“Futhermore, Mitt’s Mormonism doesn’t help him at all outside Utah so your claim that he is faking it for political gain doesn’t make sense.”

If Mittens were starting from a clean slate, I would certainly agree. But he doesn’t start from a clean slate. He is a cradle Mormon, and by the time HLS and the Harvard B School likely had beaten whatever residual Mormonism he had out of him, he could nevertheless see that in the business world his family’s prominence within the Mormon church could be a major asset (this is undeniably true). As a result, Mitt kept up appearances.

Once his poltical career started, he was smart enough to understand that it would be a bigger negative to be an ex-Mormon than a Mormon who low-keys his affiliation. That is exactly what he did in MA (I was there). He only discussed Mormonism if he was cornered by a direct question, and his responses went no further than affirming that he belonged to the Mormon church, as did the members of his family going back several generations. The net effect was to create the impression that his Mormonism was more of a family tradition than something to take seriously.

At present his Mormonism is also valuable in some quarters for generating sympathy votes against the “meanies” who dare to say that Mormonism is no part of Christianity.

Now back to the “burning bosoms” - how does one know if the bosom is burning sufficiently? I think an objective test would be best - for example, perhaps the bosom would be burning sufficiently if it were hot enough to ignite the bra that contains it.

Short answer, if Mitt and Ried didn’t really believe it (and it is admittdly difficult to understand why anyone with HALF a brain would believe in Mormonism), they both would have gone the way of Huntsman and distanced themselves from it, ie gone ‘inactive’. They haven’t they are both very active LDS which means they are true believers - like it or not.

Regarding ‘burning in the bosom’ which us ex-mormons often jokingly refer to as ‘holy heartburn’...a ‘warm feeling’ or feeling of peace in the heart is taken as confirmation that Mormonism is ‘true’. It is seen as a personal revelation from God. It is taken VERY seriously, even to the point of choosing that over rational explanation or evidence contrary to Mormonism. This also explains why Mitt and Ried are ‘TBMs’ or True believers in Mormonism. One of the hardest things is to beat Mormonism out of someone once they have this ‘testimony’, once you lose that, and start thinking rather than feeling, you leave Mormonism. This is, in part, what I meant when I said Mormonism is ‘all or nothing’. If you have had this ‘burning in the bosom’ (personal revelation that you will often see Mormons refer to) and gained a ‘testimony’ of Mormonism, you are in...ALL in. Political expediency DOES NOT MATTER. If you ‘lose your testimony’ you leave or go inactive like Hunstman.

Mormons rely on feelings to determine truth - which also gets back to Mitt’s comments about Global Warming - if he ‘feels’ it is true than it is truth from God. Period. These are the precise issues as to why we don’t want a Mormon POTUS...we need someone to THINK not ‘feel’ the truth.

from a MORMON source

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Burning_in_the_bosom

BTTT

Me, too...

:)

Not secret, - - SACRED. There is a big, big, difference. Don’t take the word of a Christian and a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Seriously study and the truth will set you free.