“I can fool them to vote for me.
I'll tell them that I was brainwashed.”
Posted on 05/24/2011 2:32:34 PM PDT by Colofornian
WASHINGTON — Mitt Romney announced this afternoon that a veteran public relations consultant was joining his burgeoning campaign as a senior adviser.
Mark DeMoss is currently president of the DeMoss Group, which is a large Atlanta-based public relations agency that focuses on serving Christian leaders, businesses, and non-profit organizations.
SNIP
The campaign press release did not mention any religious component to DeMoss’s role, although in 2008 he was on the Romney campaign’s Faith and Values Steering Committee and spoke out prominently about why evangelical Christians should not discount Romney because of his Mormon faith.
DeMoss said in an interview later that he would play a similar role this time.
"I’ll reach out to evangelicals I’m sure, because I know that audience pretty well," he said. "I’ll help organize meetings, to get people of influence in front of the governor or get him in front of them."
He said no such meetings have taken place so far this year, but that he'll begin arranging them soon. DeMoss also said he would continue to run his firm, and was not being paid by the Romney campaign.
"I don’t want to presume they would pay me but I told Governor Romney the very first day I met him that I wanted to help him but he couldn’t pay me ever, and I’m going to hold to that," he said.
SNIP
Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mviser.
(Excerpt) Read more at articles.boston.com ...
Obviously DeMoss, aiding and abetting a cult-leader that -- were Romney successful in its bid to be POTUS -- would only make it more acceptable in America to elevate all cults & cult leaders, doesn't know Evangelicals well enough!
What are some principled Christian-based reasons why a Christian should not support a Mormon POTUS? (See below) The next post will be an extended explanation for those who might be interested.
Five Principles as to Why the Religion of a Candidate is to be Seriously Considered:
Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1 that addresses this: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]
Question #2 at hand: Who rejected who?
Principle #2 that addresses this: DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?
Question series #3 at hand: Don't candidates already inject 'religion' into their campaigns? And so we as voters are supposed to ignore that? Or other sub-blocks of voters? Don't they often favor a candidate because of religious alignment -- yet they are not criticized for it? Why is it seemingly 'OK' to vote for a candidate for primarily or only because of his faith; but the reverse is often frowned upon?
Principle #3 that addresses this: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT
Question #4 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #4 that addresses this: 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)
Question #5 at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character? And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle #5 that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!
Say what? 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 their father, the devil (John 8). You mean religionists who might prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to call on that Living God during a Jack Bauer-like crisis is NEVER to be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds??? (Otherwise, that "weakens the religious foundation" of our country? How does that make any sense?)
Principle #2 - SOME PEOPLE TURN ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM! [DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY 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.
Principle #3:
(Backdrop to this principle): From a 2009 Mormon news release where apostle Oaks was speaking of "religious freedom": The religion of a candidate should not be an issue in a political campaign.
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 perculiarities 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:
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 residents as it is statements like these from leaders who fail to consider the inconsistent application of their claims. I mean, Mr. Oaks implies those who think and act counter to his claims are "anti-religous 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?
Additional Points of Considerations:
Principle #4 - 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.
Principle #5: 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).
Didn’t Romney also hire a ‘pro-life advisor’ recently?
This is not goingto fool anyone. Romney just needs to accept the fact that Cain or Palin is going to be the nominee and save his money.
Mormons aren't blowing things up and beheading people.
He wants to belong to a ridiculous religion, thats his business, as long as they are not hurting anybody
I strongly suggest you take your Mormon bashing somewhere else, it's anti-American, and not productive.
“I can fool them to vote for me.
I'll tell them that I was brainwashed.”
So DeMoss, an Evangelical, is going to be the one trying to "whet the appetite" of Evangelical voters toward a future god, eh?
(Mormon leaders call their flock "gods-in-embryo"...so in one sense, Mormons already label themselves as "gods")
How does DeMoss reconcile serving a "god-in-embryo" that will make Mormonism more acceptable to the average American household...were Mitt to be successful in his run?
Doesn't he realize that a Mormon POTUS would open the door wide open for the massive LDS public relations propaganda campaign?
Bill Clinton was a 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, cohorts of such a candidate would be 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!"
What? You don't think the PR-minded Mormons wouldn't use the Oval Office to such a PR advantage?
I think that's what grates against me the most here.
Here, for DeMoss, PR is his specialty. His career.
And yet he seems to be blinded about what a Romney win would do as a springboard for Lds, Inc.'s PR efforts.
If this guy is so bad in recognizing such a PR boon for the Mormon church, perhaps some of his clients need to reconsider who their trusting in their own PR campaigns!
My positions are religious-based.
If it's so wrong to critique another's religion...
...And my comments are religious, then what are you doing bashing my faith? (I thought that was "anti-American, and not productive.")
You see, you can't be consistent with your own personal standards, can you?
If your standards are so wise, you wouldn't bash my religious viewpoints, would you? You might consider my comments to perhaps be "ridiculous," but you would "tolerate" them without bashing them -- because to you that's what it means to be an American.
But you did bash them. That means either your personal standards are whacky, or you're just an inconsistent, two-faced person in applying/exporting them.
So, tell us: What are we to believe: Your standards as lectured? Or your practices -- which tells us that "bashing" is A-OK, after all?
(Please continue to comment: We love the self-refuters who come on board here)
I heard Mark DeMoss talking on Hugh Hewlett yesterday. The guy couldn’t put three words together in an intelligent manner. And of course Hugh was gushing all over romney.
If he want’s to reach out to me, he’d better be prepared to get an earful from me as well.
Probe: Mitt missed chance to keep Tavares jailed - Could have nixed killer’s early exit
Friday, December 28, 2007 - Boston Herald
"Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s administration failed to act on disciplinary recommendations
that would have kept ex-con killer Daniel Tavares locked up another year -
and behind bars at the time he was accused of killing a newlywed couple in Washington state."
"Despite Tavares’ long history of violence, the Romney-led Department of Correction
took no action on recommendations that he be stripped of “good time” because
of assaults on prison guards in 2003 and 2005, said sources familiar with a state probe into the case."
"Governor Mitt Romney, who touts his conservative credentials to out-of-state Republicans,
has passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced,
instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who
have supported expanded same-sex rights, a Globe review of the nominations has found.
Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats
or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians
or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show.
In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters,
and 14 registered Democrats."
- Boston Globe 7/25/2005
Romney Rewards one of the State's Leading Anti-Marriage Attorneys by Making him a Judge
Romney told the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2004, that the "real threat to the States is not the
constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate,
but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage . . ."
Romney sounds tough but yet he had no qualms advancing the legal career of one
of the leading anti-marriage attorneys. He nominated Stephen Abany to a District Court.
Abany has been a key player in the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association which,
in its own words, is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision
on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
- U.S. Senate testimony by Gov. Mitt Romney, 6/22/2004 P>
"Romney announces he won't fill judicial vacancies before term ends
Despite his rhetoric about judicial activism, Romney announced that
he won't fill all the remaining vacancies during his term - but instead
leave them for his liberal Democrat successor!
Governor Mitt Romney pledged yesterday not to make a flurry of lame-duck
judicial appointments in the final days of his administration . . . David Yas,
editor of Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is "bucking tradition" by resisting the urge to
fill all remaining judgeships. "It is a tradition for governors to use that power to appoint judges
aggressively in the waning moments of their administration," Yas said.
He added that Romney has been criticized for failing to make judicial appointments.
"The legal community has consistently criticized him for not filling open seats quickly enough
and being a little too painstaking in the process and being dismissive of the input of the
Judicial Nominating Commission," Yas said.
- Boston Globe 11/2/2006
#1 Muslims are still being held accountable for violent things they've done more than 150 years ago. The original 9/11 terrorist act in this country was when Mormons massacred 140 children, moms & mostly unarmed dads on Sept. 11, 1857.
#2 Don't we take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or Rome2000?
Here's Jesus:
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the bombers & beheaders?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As the apostle Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, Rome2000: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
The Bible talks about defending the true gospel; defending our faith.
So what are we to do when a religion like Mormonism says that 100% of our people and our churches are "apostate?" Are we to 100% ignore that?
Did you know that the Mormon church teaches that the church Jesus Christ supposedly went entirely AWOL and was like that for 1500-1800 years until Joseph Smith came along and restored it?
Did you know that the Mormon church teaches it is the "only true and living church upon the face of the earth?" (Lds Doctrines & Covenant 1:30)
Did you know that is not's simply a commentary about its own church, but every other church in the world as well?
Did you know that Smith's original vision, later ruled to be "scripture"-level for Mormons, labeled 100% of Christians as "corrupt"...and 100% of Christian creeds as an "abomination" to the Mormon god? (Source: Joseph Smith History, vv. 18-20, Pearl of Great Price)
Do you truly think that such positions are supposed to inspire Evangelicals to vote for such a man?
Isn't it a "fair" question to find out what a candidate really thinks about the voters he solicits? Or are you advising voters to be so ignorant that it really doesn't matter what ideology a candidate embraces -- even if that ideology frames a good chunk of its base in the lowest demeaning way possible?
Yeah, I heard Hewitt gush over Romney in the last campaign.
Hewitt, a Presbyterian, was impressed by Romney's intelligence. I think a LOT of Mormons, including Romney, are as intelligent as Hewitt gushed about.
The problem is that intelligence can still be highly gullible, especially in religious matters. Once you take a 14 or 15 yo pimply-faced boy at his word, and don't allow challenges to those claims to be investigated, you're "done." As in, eternally "done" for.
The problem from a Mormon - Evangelical perspective, is that Mormons -- including Romney -- don't want to answer our real questions:
"Mitt, do you believe you're a 'god-in-embyro' on your way to become a grown-up God?"
"Mitt, why did you embrace a church-based racist position through age 30?"
"Mitt, is D&C 1:30 true? Are there no true and living churches besides the Mormon church?"
"Mitt, is 1 Nephi 14:9-10 in the Book of Mormon true? Is the church described as the lamb's church ONLY the Mormon church? If so, doesn't that mean that all other churches are 'Satanic' ones?"
"Mitt, what's so abominable about Christian creeds like the Apostles' creed? Why did Joseph Smith conclude that? And if you believe that, why?"
I'm just waiting for all these questions to drop from the MSM...once they gauge their calibrations as to when to drop them...[once our better contenders are gone...or even better for the liberals, if Romney got the nomination].
Not only would the MSM make the campaign 90% about race, but they would remind all the self-identified Christians the true positions that this man stands for behind the scenes.
Yet we have too many FREEPERS who think this should remain "undercover." (Ya better believe the MSM won't take such a naive posture)
And apparently...
...as a sideline...
is now going to serve NON-Christian leaders, businesses posing as churches, and non-prophet organizations.
Yes!, pretty boy can hire all the preachers he wants, I still don’t like him, or newt, huck or pawlenty.
NO BRASS!
Sigh...
I strongly suggest you take a look at CHRISTIAN bashing! It's fully MORMON, and the reason they even exist at all:
Joseph Smith continues: "for the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible" (from 1:12). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (, p.270).Questions put to Joseph Smith: "'Do you believe the Bible?' [Smith:]'If we do, we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do'. When asked 'Will everybody be damned, but Mormons'? [Smith replied] 'Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness." (, p. 119).Brigham Young stated this repeatedly: "When the light came to me I saw that all the so-called Christian world was grovelling in darkness" ( 5:73); "The Christian world, so-called, are heathens as to the knowledge of the salvation of God" ( 8:171); "With a regard to true theology, a more ignorant people never lived than the present so-called Christian world" ( 8:199); "And who is there that acknowledges [God's] hand? ...You may wander east, west, north, and south, and you cannot find it in any church or government on the earth, except the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (, vol. 6, p.24); "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" ( 10:230).Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (, p. 255).Pratt also said: "This great apostasy commenced about the close of the first century of the Christian era, and it has been waxing worse and worse from then until now" (, vol.18, p.44) and: "But as there has been no Christian Church on the earth for a great many centuries past, until the present century, the people have lost sight of the pattern that God has given according to which the Christian Church should be established, and they have denominated a great variety of people Christian Churches, because they profess to be ...But there has been a long apostasy, during which the nations have been cursed with apostate churches in great abundance" (, 18:172).President John Taylor stated: "Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century." (, vol. 6, p.167); "Where shall we look for the true order or authority of God? It cannot be found in any nation of Christendom." (, 10:127).James Talmage said: "A self-suggesting interpretation of history indicates that there has been a great departure from the way of salvation as laid down by the Savior, a universal apostasy from the Church of Christ". (, p.182).President Joseph Fielding Smith said: "Doctrines were corrupted, authority lost, and a false order of religion took the place of the gospel of Jesus Christ, just as it had been the case in former dispensations, and the people were left in spiritual darkness." (, p.266). "For hundreds of years the world was wrapped in a veil of spiritual darkness, until there was not one fundamental truth belonging to the place of salvation ...Joseph Smith declared that in the year 1820 the Lord revealed to him that all the 'Christian' churches were in error, teaching for commandments the doctrines of men" (, vol. 3, p.282).More recent statements by apostle Bruce McConkie are also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (, vol 3, p.265); "Thus the signs of the times include the prevailing apostate darkness in the sects of Christendom and in the religious world in general" (The Millennial Messiah, p.403); "a perverted Christianity holds sway among the so-called Christians of apostate Christendom" (, p.132); "virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ whom they vainly suppose to be a spirit essence who is incorporeal uncreated, immaterial and three-in-one with the Father and Holy Spirit" (, p.269); "Gnosticism is one of the great pagan philosophies which antedated Christ and the Christian Era and which was later commingled with pure Christianity to form the apostate religion that has prevailed in the world since the early days of that era." (, p.316).President George Q. Cannon said: "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" (Gospel Truth, p.324).President Wilford Woodruff stated: "the Gospel of modern Christendom shuts up the Lord, and stops all communication with Him. I want nothing to do with such a Gospel, I would rather prefer the Gospel of the dark ages, so called" (, vol. 2, p.196).
Keep bumping that thread to the top!
I’d say you missed one -
Mitt - do you believe that all “truth” is discerned by feelings? According to page 39 in Preach the Gospel, “In answer to our prayers, the Holy Ghost will teach us through our feelings and thoughts...Heavenly Father will answer their prayers, typically through feelings of their hearts and thoughts in their minds.”
So when the phone rings at 3 AM, what will his ‘feelings’ tell him?
How well does that bode for us when his beliefs include that a charlatian greater than Camping was the true prophet of God (Joseph Smith), believes that the US will be saved by a mormons and enter into a mormon directed theocracy and that the new Jerusalem will be placed in Missouri.
What happens when the current ‘prophet’ gets on the phone to “president” romney?
Which kind?
The ones who say it's ok to be a practicing HOMOSEXUAL in their church or the other kind; that thinks the BIBLE just might actually MEAN what it says?
It mattereth not; for he evidently does NOT care what MORMONism says about PRESBYTERIANism anyway!
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.