A Mormon in the Oval Office?

Washington Post ^ | October 4, 2007 | Robert Novak

[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.

[DanielLongo]

It is true that the ministers of other faiths have no priesthood authority. If they do, show me. As for the members of other churches and their faiths, the invitation is “bring what you have and we’ll give you the rest”. How is that attacking their faiths? You and the rest of your bunch are just a bunch of cry babies. Get a grip.

[colorcountry]

Boo hooo! You’re attacking us you BIGOT!!! You just hate us. I have been called a liar and untrustworthy....

I’m telling.....

WAHHHH!!!!

ROTFLMHO.

Do you really think we give a hoot what you say about us or our “authority.” Go prove your “restoration” to yourself.

I’m only pointing out your continued hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a sin you know. So is pride.

[DanielLongo]

Your dogma has no connection to the quotes you cite.

Hebrews 2

7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

You can call angels "messengers" if you wish. You cannot then say it refers to prophets. It is not speaking of prophets but of heavenly messengers. Your understanding of the scriptures is a mess.

[DanielLongo]

We are all His children. That is obvious. We are not all His spokesperson or His messengers. Though we may all share His message, that does not make us all Apostles or Prophets. Paul’s vision and his zeal for the Lord did not qualify him for the work. He received that commission by the laying on of hands by those who had authority. You guys are trying to tie the laces of opposite shoes together and rightly keep falling on your face. The attempt is not even admirable. Its silly.

[DanielLongo]

Again, none of those scriptures say that priesthood authority was done away. In fact...

Ex. 40: 15

15 And thou shalt anoint them, as thou didst anoint their father, that they may minister unto me in the priest’s office: for their anointing shall surely be an everlasting priesthood throughout their generations.

Num. 25: 13

13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.

What the Lord has called an "everlasting priesthood", I am not going to take it on your authority that it has an end.

[MHGinTN]

So as not to be the causer of greater darkness on your willfully ignorant heart, I will only cite the operant passage again then leave you to your own. For your edification, the messengers WERE the prophets in the following passage:

HEBREWS 1:1-4 In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets, in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages; who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest, having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.

[DanielLongo]

Whatever.

[MHGinTN]

Jesus is the only one worthy of the ‘everlasting priesthood.’ It saddens me that you will not recognize that truth.

[Old Mountain man]

Alter ego? Don’t have one. Are you dreaming again?

[DanielLongo]

Hebrews Chapter 1

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

He makes a statement about prophets and then in two versus transitions into making comparisons between Christ and angels. He is obviously talking about angels and not prophets here. Again you snip and paste the scriptures to try and manufacture a point. I have just given all of the verses together so that anyone who reads it can see you are obviously wrong. Do you think other people don't have the scriptures and you can pull this disemblance without being checked and corrected?

[colorcountry]

Dreaming of you my dear.

[DanielLongo]

And where in the scriptures does it say that? Nowhere. Your opinion counts for nothing.

[Old Mountain man]

Slick editing job,there. Do you do that with all your scriptural references?

[Old Mountain man]

Well, this fat old man is quite amazed that anyone would dream of him.

[tracer]

She turned me into a neeewt!!

Uh goht bettuh....

[MHGinTN]

I quoted the Young’s literal translation. I did not insert something not in that translation. The first verse addresses the ‘speaking to in the prophets’ then contrasts that method with ‘speaking to in His Son’. The name Jesus has been given is greater than the Angels, clearly, but the ones through whom God spoke before the coming of Jesus Christ were the prophets, the messengers He used then, as Jesus is the messenger He uses now.

[MHGinTN]

If I can find a link, I’ll point you to the Young’s literal translation from the Greek. Don’t accuse if you are still in ignorance. That tactic is wearing really thin as a n effort to divert fromt he truth Mormonism denies and becoming an obvious trait of fellow Mormons.

[MHGinTN]

Here is the entire first chapter of Hebrews from Youngs Literal Translation (the 'messengers' for the language were the prophets, who received the words from God via the angels; but we have The Son through the written Word, so we do not require the angels to have the language for our comprehension because it has been preserved in the Bible of gospels and letters making up the New Testament as directed by The Son through His Apostles):

	Chapter 1
	In many parts, and many ways, God of old having spoken to the fathers in the prophets,
	in these last days did speak to us in a Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He did make the ages;
	who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,
	having become so much better than the messengers, as he did inherit a more excellent name than they.
	For to which of the messengers said He ever, 'My Son thou art -- I to-day have begotten thee?' and again, 'I will be to him for a father, and he shall be to Me for a son?'
	and when again He may bring in the first-born to the world, He saith, 'And let them bow before him -- all messengers of God;'
	and unto the messengers, indeed, He saith, 'Who is making His messengers spirits, and His ministers a flame of fire;'
	and unto the Son: 'Thy throne, O God, [is] to the age of the age; a scepter of righteousness [is] the scepter of thy reign;
	thou didst love righteousness, and didst hate lawlessness; because of this did He anoint thee -- God, thy God -- with oil of gladness above thy partners;'
	and, 'Thou, at the beginning, Lord, the earth didst found, and a work of thy hands are the heavens;
	these shall perish, and Thou dost remain, and all, as a garment, shall become old,
	and as a mantle Thou shall roll them together, and they shall be changed, and Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.'
	And unto which of the messengers said He ever, 'Sit at My right hand, till I may make thine enemies thy footstool?'
	are they not all spirits of service -- for ministration being sent forth because of those about to inherit salvation?

[Revelation 911]

match set game

[LeGrande]

LeGrande, in your past twenty-odd postings, you seem to have difficulty refraining from casting aspersions on others.

Don’t you believe in civil discourse?

Yes, but I don't believe in turning the other cheek.

Where do you get that much energy to stay that frustrated with pent up anger?

Do you think that was a very nice thing to say? I just love playing with the hypocrites around here :)

Oh, do you know where this thread is? It isn't in religion, although that is where it should be. My whole point is that attacking Mormonism is not the same as attacking Mitt Romney.

Do you always go crying to the Mods?