Posted on 09/22/2007 9:18:05 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
The following is a letter written by Mitt Romney to the Washington Establishment. It is without a doubt one of the boldest statements made by a presidential candidate. As a Republican he says it exactly right. You may not support him, but if you are a true conservative you are going to agree with him. Many conservatives have already seen this letter and are taking it to heart.
Romney has been praised by many conservatives for taking this strong step toward getting our nation back on track. Richard A. Viguerie, author of Conservatives Betrayed: How George W. Bush and Other Big-Government Republicans Hijacked the Conservative Cause (Bonus Books, 2006), had this to say about Romney’s stance:
At last, a top-tier presidential candidate is paying attention to the discouraged, disheartened, and disillusioned base of the Republican Party. I commend Mitt Romney for urging the GOP leadership to return to its conservative values.By releasing an ad chastising the Republican leadership for its excessive spending, immigration amnesty, and ethical slackness, Governor Romney has taken a small but significant step toward reclaiming the GOP for the grassroots conservatives who are its backbone.
I hope you will read Governor Romney's Letter and Watch the ad in its entirety.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.virginianfederalist.com ...
good post
from wiki
[edit] Political career
In 1953, Benson was appointed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture by President Eisenhower. Benson accepted this position with the permission of Church President David O. McKay and therefore served simultaneously in the United States Cabinet and in the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve.
Known for initiating Eisenhower's habit of beginning cabinet meetings with a prayer,[citation needed] Benson cut a controversial figure in politics. Ideologically, he was far to the right of Eisenhower, and he was prone to red-baiting in speeches. Benson opposed the system of government price supports and aid to farmers which he was entrusted by Eisenhower to administer, arguing that it amounted to unacceptable socialism. Nonetheless, he survived in his cabinet position for all eight years of Eisenhower's presidency. He was selected as the administrator-designate of the Emergency Food Agency, part of a secret group created by Eisenhower in 1958 that would serve in the event of a national emergency that became known as the Eisenhower Ten.
OK, when you try to use other articles as proof-texts for your claims, make sure you read them carefully.
(1) You've now thrice made claims that the Pope has accused all Protestants of total heresy and apostasy, which believe me, would be banner headlines if such were the case. (Maybe you'd be a good headline writer for some tabloid publication, given your sensationalistic streak).
(2) Maybe you should read the articles you cite a little closer. Maybe you jumped over this small sentence (allow me to highlight the key portion):
"The view that Protestants cannot have churches was first set out by Pope Benedict seven years ago when, as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, he headed the Vatican "ministry" for doctrine."
So, you're trying to tell us that a certain Catholic cardinal [aren't cardinal-level authorities the ones who are making sexual-abuse-by-priest-payments in some dioceses?], 7 years ago (after how many Popes in the past 500 years have been around?), finally arrives at a certain doctrine that the Protestants lack the same authority that Catholic churches have.
Yeah, yeah, I know...you're used to thinking that truth can become falsehood, or vice-versa, at the whim of a pope or an LDS prophet...you think that Magico Presto, an edict from "on high" (lower than heaven that is), can turn an orthodox person into a heretic. Or you think that a "spiritually A-OK" (temple recommend & all) polygamist is fine at Midnight on a certain date in the 1890s; and "magico presto" a few hrs later the same-said person is both a criminal and apostate.
Or you believe that a black LDS "priesthood" member is a contradictory statement at midnight on some date in 1978; but, to hear you tell it, a "Magico presto" moment occurs. Based upon some edict from "on high"(lower than heaven that is)--a few hours later--the same-said person is both celestial kingdom bound while also being conveniently budgeted for within the BYU athletic department scholarship fund, eh?
Try reading your Bible. No one prophet, minus Jesus Christ, in the Bible ever held all authority. Even Moses was instructed by his father-in-law to delegate what authority he had, lest he wear himself out. Many OT prophets were contemporaries of each other--alive at the same time; there was no hierarchical "prophet #1," "prophet #2," etc. If you're going to try to use the Bible for a hierarchy then look @ 1 Cor. 12:28: "And in the church God has appointed FIRST of all..." (What? YOU think "First of all 'prophets'?) Or since you seem to want the Pope to speak truth for you in this thread, maybe you think 1 Cor. 12:28 reads "And in the church God has appointed first of all Popes...?
Wrong-o, boy-o, oh, Magico-Presto one. 1 Cor. 12:28 reads: "And in the church God has appointed FIRST of all apostles, second prophets..."
We’ve discussed this concept before. You seem stuck on the notion that creation of spiritual offspring means sex. It may, it may not. I haven’t asked God about His sex life, so I don’t know exactly what processes are involved in bringing a spiritual child, such as your and my souls, into existence. I would assume some sort of organizing process whereby raw material is formed into sentience, but the topic is mostly outside the scope of LDS doctrine.
Nevertheless, our detractors often say that the LDS Church teaches that God has some kind of sexual relationship with His goddess(es) in order to produce spiritual offspring. The LDS Church does -not- teach this. Therefore, your accusation of heresy on these grounds is not justified.
We -do- believe that the marriage relationship can be codified in the hereafter and last into eternity. This is done through a priesthood ordinance known as “sealing,” and it may be performed vicariously for couples who are dead. However, to the best of my understanding, the LDS Church does not teach that people get married in the afterlife. Therefore, yet another accusation of heresy from you is unwarranted.
Please, learn our doctrine before you try to marginalize us with it.
Fair enough. The concept of the Fall of Adam is a point of differentiation between LDS beliefs and those of mainstream Christianity. We believe that the Fall of Adam was necessary, that the Earth would not have been populated without it, and that it was planned for from the beginning. Adam’s transgression required repentance, for sure, for he disobeyed; but it was part of the process that God set in motion with the creation of the Earth.
For clarity, it is -not- LDS doctrine that sexual intercourse is the ‘forbidden fruit’ spoken of in scripture. I’ll be happy to discuss in more detail our beliefs regarding the Fall if you are so inclined.
~”So the pope would also conclude that the LDS church lacks ecclesiastical authority; while the LDS church concludes that the Catholic church (& all others) lack ecclesiastic authority.”~
This is a true statement on both account. Being LDS, it isn’t particularly threatening to me that the Pope says he’s right and I’m wrong. Let him worship as he sees fit.
~”So since the Pope and the LDS Church prophet both pretend to replace the true Head of the Church...”~
This is untrue. I will not speak to Catholicism’s beliefs on the subject; but we believe that Christ IS the head of the LDS Church - it is -literally- the Church -of- Jesus Christ.
He directs His Church through revelation through His prophet, as was done in the past. That prophet at this time is Gordon Hinckley.
But Hinckley is no surrogate for Christ in any way.
Is CanaGuy really needlenose_neely? How’d you find this out?
In a word, no!
Denial is not a river in Egypt. Your own founders tell a very different ‘tale’ from your tortured explanation.
OK, that made me laugh :-)
You might find this reply amusing. Pinga-ling-a-ling
Jesus is talking to those who are living under the lesser law.
Matt. 22: 23-33
23 ¶ The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,
24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.
If you recall Moses had the higher Law from God and when he return they were in a state of debauchery.
So Moses returns to God and he gave him the Ten Commandments.
D&C 132
01–06, Exaltation is gained through the new and everlasting covenant;
07–14, The terms and conditions of that covenant are set forth;
15–20, Celestial marriage and a continuation of the family unit enable men to become gods;
21–25, The strait and narrow way that leads to eternal lives;
26–27, Law given relative to blasphemy against the Holy Ghost;
28–39,Promises of eternal increase and exaltation made to prophets and saints in all ages;
40–47,Joseph Smith is given the power to bind and seal on earth and in heaven;
48–50, The Lord seals upon him his exaltation;
15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.
18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.
~”Your own founders tell a very different ‘tale’ from your tortured explanation.”~
I’ve seen the ‘tale’ to which you refer; it’s nothing more than it’s own tortured rendering of a single quote by Brigham Young.
Let’s just toss out the dozens of other explanations that contradict that quote, including many by Young himself.
This is a recurring theme among those who would discredit the LDS Church. They use a single quote from a single leader from a century and a half ago, typically after stripping it of all context, and extrapolate it to mean that such is the doctrine of the LDS Church.
I, on the other hand, as a member of the LDS Church, have the benefit of the entire context of teachings of our leaders for a timespan approaching two centuries. Therefore, when I tell you that the Church doesn’t teach something, I typically know what I’m talking about, despite any isolated aberrant quote you could furnish.
Thank you, resty, for posting honestly one heresy to establish another heresy!... Typical for the convoluted nature of your non-Christian religion. The sad part is you don’t even realize you’ve done this. You have posted a polytheism doctrine to establish the ‘efficacy’ of your religion’s heresy regarding ‘marriage in Heaven’.
Wow, you make whirling dervishes look like they’re standing still! I forget, was Brigham Young one of your religion’s ‘prophets’?
No you are wrong MHG it is not polytheism doctrine that is your ignorance of under standing our doctrine.
When one marries under the Celestrial law they covenant with the Lord.
When one married in the in the word they covenant with each other.
Resty, clearly your religious team has established a new strategy, to charcterize any opposition as ‘not based in background knowledge of our religion’. Try some other way to play this game of Mormonism. Perhaps the pinged apologists can do it for you. Pathetic, resty, really pathetic.
I thought we’d gone over this a few weeks ago? A prophet has two things: opinions and revelations. They are not the same. That’s why we are personally invited to go before the Lord and verify directly with Him through prayer the teachings of the prophet.
Brigham Young was particularly fond of voicing his opinions; but he never did so, to my knowledge, under the guise of revelation, prophecy, or speaking in the name of the Lord. And sometimes he misspoke, and sometimes his words were mis-transcribed (remember, no tape recorders back then). But these things mean he was human. Not a false prophet.
That’s why the context of the teachings of the Church are necessary. You can’t have a clear understanding of what we teach and believe if you are glued to aberrant quotes that are twisted to support what you -want- to think we teach and believe.
And this is why we keep going around in circles, MHG.
Well worded, sadly, not the point of this controversy.
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.