Well said!
Posted on 11/02/2011 6:04:36 AM PDT by Colofornian
A late October Fox poll revealed that 62 percent of potential voters are neither concerned by a generic Mormon candidate's social views nor their religious practices and beliefs.
Yet, what is interesting in much of the Fall 2011 polling is these questions are still being raised in a highly abstract voter environment. In other words, they haven't been sifted through an applied “Mitt Romney” filter.
The late October Fox poll, for example, assumes that the “social views” of a Mormon candidate are “socially conservative.” Yet, Mitt Romney has come under fire for lack of exactly lack of conservativism in his social positions. [See 10 reasons Christians should reject Romney]
And one of those reasons has been Mitt Romney's constant flip-flopping of actions and statements regarding abortion going back to at least 1994.
The other way that the polling data has tended to remain “abstract” is that according to a late October Public Religion Research Institute poll, only 42 percent of Americans even know Mitt Romney is Mormon.
Yet, "Mormon" is the first word that comes to mind when Mitt Romney is mentioned to voters. [See Poll: Cain = ’999,’ Romney = ‘Mormon’ and Perry = ‘Texas’]
If almost 6-in-10 voters...
...don't even know what Mitt Romney's most identified for -- per the above-linked Pew and Washington Post polling data...
...that he's a "Mormon"...
...what does that translate into regarding the shallowness of how far voters have dug into Mitt Romney's social-issues' stances?
The largest sub-group, per the PRRI poll, aware of Romney's Mormonism are Evangelicals – at 53 percent and white Mainline Protestants at 49 percent. Catholic voters, at only 37 percent, were less likely to identify Romney as Mormon. Therefore, look for voter opinions on Romney to shift as almost 6-in-10 voters discover for the first time Romney's other-worldly worldviews.
The October Fox poll found 21 percent of “GOP primary voters have concerns about electing a Mormon president. Of those, twice as many cite Mormon beliefs as cite the candidate’s views. White evangelicals -- a significant voting bloc in several key GOP primaries and caucuses -- are about equally concerned about the candidate’s views (16 percent) as their religious beliefs (17 percent).”
Of Romney's troubling (social) views to about one in six Evangelicals has been his waffling on protecting his pre-born neighbors.
In August 2007 interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, Mitt Romney responded: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..."
As the chart below shows, Evangelicals wondered how, even from his own lips, he could say he...
...“sustains” Roe v. Wade in 1994 (Note: “sustains” is the strongest word possible for a Mormon to utilize as LDS are asked to sustain ALL their leaders from the LDS “prophet” on down);
...is “devoted and…dedicated” to “honoring” his word” to “sustain and support” Roe vs. Wade in 2002;
...continue to remain ”committed to my promise” in May of 2005;
...expand state-funded abortion services via RomneyCare in 2006 while making Planned Parenthood part of the permanent healthcare oversight board at that time...
...All while simultaneously...
...eschewing the “pro-choice” label in 2001;
...claiming that “every action I’ve taken as the governor relates to the sanctity of human life” and looking backward from February, 2007, “I was always for life.”
Indeed, how can you be? It was simple, per Romney's interview with Chris Wallace. You simply don’t “call yourself pro-choice?” And why was that? Because, Mitt told Chris Wallace, you just don’t “feel pro-choice?”
When an upstanding Mormon uses the term "sustain" he is using one of the most serious and solemn words in the Lds vocabulary.
Note this comment from a Mormon who actually took issue with Mitt's past commitment to abortion:
”In the LDS context 'sustain' has a very special meaning. Whenever someone in a congregation gets a new responsibility (a calling), their names are presented in our sacrament meeting along with what they are being asked to do. This is usually presented to the congregation by a member of the local leadership as follows: 'Brother Jones has been asked to serve as the 15 and 16 year-old Sunday School teacher. All that can sustain him in this calling please show by the uplifted hand.' At this point members of the congregation who sustain the calling raise their right hand. The leader than says 'any opposed may manifest it', and anyone who opposes the calling may raise their hand. To me this is one of the greatest things about the Mormon experience, that when we are asked to do something in our local congregation, we can look around us and see that the people around us know what we are being asked to do, and are showing a willingness to help and support us. It is an exceptional sense of community, especially considering that at the local and regional levels there is no paid clergy. Since as a rule everyone has some responsibility in the congregation, and those responsibilities change sometimes every 2-3 years, sometimes more frequently, there is a very egalitarian aspect to how local congregations are run. We are also taught that once we sustain someone we should do all we can to help someone in their calling, and not needlessly tear them down....Everyone in the Church from the highest ranked ecclesiastical official on down, is supported by a sustaining...Current president of the Church Gordon B. Hinckley said: “The procedure of sustaining is much more than a ritualistic raising of the hand. It is a commitment to uphold, to support, to assist those who have been selected” -Ensign, May 1995, p. 51 ...We take the same approach to sustaining other things, such as the law of the land. Our 12th Article of Faith says that we are to sustain the law. What does this mean? The best explanation I have found is when past President of the LDS Church David O. McKay said: “To sustain the law, therefore, is to refrain from saying or doing anything which will weaken it or make it ineffective” -Conference Report, Apr. 1937, p. 28 When we sustain someone or something, and especially when we make that sustaining an overt public act, we take on very specific responsibilities. Support, strength, assistance even when we might personally disagree with something in the person or thing, are all things required of us in 'sustaining'. When Mitt Romney was an LDS bishop he was in charge of the sustaining process every Sunday. On Sundays he didn't officiate in the process, the process was still done under his very close oversight. The LDS concept of 'sustaining' can't be far from his mind when he makes statements saying he 'sustains' a law..." Source: "Mormons Against Romney" Analyze Romney's Promise to "Sustain" Roe v. Wade
Some have noted Romney's "change" on abortion -- and say, "So what? We ought to welcome converts to our cause, not shun them."
Yes, true pro-life "converts" are not to be shunned -- UNLESS they continue to make political ploy out of the pre-born -- waffling back and forth, back and forth, for their own political gain.
(1) Romney's on record saying his "pro-choice" opinions go back to when his mom ran for Senate (1970).
(2): Yet Romney advisor Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review in 2007 that: "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review last year, reported the Concord Monitor (Original Source: http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061210/REPOSITORY/612100304/1217/NEWS98; URL address no longer a live link)
(3) Romney went on to invoke a "nuanced stance" at the 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll about what he was in 1994, claiming "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice.
Well, what are the 1994 facts?
FACT a: Romney's wife gave a donation in 1994 to Planned Parenthood...
FACT b: On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attended a private Planned Parenthood event at the home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney.
For documentation on this and other Romney waffles, see the chart below:
|
|
||
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
|
|
||
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
|
|
||
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
|
|
||
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
|
|
||
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
|
|
||
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
|
|
||
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is still routine |
|
|
||
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
|
|
||
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
|
|
||
| December 2007 (Anything 'different' from embryos' perspective than June 2002?) | 5.5 years before – June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard | December 5, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic "candidate!" |
|
|
No one ELSE?
No; he isn't.
This LOSER couldn't even beat out a fellow rino LAST time; and NOW there happens to be some REAL Conservatives in the field!
Oh?
How can that BE?
It happens to be LEGAL!
If we, as a Nation, cannot stop the KILLING of Future Americans; why would we give a rat's patootie about anything else?
Are you 'OK' with OTHER folks joining him in MORMONism?
Well said!
Sorry to tell you this, but at least the whipped cream and other garnishes you get at IHOP, along with the sweetener in the pancake batter, could very well be new products developed by a research company that uses cells from abortion mills to test and create their products. Since companies like Pepsi are relying on those new products to help them make a "more healthy product", you may well soon be served an abortion waffle at the IHOP if they rely on ingredients from Pepsi owned suppliers.
.
bttt
It is not for me to decide another's faith.
Through personal example & witnessing, I very well may advocate my Baptist faith. But to decide, deride, mock, or otherwise criticize anothers faith hardens them against me...and rightfully so.
O.K. I'll give it a shot.
What is the question, and why do you think it is for me?
You asked it, you tell me...
But aren't BAPTISTs given the command to be like Jesus?
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
But to decide, deride, mock, or otherwise criticize anothers faith hardens them against me...and rightfully so.
HMMmm...
Oh I get it.
You want to be perceived as an all around nice guy.
OK then.
#1 Jesus Christ criticized -- openly and repeatedly -- the legalistic Pharisees. (The apostle Paul followed His example and did the same of the Galatians, who were also engaged in legalism; Paul even critiqued Peter for the same king of thing)
Therefore, your "template" above is an "epic fail" -- unless, of course, you yourself are critiquing Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul here. If so, just 'fess up.
Which, btw, leads into #2:
If you are critiquing Jesus Christ -- and us by extension -- then aren't your posts a constant expression that works against the above? IOW, aren't you, Laotzu, refuting yourself?
I try to satirize (w/occasional sarcasm) -- vs. simple mocking; yet it seems your constant unrelated giraffe postings deride & mock posters re: demeaning any serious discussion of thread content issues. Worse, you have criticized us several times. Even accusing others of deriding and mocking is criticizing, is it not?
Therefore, have you "hardened" us vs. yourself due to your critiques? Yes? No? Or are you just plain inconsistent in applying your own philosophy?
#3 You say "against ME" -- but I wasn't aware that the key here was to make disciples of ourselves. I'm not trying to make Colofornian disciples; Elsie isn't trying to make Elsie disciples; and I don't think you are trying to make Laotzu disciples, are you?
You see, what you have seemingly failed to discern is that a number of religious people have already hardened themselves vs. Jesus Christ. Some living content needs to crack that hard shell -- because they've virtually innoculated themselves vs. the need for a real savior w/their coating they've placed around themselves.
That's why you see the Holy Spirit's role, says Jesus, is to convict the world of righteousness, of sin, and of judgment. (John 16)
We see the apostle Paul being used by the Holy Spirit to do exactly that in a conversation with a governmental leader in the book of Acts. (That tells us that the Holy Spirit will often seek to "convict" people through other people)
The
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 71
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet and Sidney Rigdon, at Hiram, Ohio, December 1, 1831. HC 1: 238–239. The Prophet had continued to translate the Bible with Sidney Rigdon as his scribe until this revelation was received, at which time it was temporarily laid aside so as to enable them to fulfill the instruction given herein. The brethren were to go forth to preach in order to allay the unfriendly feelings that had developed against the Church as a result of the publication of some newspaper articles by Ezra Booth, who had apostatized.
1–4, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon are sent forth to proclaim the gospel; 5–11, Enemies of the saints shall be confounded.
1 Behold, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants Joseph Smith, Jun., and Sidney Rigdon, that the time has verily come that it is necessary and expedient in me that you should open your mouths in proclaiming my gospel, the things of the kingdom, expounding the mysteries thereof out of the scriptures, according to that portion of Spirit and power which shall be given unto you, even as I will.
2 Verily I say unto you, proclaim unto the world in the regions round about, and in the church also, for the space of a season, even until it shall be made known unto you.
3 Verily this is a mission for a season, which I give unto you.
4 Wherefore, labor ye in my vineyard. Call upon the inhabitants of the earth, and bear record, and prepare the way for the commandments and revelations which are to come.
5 Now, behold this is wisdom; whoso readeth, let him understand and receive also;
6 For unto him that receiveth it shall be given more abundantly, even power.
7 Wherefore, confound your enemies; call upon them to meet you both in public and in private; and inasmuch as ye are faithful their shame shall be made manifest.
8 Wherefore, let them bring forth their strong reasons against the Lord.
9 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you—there is no weapon that is formed against you shall prosper;
10 And if any man lift his voice against you he shall be confounded in mine own due time.
11 Wherefore, keep my commandments; they are true and faithful. Even so. Amen.
| The Official Scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints © 2006 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved. Rights and use information. Privacy policy. |
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.