Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Sheesh, there’s no problem with having theological disagreements about Mormonism, but cut it with mixing theological anti-Mormon with politics already. Mitt Romney’s false theological views are not a reason not to vote for him. I hope you are all happy with what four more years of Marxist Obama does to this country. Talk about useful idiots...
God warned the Jewish people about the ills that having an earthly king would bring. Among them, this king would tax them to the tune of ten percent. (I wish our modern government were satisfied with that little.)
Anyhow, with prayer for ultimate guidance, it is probably best to choose the wisest person. And do not forget to participate in primaries.
Forgot to ping you on this one
If Romney loses, I'd say you're fully on the mark.
If Romney wins, we don't know who the Mormon "prophets" might be from 2013-2020. (They go by the calendar, which usually bumps the oldest in line to first in line...and if one of them happens to have a flare up of senility as he orders Mitt to do something, who knows?)
Keep in mind these older men were children (or were born shortly thereafter) when their parents were taking the following oath -- thru 1926 or 1927 -- in the Mormon temple:
"You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and that you will teach the same to your children and to your children's children unto the third and fourth. generation."
Source: Oath of Vengeance
This oath was removed from Mormon temple rituals by 1927.
Those children, those 3rd & 4th generations -- are alive together now...
Why would Mormon leaders turn their backs on the very sacred vows made by their parents, their grandparents, and their great-grandparents?
(I assume, then, that if Paul Ryan announced tomorrow that he was a "god in embryo" -- see post #1207 for backdrop to this -- nobody would say a word about that on FR, or in the MSM...and the Dems would 100% look the other way on that, too, eh? What zip code is fantasyland again?)
In the sphere of FR that’s likely 50% not 9%. But a 9% undecided rate in the general body of voters is not that unusual in a contest like this where the heaviest cannon have yet to shoot. And it’s also not unusual for it to split heavily in favor of the challenger as the decision comes down to the wire. Like impending death, the election has a way of focusing the mind.
Of course, out in the real world outside of FR the driving force may be the old sayings “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” and “It’s the economy stupid.” If so, it’s a landslide for Romney-Ryan.
Because they are actually viewed as about as sacred as yesterday's Kleenex? If the LDS has a vice it's in the direction of waffling, not of being doctrinaire. Based on what has happened in other liberalizing denominations, if the oath is not simply forgotten it will be re-interpreted and spiritualized out of having any practical meaning. Jihads are inconvenient and messy, especially when you're thinking in your heart of hearts there isn't even an "Allah" to get all exercised about.
That is baloney.
When writing people put their strongest statements in the concluding statement which you did.
Suicide by cop.
Pull my account.
I want Jimmy to understand how he is killing his previous wonderful site with his anti-mormon fanaticism.
That is why I am just not leaving and not logging back in.
Pull the account now or pull it later.
An intellectually honest position. Thank you for stating it. I agree. The Marxist must go.
My preference, however, is that he be replaced with a constitutional conservative. That rules out Mitt Romney. And as long as we have people willing to fight for my freedom to make that choice, I will exercise it.
“There was a bill that came up in Illinois that was called the ‘Born Alive’ bill that purported to require life-saving treatment to such infants. And I did vote against that bill,” Obama said Tuesday. “The reason was that there was already a law in place in Illinois that said that you always have to supply life-saving treatment to any infant under any circumstances, and this bill actually was designed to overturn Roe v. Wade, so I didn’t think it was going to pass constitutional muster.”
Romney has changed his views on Abortion, Obama has doubled down on his!
#1...the "outlawing" of bigamy and polygamy NEVER stopped Mormon polygamy in the 1800s.
I know.
I'm a direct descendent of a Mormon polygamist.
Try reading B. Carmon Hardy's book, Solemn Covenant: THE MORMON POLYGAMOUS PASSAGE -- an excellent book.
Hardy also is descended from Lds polygamists.
Now what did happen is that Utah Territory realized they needed to "deal" with polygamy for a variety of reasons, including statehood ... and their "prophet" claimed it would be dealt with in his 1890 "manifesto."
If you read Hardy's appendix, you'll see he lists about 250 additional plural arrangements done 'tween 1890-1910...'twas 1907 -1910 period in which they finally started getting serious about stopping the solemnizing of additional plural unions.
But did you know that...
...(a) Mormonism did not have a monogamous "prophet" leading them until 1945????
...(b) And -- some of those "unions" that were quietly arranged in the early 1900s were still around until these people died in the early 1960s?
You see, Mormon leaders didn't break up existing polygamous arrangements; and -- as for additional arrangements -- it just went "underground" -- mostly to Mexico...for up to 20 years. (Then it went sideways -- the fLDS -- who are also "Mormon")
I wish you opusers would quit opusing out and instead stand up and disagree in an adult, reasoned, and civil manner. The issues run deep. Some people truly do fear that the political knock on effects of voting for Mitt this November would be worse than the improvement in opportunity that changing the guard from Obama to Romney could bring. Others point out things such as that without a semblance of a responsible republic left, it’s rather pointless to worry about the state of its predominant political parties.
Why should neverMitts become clothespin nose voters? “I’m gonna take my marbles and run” is scarcely a good reason for that!
They’ll call you a RINO today, but tomorrow, they’ll call you a Candidate for Citizenship at the re-education camps once BO wins.
Look at the chart above carefully -- or just read below:
Romney said he changed his mind on pro-life November of 2004.
Now what did he do or say, from a pro-abort perspective, in 2005-2007?
May 27, 2005: Mitt 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.")
= Assessment: OK, this is at least a flop from November '04!
What about his gubernatorial record 2003-2006? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. So I assume somewhere in 2005 or so were 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.")
= Assessment: So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine
April 12, 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. Assessment: (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).
If you want to see the abortion damage of RomneyCare in MA, see: RomneyCare Now Funding FREE Abortions: A Disqualifier for Mitt Romney’s Candidacy [Enabler Mitt]
Early December 2007: You'd think a full year into campaign mode as a "pro-lifer," Mitt would have his talking points down by then...But no: December 4, 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." (Source: Candidates Reveal Their Biggest Mistakes) 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 a schizophrenic "candidate!"
If their only, solitary difference was the Born Alive nightmare, then that would be enough for any human to realize that the keys of the country need to go to that idiot Mitt, and not that sick sub-human Obama. Some one is going to win - if you can’t stop someone sick enough to take the demonic side on Born Alive, then you have some pretty psychotic issues yourself.
(The words total, complete, utter, irreversible destruction do come to mind.)
Bump!
Still, the real root of the problem, in the eyes of Akins, is not even that Mormons are polytheists, but that they are the only polytheists claiming to be Christians. And, in the words of Macfarlane, they will do anything to accomplish their goal. --Tom O'TooleThis is an older post, but regardless, you might find it interesting. It drew the strong ire of a Mormon lawyer (whose comment has since been removed).
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.