Why I, as a former Mormon, would not vote for Mitt Romney for President [PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL!]

I would not vote for Mitt Romney under any circumstances. This is not because I think he is a bad person, or that Mormons in general are evil people - quite the contrary. Most are very “nice” people. In fact, I do not think we could find a more outwardly decent person for president in this country than Mr. Romney.

The problem is that Mitt Romney is a Mormon, more, he is a Temple Mormon, and Mormonism is a very aggressive cult, a deceptive religion that leads people to eternal separation from Jesus Christ of the Bible. I ought to know. I used to be a Mormon.

In terms of the secular effects upon government, the public should also be aware that Mormomism’s blood-oaths bind Mitt Romney to obey the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City above the Constitution, above US law, and, yes, above the Christian and Jewish understanding of God. We’ve heard Romney argue that this is all the same bum wrap they laid on Jack Kennedy in the sixties. But it’s not. It’s not the same at all. Here’s why.

A US president with no definite religious beliefs, or a membership in some mainstream Christian denomination, may not have influence that could effect the eternity of individuals, but a man with deep-rooted cultic beliefs would persuade millions of the credibility of Mormonism, especially when taking into consideration that the LDS Church has a nearly sixty thousand strong missionary force. They could and would use President Romney as ”bait” for an introduction into Mormonism, not only in the United States, but around the world.

That’s point number one: does the “In God We Trust” Republic want Mormon missionaries to be the new face of America? Our ambassadors to the world? Picture:

Knock, Knock! “The President thinks Jesus is the brother of Satan – have you heard? Yes, until 1978 the President thought all black people were cursed of God, and could not hold the Mormon priesthood, but no, now he doesn’t believe that any more. Why? Oh, because pressure was put on the Mormon Church to change their teachings on that matter. And their “prophet” got a new “revelation” from his god. It allowed blacks into the priesthood – but nothing else changed. Yes, according to Mormon scriptures, black skin is still a curse from god! That’s the eternal word, don’t you know? But don’t worry. It won’t interfere with the Justice Department…”

The majority of people in this country, as well as elsewhere, are not familiar enough with Mormonism to be able to separate it from traditional Christianity – after all, the buzzwords sound the same. But are they? All Black skin a sign of a curse from God?

The Mormon Church does not believe in the same Christ as biblical Christianity. But even though Mormon President Gordon B. Hinckley, the head guy in Salt Lake City, has said publicly that he does not believe in the Christ of Christianity, Mitt Romney claims Mormonism does. I saw this over and over again while I was a Mormon – there is a systematic deception of the public about what the cult actually believes.

Al Sharpton and the rest of the American public may not know that Mormonism uses all the Christian terms…but that it has given to all of them a totally different meaning. Sharpton probably also may have gotten some vague answers that seemed to speak of the same beliefs, but in reality those compared beliefs are not even close. And Mormon belief, far from being just the private business of a person’s own conscience, has very public consequences for all of us if they reside in the highest office in the land.

Had Sharpton been told the truth, he would have learned that the God of the Mormon Church is not Eternal God of the Bible. He is a creation of Joseph Smith, made after his image.

“God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea…you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you… until you attain to the resurrection of the dead and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings…” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-347.)

The Christ I know has always been God, will always be God, and his goal for me is to avoid everlasting burnings, not learn to live in them.

When I was a member of the Mormon Church, they taught me that Jesus Christ was the brother of Lucifer, the devil of Hell, and they still teach that. The Jesus of Mormonism was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, but was the natural physical offspring of an exalted former human being; a ‘god’ who had physical sexual intercourse with Mary.

Are evangelical Christians going to support Mitt Romney’s candidacy if they know more about his beliefs? I sincerely hope not.

Mormonism comes to American Christians preaching “another Jesus”. This is a “Christ” that wasn’t born of a virgin, isn’t the eternally pre-existent Creator, has no inherent supremacy above any average Joe except for what “god” supposedly “earned”, and is allegedly equal in origin to Satan.

My fellow Americans, there could not possibly be a more anti-Christ theology in existence.

I can say with emphasis, as a former Mormon, and as a Christian today, it is without conscience for a Christian to vote for Mitt Romney for President of the United States.

To those more concerned with secular matters, I wish to point out that Mitt Romney’s religion is important if things like consistency, character, duplicity, the rule of law, and constitutional authority…are important.

Consider. Romney knows he’s not a Christian; the President of the Mormon church said so. Yet Romney consistently deceives people about this fact on the campaign trail. He says he believes in Jesus Christ! Jesus Christ who? If your religious beliefs are sincerely your own private business, then here we have someone’s private business causing them to be deceptive in public life. That’s just not OK for the President of the United States. If it was his mutual-funds that were causing him to lie in public about his private affairs, you could see it perhaps more clearly. But it makes no difference. If he’s lying, he’s lying.

But worse, for those who do believe in God, and Romney is supposed to, Romney is playing around with eternal matters…all to get votes.

Mitt Romney and Mormons in general maybe nice people as people go, but electing him President would influence millions positively for the Mormon Church - millions who do not know what Mormonism teaches about God, Jesus and salvation. The identity of America since our founding has been Judeo-Christian with all denominations of Christianity and Judaism being present from the earliest stages. The Christian faith is 2000 years old and has formative history in the USA since Jamestown. The Jewish faith is many thousands of years older and the influence of the Jewish Scriptures and people on the USA are also foundational. But Mormonism is a cult founded by polygamists who died in a gun fight, one of which was wanted as a con man in New England, less than two centuries ago. Is that the new ideological face “we the people” wish to represent us to the world? Does religion really “not matter” that much? There is a difference between tolerating your Mormon neighbor and electing him the President…with his finger on the nuclear button.

Only the most faithful of Mormons are eligible to enter a Mormon temple. Mitt Romney is in that elite group - he is a temple-card holding Mormon. I can tell you that not only is he planning on his own godhood after this life, but he has also taken oaths in a Mormon temple to put the LDS church above all else. His oath in the temple was to “consecrate himself, his time, talents, and everything he now has, or will have in the future, for the building up of the Kingdom of God here upon the earth, and for the establishment of Zion”.

It is important to know and understand that the ‘Kingdom of God’ to a Mormon, is not at all the same as the Kingdom of God to a Christian. To a Christian, the phrase means throwing the goodness and love of God into the world wherever you go and sharing the truth with others. But to a Mormon, building the ‘Kingdom of God’ means advancing the physical earthly organization of the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City, Utah. That multi-billion-dollar business entity is part of the conglomerate Mitt Romney was referring to when he took that oath. And he cannot talk about that oath, or what goes on in a temple, because of the pact of absolute secrecy.

People who haven’t been under the pressure of the cult don’t understand. They think it all sounds like being afraid of Kennedy responding to the Pope in Rome. No my friends. It’s just not like that. JFK was not even an active, practicing Roman Catholic, nor was he under oaths to protect and promote Vatican City above all else. But Mitt Romney is a temple-Mormon, a former LDS bishop. Nominal believer in a real religion versus all out devotee to a cult…makes a difference.

Governor, we saw Jack Kennedy: We knew Jack Kennedy’s religion; Governor, you're no Jack Kennedy.

Romney’s oath to consecrate himself means that he would have to do all that his church leaders ordered him to do, even if the US Government and her interests were in opposition to the wants and desires of the Mormon Church. And while the Roman Catholic Church or the varieties of Protestant Christianity do not have political theocracy built into their doctrine, Mormonism absolutely does.

And this political aspiration is dangerous. The LDS scriptures show all other churches and their professors (believers) are abomination to God. While Christians may assume that Mormons would deal with “abominations” in the same way that Christians do (i.e. preach the truth and leave the rest up to God) Mormons definitely don’t do that. Please remember September 11th.

On September 11th 1857, the Mormon leadership ordered the massacre of 120 California-bound settlers from Arkansas. After a first attack failed, the Mormons brokered a cease-fire with the settlers, persuading them to lay down their guns. Then the Mormons fell on them and murdered every man, woman, and child over 8-years of age. The leader of the massacred was none other than Brigham Young’s adopted son, a Mormon bishop, John D. Lee. He personally authorized and carried out the mass-murder along with other Mormon leaders from the area. The justification? The men, women, and children massacred were abominations, infidels.

Romney, as a temple-card holding Mormon, accepts and believes non-Mormons are “abominations”, whether he admits it or not to his voters. But consider these politics: Joseph Smith was, in a secret ceremony of his council of fifty, “ordained as the King to rule and reign over the House of Israel forever.” Joseph Smith was also a candidate for presidency. And Smith made a prophecy concerning the elders of the Mormon church, saying they must save this country’s government and the world.

Here is a last disturbing thought. It’s hardly the absolute last – you could fill books with the alarming oaths and political pacts of Mormons. But think about this:

Mitt Romney’s grandfather swore an oath against the United States of America. The oath said, “You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease to pray to Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.”

I don’t know about you, but I expect most American grandfathers were working to build this nation, not making blood-oaths of vengeance on behalf of their pastors against the stars and stripes.

This oath was discontinued 80 years ago – like so many of the objectionable Mormon doctrines when they come out into the light of day. But Mitt Romney’s grandfather, great grandfather and great-great grandfather have all sworn that oath. Is that American?

Generations of Romney’s forefathers swearing blood-vengeance against the United States of America? And family oaths to avenge blood against the nation have no meaning when selecting a man to put his finger on the launch-button? We forget: hundreds of millions of lives will be at the mercy of this man, this President of the United States. Who are we picking here?

Let me ask you one last thing. If Satan were a good looking man, running for office, and he said that anyone who was against his religion was just, you know, a religious bigot, would that argument hold water with you?

And it’s perfectly OK to vote for someone else if that religion is deeply wrong.

The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group)

Another interesting study looked at the rate of antidepressant prescriptions filled in the state of Utah. The antidepressant Prozac (and similar drugs) has the highest number of prescriptions in Utah, per capita, of any state in the USA:

“...adults who use such drugs also commit violent crimes at a higher rate. Dr. Tracy is from Utah where the use of Ritalin and Prozac are reported to be at a rate three times greater than the rest of the country per capita. She said Utah’s rate of murders and suicides has also increased by a similar amount...”

Article found here, and a related FR thread here.

With better than 50% of Utah’s population being professing Mormons (in some areas the number is as high as 75%), and better than 16% of Utah’s population taking Prozac on a doctor’s recommendation, I’d say that it’s a statistically safe bet to say that half - or 8% of Utah’s Prozac consumption - is done by Mormons. Given the above study showing Utah’s rate-of-consumption was 300% higher than the national average, one can reasonably conclude that Prozac consumption by Mormons is at least 150% higher than the national average.

Now one might argue that Utah Mormons aren’t the ones taking that Prozac at all, and I'm willing to entertain such arguments. But they would be making the case that the other half of the Utah’s population is just unbearably depressed hanging around all those Mormons.

So if we're really going to argue "which group better exhibits Christian characteristics", I'm afraid I'll have to ask which group is doing it with the aid of "mother's little helpers".

Excuse me. I would not have bothered to post to this thread but for your use of the original Hebrew to imply that you are correct when you argue that G-d "doesn't know" what's going to happen.

I am a Noachide. I've been studying and reading the Bible in Hebrew for over twenty years. And I am horrified that you would attempt to use The Holy Tongue to imply that your position on G-d's foreknowledge is correct.

Nothing is unknown to G-d. He knows all things--past, present, and future. The fact that our small minds cannot reconcile this with free will does not change the fact. The problem is ours, not G-d's.

All things down to the smallest detail are governed by Divine Providence which is of two kinds: Hashgachat Kelalit (general providence) and Hashgachat Peratit (particular providence). Nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing ever occurs that is not somehow within G-d's all-governing Providence.

Furthermore, it is a traditional Jewish belief that contained in the text of the Torah (dictated to Moses by HaShem) are encoded messages that refer to every single human being who will ever live--and not just the major things but down to the smallest detail. This was taught by the Vilna Ga'on, who was a rationalist. Once again, the fact that we cannot understand how this meshes with freewill does not change the fact that all of history, including every single event that happens, is somehow merely the unfolding of the text of the Torah.

And P-Marlow is right--you are a "deist."

Don't you dare try to use Hebrew or Judaism to imply that your denial of Absolute Omniscience has any validity whatsoever. And your use of the Hebrew in this case had nothing to do with your argument at all. Its sole purpose was to imply that your opponent was a "dumb hillbilly" (since they read the KJV) and somehow make your argument look intelligent.

And to both of you: the Bible cannot be translated. A translation of the Bible is a translation--not the Bible itself.

Excuse me. I would not have bothered to post to this thread but for your use of the original Hebrew to imply that you are correct when you argue that G-d "doesn't know" what's going to happen.

Good News, ZC, that's not the point I was making with that quote. The point I was making was that the original text is not making the unconditional declarative statement "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD" in the sense we would interpret it in English. A more accurate translation would have used a present subjunctive verb form. If you have really been studying Hebrew texts for 20 years, you know that I am correct here. This has nothing whatsoever to do with any claims about God's knowledge of any point in time, but rather what is being asserted by the verse.
While I find Judaica very, very interesting, I was arguing a point in the context of Christian theology. Christian theology has divergent views on the import of the Hebrew scriptures. If you don't believe me, let's discuss it over a bacon cheeseburger and a milkshake. Feel free to go on a smug tirade about the Christians misappropriating your holy book; you'll make lots of friends that way.

Sorry, to flog a dead horse here, but after re-reading your post, I have to say some words in defense of P-Marlowe, and non-Hebrew readers in general.

And your use of the Hebrew in this case had nothing to do with your argument at all.

To reiterate: it did. P-Marlowe quotes Proverbs to support his case that God is directly involved in the decision-making of our leaders. I was pointing out that the English translation he cited contains implications that are not in the original. I believed that this was salient to our disagreement.

Its sole purpose was to imply that your opponent was a "dumb hillbilly" (since they read the KJV) and somehow make your argument look intelligent.

P-Marlowe called into question my familiarity with and faith in the Bible and that goaded me into a sarcastic reply. I should not have insulted P-Marlowe and I apologize for the tone in whicch I presented my argument. You, Zionist Conspirator, dealt him a much greater insult:

And to both of you: the Bible cannot be translated. A translation of the Bible is a translation--not the Bible itself.

So, according to you, P-Marlowe hasn't read the Bible at all?! Now, maybe P-Marlowe is plenty smart enough to learn Hebrew if he(?) has the time, but God's grace is not restricted to the "I know Hebrew and You Don't" club; it is for all mankind, including P-Marlowe.

Translations are problematic, so I recommend looking at several translations if you can't read the original language. For example:

Young's Literal Translation:
Rivulets of waters [is] the heart of a king in the hand of Jehovah, Wherever He pleaseth He inclineth it.

That is the closest to a word-for-word translation (wouldn't you agree, ZC?), but it lacks any expression.

New American Standard Bible:
The king's heart is like channels of water in the hand of the LORD; He turns it wherever He wishes.

This better captures the sense original verse, in my opinion. This expresses the sense that even King Solomon's heart (King Solomon wrote this verse) is subject to the guidance of the Lord when it is placed in his hands. The next 9 verses (even in the KJV) discuss various ways in which people deceive themselves and others, but notes that they cannot deceive the Lord, who can see their hearts. P-Marlowe and I had a disagreement about the meaning of that scripture and I went back to the "Holy Tongue" to back up my interpretation (and what "Tongue" am I supposed to use? Klingon?).

Honestly, I don't think P-Marlowe is stupid for not knowing Hebrew, but I certainly don't think he(?) is disqualified for studying the word of God, as you explicitly stated. One of the Noachide laws forbids idolatry. Maybe you should stop worshiping a book and get to know the Author.

don’t know what faithful Latter-day Saint could have been “effectively pro-choice” for so long, when the prophets and general authorities, and the scriptures themselves, have all decried abortion as an abomination.

So far I've heard that Mitt's alleged pro-choice position consisted of choice in the cases of rape, incest and when a woman's life is in danger. I'm looking at his record in MA. All I've found are liberals angry over the way Romney derailed their anti-life legislation. I haven't found any instances where he supported abortion on demand outside those three exceptions.

Many people who are pro-life allow for the three exceptions. So now Romney has changed his identifying label but his position is still the same. I'm comfortable with it.

FWIW it is pretty clear in any translation that the heart of pharoah was completely within the power of God to harden it at his will. This violation of Pharoah's so called free will was done so that the full purpose of God could be accomplished.

(Exodus 4:21 KJV) And the LORD said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go.

(Exodus 7:3 KJV) And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, and multiply my signs and my wonders in the land of Egypt. (Exodus 14:4 KJV) And I will harden Pharaoh's heart, that he shall follow after them; and I will be honoured upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host; that the Egyptians may know that I am the LORD. And they did so.

When combined with Proverbs 21:1, the implication is clear that God can and does change the heart of rulers in order that HIS plan, not ours, is carried out.

And in answer to your prior post, YES God did choose Clinton for us and his purpose was done in that choice. It will all become clear to us some time in the next eternity.

And when the next president is elected, we can know that whoever it is, it is God's choice for us, whether that be for mercy or judgment.

I dare say that the way our country has been going, I am resigned to the thought that God may use the next election to bring judgment upon this nation. We certainly have not earned his mercy. We have abandoned him in all our ways. We can hope for mercy and pray for mercy, but ultimately the final determination of all events is in the hands of God. I wouldn't have it any other way.

I found this picture of you on the internet.

If it were only for those "emergency contraception" exceptions, I would be more comfortable with Mitt, especially if he would have taken the time to clearly enunciate that he had limits to his pro-choice stance.

But when he writes letters to NARAL in 2002 saying things like this:

''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one," Romney wrote in answer to a NARAL questionnaire during the campaign. ''Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (from Boston Globe)

He doesn't sound like he's making any distinctions. No mention of rape, incest, or life of mother. He merely says it's a personal choice.

I found this on the NARAL website.

http://www.naral.org/elections/statements/romney.html

Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA)
Choice Statement:
Former Gov. Mitt Romney declined to provide NARAL Pro-Choice America with a statement on choice.

Voting Record:
Gov. Romney does not have a federal voting record on reproductive choice; however, as governor he initially expressed pro-choice beliefs but had a generally anti-choice record. His position on choice has changed. His position is now anti-choice.

Public Statements about Choice:
A selection of Gov. Romney’s public statements on this issue is below.

“I am pro-life and I support pro-life legislation…. I think the Roe v. Wade one-size-fits-all approach is wrong.”

[Meg Kinnard, Romney Sidesteps Question on Abortion-Ultrasound Plan, Associated Press, April 14, 2007.]

“I did change my view on abortion. And that happened, as you know, about two years ago…. And that is where I am. And I have no apology for the fact that I am pro-life.”

[Marc Ambinder, Journey to the Right, National Journal, February 10, 2007.]

When asked if the repeal of Roe v. Wade would be a good day for America, Romney responded “Absolutely.”

[Transcript of GOP Presidential Debate in California, MSNBC, May 3, 2007.]

P-Marlowe "goaded" you into a sarcastic answer? Sheesh.

What I told you about the Torah is authentic Jewish teaching. According to you this is idolatry and "book worship," even though it is the teaching of the most anti-idolatrous religion on earth?

Please allow me to quote Vilna Ga'on:

All that was, is, and will be unto the end of time in included in the Torah . . . and not merely in a general sense, but including the details of every person individually, and the most minute details of everything that happened to him from the day of his birth until his death; likewise of every kind of animal and beast and living thing that exists, and of herbage, and of all that grows or is inert.

The above quote is from Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's Cracking the Bible Code, in which he points out that the Vilna Ga'on was not a mystical enthusiast but "the greatest of Jewish rationalists."

Are you even aware that the Torah read in synagogues is not a printed book but a hand-written scroll composed according to strict rules that guarantee that it is an exact reproduction of the Torah dictated to Moses? Are you even aware that when decay begins to set in that the scroll is buried in a Jewish cemetery? I suppose this is "book worship?"

You, not I, are the one who insulted P-Marlowe. Your view of G-d is so low it doesn't even meet the definition of the First Vatican Council, much less that of Judaism/Noachism. Sadly, your views are probably typical of modern Catholics who think that everything that contradicts the modern world in ancient Catholic statements was wiped clean by Vatican Council II.

I repeat sir: you are a "deist."

Perhaps you have failed to remember a certain statement in the Torah in which HaShem commands all Jewish males to appear in Jerusalem during the Three Festivals. He then goes on to say that "no one will covet your land" while they are in Jerusalem offering their sacrifices during those occasions. My my. Sounds like someone is ultimately in control of what people do, however impossible this is for our puny minds to reconcile with free will.

And I reiterate that the Bible cannot be translated. When HaShem dictated the Torah to Moses he dictated it letter for letter. Its message lies not only in the narrative text but in the very sizes, shapes, and even names of those letters, plus unusual spellings, acrostics, etc. This type of interpretation is called remez, and a whole commentary on the Chumash (the Ba`al HaTurim) is devoted exclusively to it. How can this be translated? It cannot. How do we know that G-d Himself instilled in Adam both his good and his evil inclination? Because of the two yods (one of them "superfluous") in the verse Vayiytzer HaShem 'Eloqim 'et-Ha'Adam (Genesis 2:7), since the Hebrew for "inclination" is yetzer (each yod standing for a yetzer). How can this be translated? It cannot be.

Furthermore, even non-Jews instinctively recognize that the Bible cannot be translated. This is easily proven by the fact that no translation remains a mere "translation" very often. The Latin Vulgate was originally a mere translation, yet it eventually became the one and only authentic Bible. And while Fundamentalist Protestants attack the Catholic Church for "forbidding translations," it is well known that for many of them only the King James Version is THE Bible. What is this insistence on the KJV only but a tacit admission that the Bible cannot be translated from its "authentic" expression?

I suggest you learn a little bit about the world's most anti-idolatrous religion before you go around accusing people of "Bibliolatry." I can imagine the way you react to charges of "Mariolatry."

According to you this is idolatry and "book worship," even though it is the teaching of the most anti-idolatrous religion on earth?

I have nothing bad to say about the Jewish people, the Jewish faith or Jewish traditions. I'm commenting on what you've said about your beliefs and how they appear to me. If you have become Noachide in order to wrap unsound beliefs in the legitimacy of Jewish tradition, then you should be ashamed of yourself. I'm not the One who will judge you, so my opinion on this matter is ultimately inconsequential; I'm just calling it like I see it.

I repeat sir: you are a "deist."

That's not what my priest tells me, and more importantly, having accepted our Lord Jesus into my heart, that's not what my heart tells me. I guess you know better than God or Jesus, so please go on about how pious you are. My opinions concerning faith, grace and free will are derived from Thomas Aquinas and not the Torah, so we're not even arguing in the same context.

I can imagine the way you react to charges of "Mariolatry."

Hmmm... a lot of my life seems to exist in your imagination. The apologetics on Mary's role in Catholic theology are ubiquitous; if you were to level such charges, I'd point you to them, but you're entitled to your own opinion, as am I.

The above quote is from Dr. Jeffrey Satinover's Cracking the Bible Code

Oh man, I'm sorry, I really can't continue this. Thank you for sharing your beliefs in detail, but... the Bible Code. I can't take that seriously. If that makes me a deist or an atheist or even — in your eyes — a total jerk, so be it.

Peace be with you.

My opinions concerning faith, grace and free will are derived from Thomas Aquinas and not the Torah, so we're not even arguing in the same context.

(1) St. Thomas Aquinas derived his teachings from the Scriptures - including the Torah - as well as the writings of Jewish commentators on the Torah.

St. Thomas Aquinas' stated purpose in writing his Summa Theologiae was to instruct novices in the proper understanding of the Scriptures.

(2) St. Thomas Aquinas never expressed doubt in God's perfect foreknowledge of all things - including every single individual act undertaken by every human being from the Creation to the Judgment. I direct you to the Summa Theologiae, Part I, Question 14, Articles 13 and 15.

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.