They must have taken that Picture of Mitt to Iraq Photoshop!
Posted on 12/23/2007 3:11:55 PM PST by Zakeet
You haven't seen nothin' yet. (Just wait til further into '08 if Mitt becomes the nominee; the MSM will be chompin' @ the bit with saturated coverage)
Is this comment about Politics or Religion? Pick one and stick to it please. (And I guess some might say that if you were to choose "religion" they'd recommend putting it in the "Religion" thread)
Hopefully, the American people are jaded enough not to trust the main stream media on anything.
LDS is not strictly anti-abortion. [mcjordansc]
Mcjordansc is correct. The LDS official statements on abortion are generally pro-life...the problem is that is poc-marked with all kinds of gaps like mouse-tunneled cheese.
There's "life of the mother"; there's a "competent" medical doc which could include either a part-time abortionist; or since, 90% of abortions are done in free-standing abortion clinics who knows if that = Mr. or Mrs. abortionist; plus if a woman prays about it & her "personal revelation" concludes that the Mormon god has said "yes" then he becomes an accomplice to pre-born murder...& I could go on for more "exceptions."
OK, all it takes is for the MSM to "reach" 15-20% or even less than that and that could be enough...especially either the most seasoned voters (who are more MSM trained)--as they are the most faithful voters...or the youngest category of voters (29 & under)--at they can be easily influenced...they just may not be as in tune to what the MSM is saying as is older age groups.
Allow me to address your query, for you are operating on assertions now known to be in error because of extensive work done by credible Historians like Gary Habermas. Because of the Oral Tradition in Judaism, the ability to memorize at first hearing an entire speech was taught to children, and more specifically to young men who would be the 'record keepers' for the Rabbis they studied under. These 'scribes' served as a check for the memorized sayings and events of the Rabbi. Jesus was in the Rabbinical office when He walked and taught His disciples and performed the miracles witness to the Divinity within Him. Oral accounting of events and speeches was much more efficient and accurate than in our day, because in that day memorization was like learning to throw a ball or catch in our day ... proficiency was highly valued and was even important in business dealings!
Matthew was a tax collector and thus an able wirter of more than Hebrew, likely fluent also in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. All of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses or dictated to a writer by an eyewitness. Luke's Gospel to Theophilus was written after Luke undertook an extensive and detailed study of the events and sayings of Jesus and he likely had Mark and Matthew's accounts to which he could refer even at that date, within fifty years of the Resurrection! The oft cited Gospel of Thomas was rejected by the early Church Council at Nicea because it was written too late to have been an account dictated from the eyewitness! All of the included documents in the Canon were written prior to 100 AD.
If we take 30 AD to be the year of the Crucufuxion, Paul met Jesus on the road to Damascus in 33 AD and went to speak with the disciples (Peter and James) within three years following his conversion, then again approx 15 years later (Peter, James, and John the beloved disciple), to check and make sure he was well within the growth and message of the Chruch and to bring an offering for the poor in Jerusalem.
The first written accounts were more likley penned within five to fifteen years of the Resurrection, and the doctrines and teachings of Jesus were circulating orally from within 40 days of the Resurrection, beginning at Pentecost in Jerusalem. The letters written by Paul were penned within ten years after the Resurrection and no more than thirty years after the Resurrection. Christian Church Fathers writing at the turn of 100 AD referenced the letters of Paul in more than 100 places! Given the means of ciculating these writings and the preciousness of these offerings, it is apparent that 60+ years is a gross exaggeration in span. Here is a quote from a Josh McDowell article:
William F. Albright, who in his day was the world's foremost biblical archaeologist, said: "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80, two full generations before the date between 130 and 150 given by the more radical New Testament critics of today."
Here are two links you might enjoy during the holiday celebrating the most important birth in HUman History:
Habermas on Council of Nicea and the canon established at Nicea: http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/refut_new_cont_theor_jes_b-6.wmv
http://www.garyhabermas.com/video/refut_new_cont_theor_jes_b-7.wmv
Do a google on Gary Habermas and enjoy the presentations on video available at his website.
“If the LDS Church leadership was going to direct the politics of members, Mitt Romney and Harry Reid would have always voted pro-life.”
Romney himself in this video says that the church is not pro-life, at about 4 minutes in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0rcAByKUFM&mode=related&search=
Much todo about nothing. It must be primary season! It has to be tough on the MSM if this is all they have to talk about. They won't want Mitt as president simply because it will further kill their ratings! 8 more years of Clinton on the other hand... :-)
Mitt’s critics seem to be of two minds, first they say he will take his orders from Salt Lake, then he’s criticized for not following the beliefs of his church!
“or perhaps some others,”
Wiggle room? Oh man, this really beats all! God speaks to Mormons unless he doesn’t speak to Mormons!
This is good enough for at least a year of dissection owhat the word is is.
The reporter’s question is a critical one - either Mitt is a flat out apostate, or he believes the church Prophets get revelations that can influence the presidency.
Either way he is a potential loose cannon.
But I know the drill, Mitt is a God and everyone who opposes him is a bigot, meany, and just icky.
[s this campaign about Politics or Religion? ]
They are obviously both the same. I mean, if it is a political issue whether Hillary looks like a horse rode hard and put up wet, and it is political that Romney ‘looks presidential’, then I guarantee it is political to ask whether Mitt is taking prophecy from God.
“”
Nope, he is a Bishop AND a Stake President (also a priestly situation). Huckabee has the same problems for that matter.
Time for everyone to wake up from their PC sleep.
Huh?
Hang on.... It’s gvetting faster.
I think Mitt's sick of the petty "gotcha" games played by the MSM, and this answer reflects his disgust.
Hey maybe some day you MHGinTN, will get the message one does not need another natural man version when the Power of the Holy Ghost is always available to direct the Lord’s Church through the Lord’s annoited servants!
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.