New has mentioned Col. West as VP - and WEst is open to the idea.
Then if Newt puts in Sarah as Energy "Drill, Baby, Drill" Sec. - Just imagine.
Posted on 12/03/2011 6:47:57 PM PST by Grig
Comparing and contrasting Newt and Mitt is a real eye-opener. The two men have taken very different paths in their personal and professional lives, and have wildly different personalities. Newt is a dreamer, Mitt a doer. Newt is reckless, Mitt is careful. Newt is famously undisciplined, Mitt is the epitome of self-discipline. Romney is a leader, Newt simply is not–according to those who worked most closely with him. Both men are intelligent, yet have chosen different ways to use their intelligence.
In education, Romney pursued business and law, while Newt chose modern European History. Romney earned his education quickly and entered the private sector, while Newt preferred academia.
Romney went on to a successful career in business, becoming wealthy helping businesses and creating jobs, while Newt made a career in government, becoming wealthy by exploiting his position of power and selling influence. Romney's skills were in high demand in the private sector, while Newt was removed from leadership in the House due to the chaos he created.
In matters of faith, Romney is a life-long member of his church and has a record of many years of service to it. Newt went from Lutheran to Baptist, to Catholic, with some speculation of political motive in making the conversions. I am not aware of service Newt may have given to his church. In their personal lives, they could not be more different. Mitt married his high school sweetheart after 4 years of courtship, and remains happily married. Newt also married his high school sweetheart - his geometry teacher whom he began dating at age 16. He has admitted that there is some truth in the notion that he hates women. He has a turbulent marital history due to selfishness and uncontrolled sexual appetites. While Romney helped Ann through both MS and cancer, Newt divorced Jackie, who had cancer–saying she was ‘not pretty enough or young enough to be a president’s wife–and besides she has cancer’. Newt divorced Marrianne, who was also diagnosed with MS. At the time, he asked Marrianne if she would please tolerate the six year affair with Callista, and remain married to him. She refused. He married Callista in 2000.
In matters of character, the contrast is keen. Romney has no hint of scandal–personal or professional. Newt has rumors of sexual scandals–including the infamous oral sex in a car with his neighbor's wife, while his little daughter was near. Newt also has a history of ethics violations, shady book deals, sham fundraising practices, and inconsistencies about whether he was hired as an ‘historian’ or as a lobbyist.
In the presidential campaign, they have also chosen very different paths. Romney is serious, organized, hardworking and prepared, while Newt has been flying by the seat of his pants. He now finds himself in the running, but unprepared, due to a severe lack of preparation and organization. While Romney has been mostly humble about his long term frontrunner status, Newt proclaimed himself the nominee after less than two weeks at the top of the polls.
There are many other differences--too many to list here. But we easily know enough to determine who is more worthy of support. We should not divorce the way a man lives in his personal life, from his actions in public life. Character is revealed in both professional and personal decisions. Romney has a solid record of being true to his word, family, and stewardships. Newt does not. While both men have significant accomplishments, only one has the background, character, leadership and temperament we need. That person is Mitt Romney.
I’ll just go with this one instead:
“And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 1:12
Call me a purist.....
:)
I actually thought it was funny!!
True, true. I agree. I’m just getting more and more upset as they GOP elites keep doing this. Very upsetting.
New has mentioned Col. West as VP - and WEst is open to the idea.
Then if Newt puts in Sarah as Energy "Drill, Baby, Drill" Sec. - Just imagine.
I know a Noahide and he’s Jewish, that’s the extent of my knowledge of Noahides.
Apparently Noahides, are people who practice these laws.
The seven laws listed by the Tosefta and the Talmud are[7]
1. Prohibition of Idolatry
2. Prohibition of Murder
3. Prohibition of Theft
4. Prohibition of Sexual immorality
5. Prohibition of Blasphemy
6. Prohibition of eating flesh taken from an animal while it is still alive
7. Establishment of courts of law
But notice you can lie.
Oh, well.
X
What kind of ‘law’ is #7??
Thank you. Sorry if my post was offensive. I have never read the Doctrine of the Covenant.
The passages you post seem to say that Mormons believe that humans can one day become gods. That is what I thought. Is that not quite right or what? Just wondering.
Actually the LDS are less pro-life in general than their PR makes out. Abortion is allowed regardless of reason if ‘prayerfully considered’ and many people who work in Utah know of active LDS women who have had abortions (usually to cover up pre-martial sex). Their history is communistic, and many LDS I know support gay marriage because they realize it will open the doors to polygamy.
I was on the front lines in Palm Springs (high gay area) during the Prop 8 drive and there were a lot of Catholics and Evangelicals but NO Mormons in the area who really worked for it, contrary to the media hype. Mormon PR machine is at full speed but the reality is vastly different.
Your comparison to Pelosi and Moore isn’t valid. Unlike Catholicism, Mormonism is an ‘all or nothing’ proposition. There are no half way points, you either believe wholly and work your butt of to be ‘temple worthy’ (like Romney) or you are a ‘jack Mormon’ or you leave.
Regardless of their politics, both Reid and Romney are TBM (true blue) active temple Mormons - they are true believers.
I was speaking of Jeff Head, now I can add you as well to that list. You are very much in the minority however, sadly.
FWIW, I never supported Huck even though he shares my faith.
How many other people do you know who would have to ask permission to take a job from the head of the international church??
It also supports that Romney asked Hinkley permission to run for POTUS last time.
1 Corinthians 15:29 (KJV)
29. Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?
But alas, there are many LDS that seem to glom on to “faith promoting stories” regardless of the provenance.
- - - - -
Chuckle. Even when I was LDS, my favorites were the “3 Nephite” stories, those and the ones about members tracing their genealogy back to Adam. Even then, as a TBM, I would roll my eyes at those stories and was surprised when my BIC friends would get upset with me for not believing them.
One of the most interesting things about Mormonism, IMO, is the folklore that develops through these “faith promoting rumors”.
Um..we don’t have a ‘freedom from religion’ policy here on the NA forum so why don’t you take your own advice, MS.
IOW, if you can’t stand the heat, stay off the threads...
Bingo, and the difference is even more stark in the Greek. Sigh.
[But we easily know enough to determine who is more worthy of support.]
Not really.Mormonism is a religion of works, not grace. One would expect Romney to be an insufferable do-gooder, cause that’s the only way he can get his planet (see Romneycare). That isn’t a qualification for the presidency.
I wouldn’t start a business with anyone so straight laced as Romney, you’d get creamed in the real world. Newt has his flaws, but I will never cast a vote for Romney.
The LDS do believe that one day they will become gods and have their own planets, just like the God of this world (they call “Heavenly Father”) was once a man and earned Godhood himself. They often refer to this doctrine as ‘exaltation’ in the Celestial Kingdom (the highest of their 3 levels of Heaven). It is also ‘Eternal Life’ in LDS jargon.
To true believing Mormons, this highest level is the only ‘real’ heaven and the only way to get there is to be a good, worthy, temple attending Mormon and through salvation by works.
Here is a page with references (both LDS and Bible) and terminology differences.
http://utlm.org/onlineresources/terminologymain.htm
Here is the LDS website lesson on ‘exaltation’ that clearly states godhood as the goal and some requirements to earn it. Note that the first four requirements are only found in membership in the Mormon church and their use of ‘the gospel’ refers to the LDS gospel (teachings and beliefs).
http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-59,00.html
Finally, when discussing theology with Mormons, one must remember that they use the same terms with different meanings and dissemble (and even lie) to make their beliefs sound more “Christian”. I have posted this before when asked about the LDS lying and regarding my admission that I lied or avoided things about LDS beliefs to non members when I was LDS (other ex-mo’s on here will admit to the same thing) but will post a fictional conversation based upon how I was taught when I was Mormon, and what I have encountered with the LDS since then...
There is a constantly used phrase/idea that comes down from the leadership of “every member a missionary”. It means that every member is to try to convert people to Mormonism. Couple that with the other oftused meme of “don’t do anything that makes ‘the Church’ look bad” and you have an interesting combination. The “why” gets down to these. It is easier to lie or omit things or twist words than it is to explain what the LDS really believe and risk losing a potential convert or have someone go away thinking less than glowing things about the LDS church.Every member is expected to find ‘investigators’ (people who would be interested in converting who take the missionary discussions - similar to RCIA). There is also a lot of people who hear things about beliefs but don’t know enough to know what the LDS are saying, that they use different meanings for terms, even though the LDS usually know that Christians mean different things. A typical exchange could go like this...
non - LDS - “I have a lot of Mormon friends, and they are nice people, but don’t Mormons believe Jesus and Satan are brothers?”
LDS - No! We don’t believe that at all! Jesus is the only begotten Son of God! Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and they said that all other churches had some problems and Joseph needed to start a Church that was the same as the one when Jesus Christ was on the Earth. Why don’t you come over for dinner and we will have the missionaries talk to you? There is a set of 6 discussions that they give that shows what we believe.
non-LDS - “Well, ok, but I read somewhere that Mormons believe they will become Gods”
LDS - “That was probably written by someone who has a grudge against the Church. They probably are one of the ones who gets paid to badmouth the Church or someone who couldn’t live by the principles of the Church so they left or they were offended by someone in their ward.
Ok, lets parse this. Notice how many times “the Church” is used. For the LDS it is all about “the Church”. LDS ‘testimonies’ often start out with “I know the Church is true”.
Then there is the automatic denial that Jesus and Satan are brothers. We saw it on this a thread the other day even. Now, all LDS know that their church teaches Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers. So why would you get a resounding “NO”? Because it makes their theology look silly. By stating “No” the LDS are lying to you, but they are thinking “Well they aren’t flesh brothers, just spirit brothers like we all are, Jesus is our Elder brother”. The other day an LDS came on one of these threads and stated “Jesus and Lucifer aren’t brothers, as if by Mary!”. Notice the subtlety of it. “As if by Mary” implying they aren’t physical brothers (which no one claimed). But they left out That Lucifer was the second born and Jesus was the firstborn of the spirit children.
Next we come to what would appear to be a rebuttal to the claim Jesus and Satan are brothers. “Jesus is the only begotten Son of God!” what they are not telling you is that they mean it in a literal sense. Jesus and Satan are SPIRIT brothers (like all of us) but Jesus is God’s physical son, God came down, had sex with Mary and conceived Jesus. So it isn’t a rebuttal at all and the LDS know that. They are intentionally twisting words to make you think they don’t believe Jesus and Satan are Spirit brothers.
Next Phrase - “Joseph Smith saw Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ and they said that all other churches had some problems and Joseph needed to start a Church that was the same as the one when Jesus Christ was on the Earth.” This is referring to the “First Vision” (of which there are several contradictory accounts) and the Great Apostasy. The LDS will tone down things said about other Christians. In the first vision account, Smith isn’t told that other churches ‘had problems’ he was told “I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt http://lds.org/library/display/0,4945,104-1-3-4,00.html
“All wrong”, “Corrupt” and Creeds an abomination are not the same as “some problems” and the LDS know that. But they will soften it in order to not scare people off or to put the LDS church in a ‘better light’.
Next - about becoming Gods. Notice the LDS response is to go down a rabbit hole, rather than addressing the comment. Instead they lead the person to believe that the source was unreliable, or written by someone who had something to gain (money) or a former Mormon with a grudge. The question itself isn’t even addressed (lying by omission). It also causes the person to think that they might be wrong and that the LDS don’t believe that, even though the LDS person knows they do.
Finally, the invitation to meet with the missionaries. There is an assumption by many that these are people who know more about Mormonism than the average member and that isn’t true either. Most men and quite a few women serve LDS missions (I nearly did). They don’t have special knowledge. They also don’t tell you is the goal of those 6 discussions is to get you baptized Mormon and there is pressure put on you to read the Book of Mormon, pray about it, make commitments and convert. Those 6 discussions aren’t just a summary of LDS beliefs, they are the requirements for conversion and that is their goal. But they don’t tell you that, they make it sound like this is just a friendly way of talking to knowledgeable people about what the LDS believe.
As always, I am willing to provide more sources for the above and open to questions either in forum or via freepmail.
God Bless,
R
Thanks for making Godzilla’s point so clearly.
Thanks Reaganaut for the long analysis of Mormonism. Very informative.
We don’t have a religious test for who can hold the office of President, but come on. Romney was the equivalent of a Mormon pastor, right? This guy really believes this stuff. It says a lot about his ability to reason and make decisions.
You say that it is easy for Mormons to distort the truth, say one thing but hide the reality of wacko beliefs behind easier to accept words. Hmmmm. Sounds just like Mitt to me.
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.