Posted on 08/11/2012 4:42:48 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
Except for his unfortunate go along to get along support of TARP, bailouts, stimulus spending and the increased credit limit, etc, Ryan is a pretty good choice. Probably the best choice of the RINOS that were on Romney's short list. I support Ryan for the vice presidency. Wish he were at the top of the ticket, though.
But I still cannot and will not support the grand father of ObamaCare. Romney still loves and brags about his bastard brainchild, RomneyCare, even today when he knows what an anti-liberty socialist POS it is.
And the fact that he advocated that abortion should be safe and legal in America for over three decades of his adult lifetime and even advocated that Roe v Wade should be supported and sustained as settled law precludes any consideration whatsoever by this pro-life Christian for Myth Romney for the presidency.
And the fact that he boasted that he would be better for "gay rights" than Ted Kennedy, and proved it just increases my resistance.
That, and his penchant for gun control, his continuing support for global warming, gays in the scouts, gays in the military, and his record of appointing liberal judges makes it all but impossible for me to support him.
Lastly, we're having a bit of changeover on our moderator staff. At least two moderators resigned this afternoon after I flatly refused to rein in a so-called anti-Mormon "bigot" on FR. Well, if being in opposition to false prophets and false prophecy makes a Christian believer a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot. I've posted before that I flat do not believe that the Book of Mormon is the true word of God. Nor do I believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God. The Christian bible warns us to be weary of false prophets and that I am. Romney being the presumptive Republican nominee does not change that fact.
Naw, my English grammar and/or spelling skills aren’t requirements for posting boards
***Except that they show your bachelor’s degree in English isn’t worth the toilet paper it was written on.
Have you ever thought about starting your own pro-Romney website?
Maybe then you could stop trying to hijack Free Republic.
That cartoon pretty well captures it. Unfortunately, there are people who are permitted to grow up thinking that they can manipulate people by just being insufferably obnoxious, demanding and abusive. Most people will just give them what they want to be rid of them, but for the sake of their future victims, it’s better not to give in to them and thereby reinforce and enable their anti-social behavior. It’s really the job of mothers to nip that kind of stuff in the bud.
Oh!
Then you want to accept the online Mormon Teachers Guide!
that there will be no hate towards Mormons on this site.
____________________
Oh really? Well some aren’t listening or didn’t hear it. I saved the thread that the poster Colofornian had deleted. I have never seen such hatred on FR.
Who is FR? Seems to me as long as I’ve been here, a lot longer than you, FR is made up of Conservatives and Republicans, both of which have helped make FR the success that it is today. Just because you read and mention a select few posters, do not discount the long and varied list of contributors that have made FR the success it is today. Oh, and in case you missed it, from Sarah Palin “A Romney-Ryan ticket “will certainly offer an alternative to the vision that Barack Obama and Joe Biden have for America. And “there are a lot of us who will have his back”. Something she knows all too well.
See, even she doesn’t live in a world where we always get exactly what we want.
I made it clear from the beginning of this thread- if you have not read it, that Romney was NOT my choice. In fact, he was last on the list.
Being anti-bigot does NOT equal being all that excited over Romney.
If you can’t see the difference, you’re not very bright.
But realize that you won't always get YOUR questions answered; as they will not be the right ones...
Really? dimwit! Any Christian expects it from those who DO NOT KNOW HIM for It is Written
John 8:55 "Though you do not know HIM, I know HIM. If I said I did not, I would be a liar like you, but I do know HIM and keep HIS word."
John 15:20 "Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.' If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also"
John 15:21 They will treat you this way because of My Name, for they do not know the One Who sent Me.
Matthew 10:22 All men will hate you because of Me, but He who stands firm to the end will be saved.
Matthew 24:9 "Then you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death, and you will be hated by all nations because of Me.
LC is male.
Don't bug headquarters for answers, either, as they'll just refer you back to the local bishop.
In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.The bothersome reply
"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."
The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.
An earlier and similar interview
The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"
He then said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."
President Hinckley's response
President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.
"I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.
Does the Church still teach this?
I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.
However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."
Summary and conclusion
I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.
It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.
There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.
BRAVO! I feel bad for the good Freepers that are Mormons, like Jeff Head. It’s just not right. I’m so sad at what FR has turned into and I don’t understand why it happened. I will miss it.
Sometimes you must answer the question that SHOULD have been asked.
So it appears “NBR” is perhaps more accurate. As in, Nobody But Romney.
Great point. There are saner options than Romney.
No, you seem to forget that the POTUS race is NOT a popular-vote contest.
Rather, it's 51 mini-races (50 states + D.C.)
If I was a betting person, let's say I wagered with you $1,000 that if Romney only won ONE of the following "mini-races" -- you would take the $1,000...
The Left Coast: Hawaii, CA, OR, WA
New England (not sure if I'd include NH yet): Maine, MA, Vermont, CT, RI
NY-NJ
DC area (not VA), but MD, DE & D.C.
Illinois
Those are 15 races there. You now have to be consistent with the above claim...Are you willing to say for those 15 races, "there is a 100% certainty that Romney won't win them; therefore, Romney cannot possibly qualify as 'ABO' in those 15 states"???
(Remember, the POTUS race has no "silver medals" for state-by-state races; 2nd place only counts in horseracing)
So if somebody offered you a wager...would you be willing to say Romney could win just one of those states?
Bottom-line: If 'can't win' automatically eliminates a given candidate as an "ABO" candidate, then while Romney = "ABO" in Virginia, he doesn't = "ABO" in Oregon.
Virgil Goode is on the ballot in Oregon. I say, his chances of taking Oregon are the same as Romney: NIL
Therefore to Oregon voters -- Virgil Goode indeed is an "ABO" candidate.
kook
You're really not terribly intelligent, are you?
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.