ROTFL!
Posted on 10/04/2007 9:40:06 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
When Mitt Romney appeared last week (via closed circuit from California) before the Council of Retired Chief Executives meeting in Washington, he faced kindred souls: rich Republicans who had managed big enterprises. Yet the second question from the audience was whether Romney's Mormon faith was hurting his quest for the Republican presidential nomination. He replied that about the only people who brought up his religion were members of the media, an answer that simply is untrue.
Romney is asked about Mormonism wherever he goes. In my travels, I find his religious preference cited everywhere as the source of opposition to his candidacy. His response to the former chief executives that only reporters care about this issue sounded like a politician's tired evasion. Romney was either too obtuse to appreciate his problem or was stalling because he had not determined how to deal with it. Contact with his advisers indicates that it's the latter.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The reason his religion matters is that it makes it harder for him to beat Hillary.
And frankly he isn’t a good candidate.
So I don’t really care why people don’t vote for him. I want a candidate who can beat Hillary.
I’ll look it up.
Link please.
You may want to read this....
LDS Newsroom - Growth of the Church
According to the National Council of Churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States. However, despite its increasing numbers, the Church cautions against overemphasis on growth statistics.
The bells, alarms and sirens have gone off Fast Coyote! You've gone too far; you've now mentioned what was meant to have been cordoned off...
"FREEPER security. Do you have an emergency?"
"Yes, the bells, alarms and sirens have just gone off in one of the FREEPER rooms."
"What's the nature of the emergency?"
"We have coyotes talking about elephants."
"Come again?"
"Well, there was this discussion about candidates in the elephant party."
"And?"
"Well, one of them blurted out the biggest ele-f...umm. He claims that uh, en-ti-ty is standing in the Living Room."
"Oh, you need the animal control division, then. I'll transfer your call."
"No, no, no. That's not the issue at all."
"What is the nature of the emergency, then?"
"Well, the en-ti-ty in the Living Room is sacred. His presence is sacred and unmentionable. His religion is sacred and can only be talked about in edifying, hushed tones. And so we can't have coyotes even acknowledging certain, sacred things about the....uh...the...uh...you know."
"No, I don't know."
"Well, you know...I mean, if there really was an ele-phant in somebody's living room, doncha think the media would have covered that by now? Don't you think newshound FREEPERS would have been on that in a second?"
"I suppose so. I've got other calls coming in...Is there or is there not an emergency?"
"Well, transfer me to animal control, after all. Maybe they can come get the coyote."
Where have you been?
Its still in breaking news, the Fred/Rush thread.
On this thread, I already saw a picture of what was claimed to be the sacred garments modeled by people who are not Mormons.
You are being deceptive and you know it.
Specifically, deceptive how? As I said, I've already seen a picture of something modeled by non-Mormons. Why do I need another, especially from someone who isn't trustworthy?
Ah, I get it. Your calling me 'deceptive' is similar to Harry Reid's efforts to slam Rush in order to divert attention from the soldier's lawsuit against Murtha. It's not true, but you don't care as long as you can feel like you're covering up.
Do you think I own a pair or not? Do you think if I do, they would represent those that can be purchased at several locations along the Wasatch Front?
Have I ever said I am “not mormon?” By whose definition are you calling me that? So if I am “not a Mormon,” then my physical garments are a fake, but if I am a Mormon they are accurate? (hint; we are not talking here about something that need to be “interpreted,” we are talking about a physical tangible object) How can me being a Mormon or not change the physical characteristics of an object?
Amazing!
He and the others of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles were called out of their professions and into their special ministry by priesthood authority. No pastor on earth can or does claim priesthood authority. They were heart surgeons, educators, lawyers, businessmen and had very lucrative private lives while still serving as bishops, stake presidents, area authorities, and in the Quorum of the Seventy. Now the President lives in a small apartment next to the Church office buildings. I don't think this qualifies for "feeding yourselves instead of feeding My sheep." The point that I originally made was that pastors (especially those that operate the "mega-churches") who beg tithes for their support- not having been called of the Lord, but by their own fancies, then live lives above the least of those whom they serve. They have used the Word of God for filthy lucre and have fed themselves on the livlihood of those they profess to care for. Whoever is least among you, he is greatest in the Kingdom of God. Certainly the membership took care of the Apostles and that is correct. You forget, however, that ALL of the Apostles, including Paul did not take that honor upon themselves, but were set apart by the laying on of hands by those having authority. Who set apart your pastor? Where is his priesthood? Where is his authority? He has none. And so he has taken the honor upon himself and his use of tithe for his support is unsanctioned and unholy, unlike the temple priests (who were also set apart and had priesthood authority through their patriarchal line of Aaron).
Acts 8
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, 19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. 20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. 21 Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not aright in the sight of God. 22 Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine cheart may be forgiven thee. 23 For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity.
Do you think because a man pays for his seminary education for the right to be called a man of God makes him such. It does not. He has offered money for the gift of God and his heart is not aright in the sight of God. The President of the Church and the Apostles gave a lifetime of service free and then were asked to give up all that they had and serve the Lord. Pastors ask their membership to give up of what they have so that the pastor can serve the Lord. You don't see anything wrong with this? While I may disagree with Catholics, they hold that their priestly offices come through the authority of Peter- unbroken. Pastors have not a leg to stand on. As for the youth ministers and others who give of their times and talents to serve the Lord and then labor for their own support- they have the approbation of the Lord according to scripture and my respect- whatever the doctrine they profess. It is not their religion that I have censured, it is the "shepherd in Isreal" that feeds himself instead of his flock.
Ping
....Oh wait....except for the majority of the Founding Fathers who were "occultic" Masons like George Washington or that "cult worshiping" duo John Hancock and Benjamin Franklin
I have no doubt that you did read it somewhere. It is not, however, true.
And I'm supposed to care?
Welll...you cared enough to bemoan the fact in your original post, #408: However, I have found after this became a public forum topic, that many of my friends who are evangelicals have the same opinion. Out of some semblance of courtesy, they never bothered to tell me what they really thought about me and my beliefs.
Is that any worse than squabbling over Catholic writings? LOL
You must not spend a great deal of time with Christians. We follow a path of peace and reconciliation.
Please tell me you aren't serious? Did I miss a sarcasm tag?
What the Mormons refuse to consider is this - if they insist "they are Christians too" then they DO NOT NEED TO BAPTIZE those of us who have already been baptized in the name of "The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, buried with Him into the Resurrection."
WE ARE CHRISTIANS ALREADY and DO NOT need any of their special, super, secret baptisms to ease us into their ideas of Eternal Life.
Christ has already explained it to us: "I Am THE WAY, THE TRUTH, & THE LIFE AND NO ONE COMES TO THE FATHER EXCEPT THROUGH ME."
Our professions of Jesus Christ rids us of any need of "special dispensation" from them or anyone else pretending to be the only keeper of the keys of Heaven - Christ is alone, no man has the power!
O.k. I will no longer believe that.:)
I can’t find much on the web about it.
ROTFL!
Are you talking about the depiction of a Christian minister as a tool of satan in the Temple Ceremony?
If so, you can believe it:
“Background surrounding the 1990 changes to the Mormon temple ceremony
As noted on page 218 of their recent book Mormon America, Richard and Joan Ostling point out that the main source of Mormon converts comes from people already familiar with some sort of Christian background or belief system:
“Mormonism succeeds by building on a preexisting Christian culture and by being seen as an add-on, drawing converts through a form of syncretism. Mormonism flourishes best in settings with some prior Christianization.”
Syncretism means “the combination of different forms of belief or practice” and also “to unite and harmonize especially without critical examination or logical unity.”
Since most Mormon converts in the 1970’s and 1980’s were coming from a Christian background, it was becoming apparent to LDS leaders in the 1980’s that ridiculing the Protestant minister in the temple film was offensive to many new converts. There were even some reports of converts attending the temple once, and vowing to never return — sometimes even refusing to return to any LDS meetings.”
Prove it. With Biblical sources, not the ones from your approved man-made scriptures. I think the Catholics will argue that your position is wrong.
For an Atheist, you sure have a BIG interest in Religion!
Oops; I guess you really ARE a-thestic!
You are SURELY agnostic!
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.