Posted on 05/07/2007 7:26:37 AM PDT by meandog
Washington pundits in the throes of post-election doldrums are notoriously eager to find a fresh face to crown the "early favorite" for the next presidential campaign. Even by those standards, however, the speed with which they flocked to Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been remarkable. Last December, barely a month after Bush's reelection, George Will devoted a column to Romney's potential, and a quick succession of profiles in the Weekly Standard, National Review, and The Atlantic Monthly appeared in the spring. Who could blame them? Romney has had a successful business career (he is known to most Americans as the man who saved the Salt Lake City Olympics). He comes from noble moderate Republican lineage (his father was governor of Michigan). He is attractive (the National Review sighed over his "chiseled handsomeness"). And he grabbed national headlines--and the attention of social conservatives--by standing up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court's legalization of gay marriage. Just as Democrats are always looking for a liberal nominee from a red state, Republicans dream about a candidate like Romney: a social conservative from the most cerulean of blue states who can please the base while not scaring off moderates.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonmonthly.com ...
I said that I admired the missionary work done by Mormons and listed other attributes of LDS as well...but what separates mainline protestants and Roman Catholicism is mainly differences in doctrine (i.e. Marian philophy, papal authority). And, IMHO, mainline RCs and protestants have more in common with Judiasm than with Mormans because of the leap of faith one would have to make.
LOL NO! But, I do have a nibble... someone who might want to buy my house. The contractor was supposed to finish in five days. Now, it may take longer. But, I still have much to do. :) Thanks for asking.
Criteria met: Republican with no percieved anti-homosexual agenda that would accept the endorsement.
Gee...they endorsed Dole in 1996. Think there was something nefarious with Dole? How about something with Bush in 2000 before he supported the DMA?
Dems must be correct then...Bush must be the devil afterall....
>>>Criteria met: Republican with no percieved anti-homosexual agenda that would accept the endorsement.
We don’t know what criteria was considered. I would like confirmation from Romney.
It is a perfectly legitimate question.
Wow...that was hard to find. Google is your friend.
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/RomneyLogCabinLetter.pdf
Romney blew it when he lied and said he was a life-long hunter. A fool that would pander and lie about such a small issue (when compared to other issues) gives me pause to wonder what other things he will lie about.
The difference between Roman Catholicism and mainline protestantism (especially in the case of Anglicans, Episcopalian and Lutherans) is miniscule compared to what Mormons proport to be true doctrine. Most mainline protestants accept the Nicean and Apostle Creeds (perhaps Southern Baptists in different forms) and mostly Anglicans and Episcopalians only disagree with RCs over such matters as Marian philosophy, papal authority and priest celibacy. But to accept LDS, one has to accept that what is in the Gosples are not factual...let me give you an example: In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life – who would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28). Mormons don't believe this...they believe in marriage after death and, in the case of plural marriage, a man would have several wives (on different planets).
It must be said that people view cults as evil, in themselves. It doesn’t matter what its adherents believe. Evangelicals view anything outside of Christianity as being subject to worldly events, not that of God.
And there are Catholics who don’t have a problem with Ted Kennedy. What is your point?
Don't forget, after this all-or-nothing pronouncement by God, Smith decided to attend a Methodist church. Not to mention his mother, at the time, was attending a Presbyterian church. If your own mother will not believe in your new faith system, then there must be something wrong.
I think I make that case pretty clear in my first paragraph. I wrote:
"I'm a Catholic and I don't consider the LDS church to be Christian either. Their argument seems to be that they accept Christ as their savior and believe Jesus is a prophet, therefore they are Christian. If that was true, then we'd count every Muslim on this planet as "Christian". There are basic doctrines that all Christians (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.) hold like a belief in the trinity, and Mormons do not share those basic beliefs."
Right off the bat, you can take a look at Mormon doctrine and find out they believe God the father was a man and that Jesus was conceived by "holy sperm". It quite clear their beliefs go against basic Christian doctrine that is accepted worldwide whether people are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, etc., etc.
THAT being said, there are PLENTY of people who are "not Christian" that I have no problem voting for. Norm Coleman is a Jew, he doesn't accept basic Christian doctrine. Does that mean I support "Christian" Al Franken over Norm Coleman? Obviously not.
My question is why are we supposed to believe "Evangelical" Christians would deal with this issue any differently than the rest of us? As I said, being a Catholic I can't even tell the difference between "Evangelical" Protestants and regular Protestants. Someone please enlighten me. Are they supposed to more conservative than "regular" Protestants, Are they supposed to be more devout? Are they supposed to be "born again"? I've read about plenty of "Evangelicals" that seem pretty secular and liberal to me. Did the "Evangelical" community oppose Norm Coleman in Minnesota because he was "not Christian"? I hope not. Since that part of the country is mostly Lutheran, I have a hard time believing they would.
When Romney splits the vote and the Republicans lose, there won’t be a hostile congress. Hillary will be in the Oval Office and Pelosi will still have the chair. A Democratic controlled legislature and executive will further destroy our nation. Are you ready to take that kind of risk?
PY,
I’m not sure I would agree that “Evangelicals view anything outside of Christianity as being subject to worldly events, not that of God.” I think they would view everything as being subject to God.
best,
ampu
Good point. Yes, right after Joe's infant son died (1828), he joined a Methodist church...just 2 yrs prior to the publishing of the Book of Mormon.
So I would say, if Jos. Smith could join a Protestant church after this unnamed "Personage" told him not to when he was either 14 or 16 years of age, then that's enough of an "endorsement" for me.
Romney has held the positions of bishop and stake president in the mormon church. Very few, if any are called to these positions if the higher authorities don't consider them "hard core mormons."
Mitt may not spend his days contemplating about the furtherance of mormonism, but be assured he is well aware of the possibilities for expansion of the faith should he become POTUS.
Evangelical protestant = Jimmy Carter
Regular (mainline) protestant = Ronald Reagan...does that help?
That was already posted. That is just the letter. There is an application process and board review that is pre endorsement decision.
Yeah, that crazy Mohammad.....and the apostle Paul, Peter, James and John, and Moses, ....
However, what happened at the printers is another story! Oye!
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.