American Pro-Life Parties Alliance

Various Christian political activists have been seeking new direction for their efforts, after having seceded from the Constitution Party National, because of their recent change of policy wherein they allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, concerns for the life or health of the mother, and fetal deformity. In the Northwest, the Constitution Party of Montana, the Constitution Party of Oregon, and former members of the Constitution Party of Idaho have much in common in their goals to advocate the principles of Christianity and Liberty in public sphere.

A meeting was held in Boise on 4-21-2007 to discuss these issues. Two separate but related initiatives were considered. One, how existing 100% pro-life political parties might cooperate; and two, how Christian activists might work together to be a prophetic witness to the Word of God in the public sphere, even if this may not take shape within a structured organization.

Jack Alan Brown Jr., chairman of the Constitution Party of Oregon, has proposed a Confession of the American Pro-Life Parties Alliance (attached) which might form a basis for common agreement on a potential alliance between state political parties which have remained steadfast in their commitment to defend the lives of the unborn. This was received and read, but not debated nor discussed in detail. Jonathan Martin, chairman of the Constitution Party of Montana, despite being reticent about linking up with any organization, (due to recent experiences with the Constitution Party National running roughshod over principle, state parties, and its own platform,) has expressed an open interest in pursuing a loose coalition of state parties to work toward common goals.

Other Christian activists that have withdrawn from the Constitution Party of Idaho, also seek to cooperate with others in Montana, Oregon, and elsewhere, as they are determined to continue to engage in political speech, and run for public office, even if they do so as independent candidates. . .

The entire report, including the proposed confession of faith of the American Pro-Life Parties Alliance can be found at ChristianLibertyParty.com

90 Responses to “American Pro-Life Parties Alliance”

  1. Jason Says:

    “The Constitution Party National, because of their recent change of policy wherein they allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, concerns for the life or health of the mother, and fetal deformity”.

    When did this occur? Or is this another case of slander and libel by the defunct group to once again try to discredit, mislead, and flat out lie about the CP?

  2. Trent Hill Says:

    “because of their recent change of policy wherein they allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, concerns for the life or health of the mother, and fetal deformity.”

    Completely inaccurate. Anyone who constantly bickers at Cody about “editorializing” should jump on Brad here, he has misconstrued the facts.

    It should read, “because of their policy of non-intervention in states affairs; as it pertained to the Nevada AIP on issues of rape, incest, or fetal deformity.”

  3. Cody Quirk Says:

    When did this occur? Or is this another case of slander and libel by the defunct group to once again try to discredit, mislead, and flat out lie about the CP?

    =Basically yes, but then again Brad is part of this crowd.

  4. Cody Quirk Says:

    And I really question if Montana and the Oregon Parties are united on this.

  5. Cody Quirk Says:

    Actually, if John Chance has a written rebuttal to this, I’d be more then happy to publish it on TPW.

  6. Jason Says:

    Cody,

    I was being facetious, I know who, what, and why this article was written. They amuse me. They can’t take a dump without mentioning the CP. If they want to start up a little club well good, do it but why on earth do they have to continue to give passing shots at the CP. Are they that obsessed. They are all like an estranged lover.

  7. Trent Hill Says:

    Obviously the Oregon party is not united about it. Mary Starrett is a member of the Oregon party. Rick Jore is vice chair of Montana and has had a conference call and almost came to the meeting, with national.

    Jason, they are basically trying to attract all the current CP members over to their side. It won’t happen. However, the LEADERS of the movement (not the Montana or Oregon party members) have been very decietful in how they have gone about trying to do that.
    It seems the Montana/Oregon parties are not overly concerned with de-faming the CP, maybe they figure they will return someday?

  8. Brad Winthrop Says:

    I was not invited, nor did I attend this event. If the facts are misconstrued, it’s not by me. The words you accuse me of editorializing are not mine, but are from the report which I did not write. As I have stated before I have no problem with editorializing on this site. I have editorialized before and probably will again, but in this case I just excerpted the report as it appears on their site.

  9. Trent Hill Says:

    Brad,

    What party are you with? Because it is my understanding that an open invitation was sent to the Oregon and Montana Parties.
    and my apologies for the editorializing critique.

  10. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Jason muses:

    When did this occur? Or is this another case of slander and libel by the defunct group to once again try to discredit, mislead, and flat out lie about the CP?

    The national CP allows state affiliates to elect pro-abortion chairmen. That’s not slander. Not libel. Not discredit. Not Misleading.

    Flat out truth.

    A party’s policy is not just summed up by its platform. Personnel is also policy. Regardless of what a party’s platform says, the party’s personnel reveals that organization’s convictions.

    Perhaps one may disagree with this analysis, that’s fine. But insinuating those who do agree are “slanderers,” “libelers,” or “liars” is flat out wrong.

    The CP’s personnel, which includes pro-abortion chief executive officers, dictates its true conviction regarding the Life issue, perhaps even more so than the toothless black-and-white words showcased in its Platform.

    Flat out!

  11. Trent Hill Says:

    RRHeustis,

    “because of their recent change of policy wherein they allow for abortion in cases of rape, incest, concerns for the life or health of the mother, and fetal deformity.”

    That is what was written in the preamble of that document. It is purposefully misleading. This implies that the national organization has changed its policy on abortion, which it has not.
    At most you could imply that the National has asserted “state’s autonomy” over “exceptions on the abortion issue”. This is not the same as “changing policy”, and this absolutionist rhetoric is the reason you will never achieve more than internet success (and even that will remain limited).

    And when you say, “The CP’s personnel, which includes pro-abortion chief executive officers” i’ll take it that instead of “pro-abortion” you meant “opposes abortion 99.4%”. And when you say “Chief executive officers” im going to take it you mean “Only Chris Hanson.”

  12. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent Hill writes:

    That is what was written in the preamble of that document. It is purposefully misleading. This implies that the national organization has changed its policy on abortion, which it has not.

    To reiterate, a party’s policy is not just confined to its platform. A party’s policy is also revealed by its personnel.

    During the formative years of the national CP, most new pro-life members had no idea that the CP would ever allow its states to elect, uphold and support pro-abortion officers and candidates. That was the furthest thing from our minds. Shockingly the string of events, finally culminating in Tampa last year, revealed an entirely new policy of the CP: namely, that pro-abortion executive officers (and candidates!) are free to run under the banner of the CP without consequence or say-so from the National Committee.

    If this has been the CP’s policy all along since its inception, then that definitely would be news to many.

    But the fact of the matter is, compared to what it always had been previously understood to be, the CP’s policy on Life is definitely new to many who joined the party mainly because of this issue.

    Therefore, there is nothing “slanderous,” “libelous” or “misleading” about the quote in question.

    Personnel is policy.

  13. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Jason says:

    They amuse me. They can’t take a dump without mentioning the CP. If they want to start up a little club well good, do it but why on earth do they have to continue to give passing shots at the CP.

    Obviously this bothers Jason, otherwise Jason wouldn’t comment on it.

    Former CP activists who left the party have every God-given right (and dare I say, duty?) to explain their experiences with the CP and their views on what they see as a CP compromise on the Life issue.

    If they desire to shout from the rooftops, then so be it.

    Simply because someone leaves a party does not mean that they are forever barred from criticizing or commenting on the party’s shortcomings. If that were the case, then the vast majority of CP members, who are former GOP members, should immediately cease and desist from criticizing and commenting on the Republican Party’s failings.

    I have met myriads of Republicans who view Constitution Party members as being “unable to take a dump without mentioning the Republican Party.”

    Can’t have it both ways.

  14. matt Says:

    This controversy is so odd. The CP is still profoundly pro-life.

  15. Brandon H. Says:

    Brad,
    I would just recommend in the future posting a source as not including one does lead one to believe that this is coming directly from the person who posted it, which is you.—-
    If someone leaves the Democrats or Republicans or CP, LP, or GP for that matter I don’t blame them for explaining why. But after explaining it once, maybe twice, one does not need to keep repeating it over and over and over again. How often does a CP related thread on here get hijacked by some TAV member with nothing better to do than attack the CP. (Dwelling on it isn’t healthy. Holding a grudge can lead to an increase in stress, high blood pressure, and other health risks.) I left The American View a long time ago. I posted about it a while back and I’m over it. And I, like many, think the CP is better off with TAV crowd gone. If they had their way, there would be no Mormons or Catholics in the CP and no women candidates running for office. I could go around telling everyone this every chance I get, but my time and energy can be more beneficial in helping the party grow instead of attacking those who chose to leave because they did not get their way. I would advise you guys to do the same, but I am not sure I have seen any attempts to grow one of these other parties you guys are promoting that did not involve taking a shot at the CP.

  16. Anthony Distler Says:

    I love it when the conservatives fight the extreme conservatives on these boards. I’m starting to wish global_elitest would be around a little bit more. At least then there’d be a little more balance on the forums.

    I’m pro-life, but I allow exceptions in the case of the life of the mother and…all that other stuff. To me, I don’t understand how people can get so upset over one or two small details. But then again, I’m not really considered religious.

  17. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Brandon comments:
    If someone leaves the Democrats or Republicans or CP, LP, or GP for that matter I don’t blame them for explaining why. But after explaining it once, maybe twice, one does not need to keep repeating it over and over and over again.

    Ironically, not only do individual CP members rail against the GOP and Democrats, but the entire CP National Committee itself hammers the GOP and Democrats on its own homepage, and constantly throughout its entire site.

    Does the CP National Committee somehow get a free pass in your view as to whether it “needs” to stop explaining why the GOP and Democrats are doing a poor job of governance?

    Good grief, on April 24th – just three days ago – the CP National Committee passed a harshly written resolution that “condemns the power brokers in both the Republican and Democratic parties….”

    Isn’t it true that the CP has constantly explained to the world why it condemns the GOP and Democrats since the CP was founded back in 1992?

    Isn’t it true that the CP has criticized the GOP and Democrats once, twice, thrice, and heaven knows how many countless times?

    Goodness gracious! Read for yourself all the CP Press Releases at http://constitutionparty.com/news.php?cat=Press%20Release . Start from the most recent, and work your way through them all. You will soon see that nearly every single press release mentions the Republican Party in a negative way. Almost all of them!

    Once, twice, thrice, and more…......

    Does the CP “need” to stop repeating it “over and over and over again?”

    Brandon, you say you “could go around telling everyone [your reasons for leaving a party] every chance I get, but my time and energy can be more beneficial in helping the party grow….”

    But is this what the CP is doing? Is the CP trying to grow itself by refraining from condemning the Republican Party? Not at all.

    Hey, don’t get me wrong. The Republican Party absolutely deserves condemning, but if you’re going to deride those who repeat their reasons for leaving a party “over and over and over again,” then shouldn’t you at least also direct that same derision toward the CP National Committee for doing the exact same thing?

    How many times can the CP repeat its condemnation of the GOP before it invokes your same suggestion?

  18. globalist_elitist Says:

    It’s like Fred PHelps’s estranged son says about his GodHatesFags.com dad: “He has hate in his heart. If it weren’t homosexuals, it would be somethign else.”

    These hardcore extremeists are filled with hate. They will continue fighting and dividing until they are 1000 one-person, hate-filled mini-terrorist cells. “You don’t think masturbators should be stoned? Then you’re not pro-life!”

    These people do not just think abortion is bad and should be illegal. They actually expect a woman to die in the act of child birth. They are true fundamenatlists, and as Christianity is a religion of socialism and suicide, they remain truthful to the core ideology. You have to at least give them that.

  19. Trent Hill Says:

    RRHeustis,

    Once again your black and white (and quite misled) view of the world is confusing you. The Republican party is bad on MANY issues. You can agree with that right? So is the Democratic Party. right?

    What issues is the CP bad on?

    In your eyes, they are bad on one issue.

    In reality, they are perhaps bad on ONE PART of ONE ISSUE. When the reality is, that they really aren’t. They are simply not an organization which quashes other opinions because they are in disagreement.

  20. Jason C. Says:

    Estranged lovers…that is the only way to sum up this madness.

  21. Kn@ppster Says:

    Jason,

    It looks like more than “estranged lovers” or even “differences over abortion.”

    Two factoids:

    – The Constitution Party hasn’t changed its position on abortion, or its policy on abortion. Period. Everyone knows this, and anyone who says different either hasn’t been watching or isn’t being honest.
    – The proximate cause of the flap is that ONE state affiliate of the CP elected ONE party officer whose views on abortion are not 100% in line with the party’s platform.

    If the CP had changed its position on abortion, one would expect the kind of fragmentation we’re seeing now, given the CP’s emphasis on that issue. But it didn’t.

    On the other hand, ONE state affiliate electing ONE party officer whose views on abortion are not 100% in line with the party’s platform just isn’t a reason for a national schism. What it is is an excuse for a national schism.

    Presumably the excuse was manufactured because the real reason isn’t something that would play well in Peoria … maybe just a plain old bare-fangs power struggle between two or more cliques, or maybe something even less attractive (wanting to purge the Mormons, Catholics or Jews from the party, perhaps).

    The alternative to it just being a cover/excuse is that the schismatics are all nutzoids who are even more completely dissociated from reality than one has to be to join the CP in the first place … but I know some of them, and don’t think they’re that crazy.

  22. Cody Quirk Says:

    As you can tell Jason, they are obssessed indeed, in a envious way.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    To reiterate, a party’s policy is not just confined to its platform. A party’s policy is also revealed by its personnel.

    =So it’s the personal opinions and views of it’s leaders, not it’s platform, that makes up its policy? I think the perfect political party would be the Borg Party then. No individualism allowed- resistance is futile.

    During the formative years of the national CP, most new pro-life members had no idea that the CP would ever allow its states to elect, uphold and support pro-abortion officers and candidates.

    =How is favoring practical views to end abortion actually “Pro-Abortion’? In fact the ‘one step foward and two steps back’ strategy doesn’t work.

    That was the furthest thing from our minds. Shockingly the string of events, finally culminating in Tampa last year, revealed an entirely new policy of the CP: namely, that pro-abortion executive officers (and candidates!) are free to run under the banner of the CP without consequence or say-so from the National Committee.

    =Then why did the CP refuse to endorse Chris Hansen for Governor? Better yet why didn’t the Party immediately change it’s platform or pass a resolution moderating it’s stance on abortion?

    I think Mr. Heustis sums it up-

    “...I learned that many that did proclaim Christ actually believed in a completely different “Jesus” – the Jesus of Mormonism. I learned that the party’s founders, pursuing a Pluralist strategy in league with Mormonism, welcomed any newcomer who held to any Christless religion, just so long as he or she believed in “Constitutional government.”

    If this has been the CP’s policy all along since its inception, then that definitely would be news to many.

    But the fact of the matter is, compared to what it always had been previously understood to be, the CP’s policy on Life is definitely new to many who joined the party mainly because of this issue.

    =Or some that joined the Party solely for this issue were harboring a hidden agenda.

    Therefore, there is nothing “slanderous,” “libelous” or “misleading” about the quote in question.

    =You’re right, it’s a ignorant, simpleton, foolhardy, inane, moronic and dumb-founded quote.

    Personnel is policy.

    =In that case instead of the American Heritage Party, it should be called the Anti-Mormon-Catholic-Jew-nonchristian Theocratic Party- personal is policy, or is that title too long?

  24. RRHeustisJr Says:

    =In that case instead of the American Heritage Party, it should be called the Anti-Mormon-Catholic-Jew-nonchristian Theocratic Party- personal (sic) is policy, or is that title too long?

    LOL! Call it whatever you want if it makes you feel intellectually superior….

    We welcome the discussion, as our view is that the debate in political affairs is not Left versus Right, Liberal versus Conservative, Democrat versus Republican. Rather, it’s Christian faith versus Unbelief.

    Call the AHP anything you want! Stun us with your original labels.

    The AHP is 100% pro-Christ, and that says it all. In contrast, electing, upholding and supporting pro-abort candidates and officers is anti-Christ – something the national CP is getting very familiar and comfortable with.

    But I guess that view is too “black-and-white” for some folks.

    I plead guilty on my “black-and-white” view of the world. It must be my eyeglasses. Can you please go easy on me? I don’t know if I can take any more of these creative fanciful comments that I’ve never heard before…......

    Where can I get a pair of those gray-tinted eyeglasses?

  25. Keith Humphrey Says:

    If state parties and individual activists secede from the Constitution Party National, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    The Constitution Party National has indeed changed its de facto position on abortion, regardless of statements they repeatedly make to the contrary (if you believe everything that politicians say, you will easily be misled.) The schism was not about Chris Hansen, nor about Nevada, but about the National Executive Committee making an intentional decision to compromise the issue of life for the sake of political expediency. They are the ones who merely used the Nevada issue as their excuse to foist their agenda upon those of us who had believed the slogan about putting principle above politics. How naive we were.

    I understand how this may seem like a tempest in a teacup to you, and you may feel that you have been keeping up with the news on this; but this is not the same as experiencing all these things firsthand. If you would care enough to look into the issue further, there is ample evidence supporting our allegations available on ChristianLibertyParty.com. Abortion is the premiere moral issue of our day, and not something to be dismissed as irrelevant.

  26. Cody Quirk Says:

    LOL! Call it whatever you want if it makes you feel intellectually superior….

    =I know you feel that way. It’s called ego. I could give a damn about comparing my IQ to someone elses.

    We welcome the discussion, as our view is that the debate in political affairs is not Left versus Right, Liberal versus Conservative, Democrat versus Republican. Rather, it’s Christian faith versus Unbelief.

    =There’s something about pissing contests about who’s the better Christian, or who has the right view of what the Bible really says that seems pointless and petty. If you want to discuss that in the AHP or on TAV forums, be my guest.

    Call the AHP anything you want! Stun us with your original labels.

    =Well for one, the AHP doesn’t seem to fit in with the US Constitution, especially with your membership qualifications verses the ‘No Religious Test’ clause in Article 6.

    The AHP is 100% pro-Christ,

    =Not in attitude.

    and that says it all. In contrast, electing, upholding and supporting pro-abort candidates and officers is anti-Christ

    =So using one stepping stone at a time in ending the murder of the unborn is “pro-abort”? Guess that makes you and the AHP doomed to never accomplishing anything significant- no wonder you screwed up in South Dakota.

    – something the national CP is getting very familiar and comfortable with.

    But I guess that view is too “black-and-white” for some folks.

    =it’s a unrealistic approach to politics. And it takes the intellegent, rationalism out of your arguments.

    I plead guilty on my “black-and-white” view of the world. It must be my eyeglasses. Can you please go easy on me?

    =Why? You’ve never been easy with people that are realistic and productive.

    I don’t know if I can take any more of these creative fanciful comments that I’ve never heard before…......

    =Just like in the TPW blog on the Maryland CP’s disaffiliation:D

    Where can I get a pair of those gray-tinted eyeglasses?

    =Shades of gray won’t help your 2-D color blindness, Reed.

    =It’s called ‘Color’ and it’s not of the Devil.

  27. Cody Quirk Says:

    If state parties and individual activists secede from the Constitution Party National, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    =Can one trust such biased reports from people that can’t get over Tampa?

    The Constitution Party National has indeed changed its de facto position on abortion, regardless of statements they repeatedly make to the contrary (if you believe everything that politicians say, you will easily be misled.)

    =In your own opinion. Then again the South Dakota ban DIDN’T fail because of the narrowness and strictness of the ban that turned moderate and some pro-life voters off. LOL!

    The schism was not about Chris Hansen, nor about Nevada, but about the National Executive Committee making an intentional decision to compromise the issue of life for the sake of political expediency.

    =Excuses, excuses. Even Dan Hoyt admitted to me there was a dark undercurrent behind the Nevada disaffiliation move.

    They are the ones who merely used the Nevada issue as their excuse to foist their agenda upon those of us who had believed the slogan about putting principle above politics. How naive we were.

    =Or isn’t it the other way around? Like the strong anti-Mormon prejudice against the Hansen family and the LDS CP’ers in general.

    I understand how this may seem like a tempest in a teacup to you, and you may feel that you have been keeping up with the news on this; but this is not the same as experiencing all these things firsthand. If you would care enough to look into the issue further, there is ample evidence supporting our allegations available on ChristianLibertyParty.com. Abortion is the premiere moral issue of our day, and not something to be dismissed as irrelevant.

    =There’s something about edited and reassembled videos that doesn’t cut it for me.

    And how about these that speak the contrary…

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=950&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1460&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1093&highlight=mormons

    http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1011&highlight=mormons

  28. SovereignMN Says:

    Sorry guys. No time to look back. You’ve made your decision and we’ve made ours.

  29. Anthony Distler Says:

    “The AHP is 100% pro-Christ, and that says it all. In contrast, electing, upholding and supporting pro-abort candidates and officers is anti-Christ – something the national CP is getting very familiar and comfortable with.”

    If the AHP is the defination of pro-Christ, then I’m anti-Christ and proud of it.

  30. RRHeustisJr Says:

    CQ writes:
    =It’s called ‘Color’ and it’s not of the Devil.

    Sounds like the wonderful diversity Rainbow Flag to me….

    No thank you!

  31. RRHeustisJr Says:

    CQ writes:

    I think Mr. Heustis sums it up-
    “...I learned that many that did proclaim Christ actually believed in a completely different “Jesus” – the Jesus of Mormonism. I learned that the party’s founders, pursuing a Pluralist strategy in league with Mormonism, welcomed any newcomer who held to any Christless religion, just so long as he or she believed in “Constitutional government.”

    Thanks for the quote, sir! Makes for a great encore: http://www.christianconstitutionalist.com/articles/20060910.htm .

    :)

  32. Timm Knibbs Says:

    The National Constitution Party is still 100% pro-life. The platform is still 100% pro-life and the national party does not endorse candidates that are not. Mr. Huestis is more interested in being part of a national church than a party.

  33. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Timm Knibbs writes:
    ...is more interested in being part of a national church than a party.

    Boy, now that’s original!

    Sorry, but we Reformed Baptists are happily content with our independent bottom-up local churches.

    Had I wanted to be a subject of a top-down national church, I’d have given the Mormon Church a second look.

    Nice try though.

  34. Jason C. Says:

    Heustis,

    What do you and the good people of TAV, AHP, and CL think of Romans 13?

    I’m just curious on how you read that chapter. I don’t doubt that you have extinsive knowledge in the scripture, so this is not a challenge, I would just like your opinion on that chapter. I have read things from you folks that are contrary to those scriptures.

    -Jason

  35. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Heustis, What do you and the good people of TAV, AHP, and CL think of Romans 13?

    Jason C., I’m sorry, but what is “CL?” Email me privately please, as I do not know your identity.

  36. Jason C. Says:

    Christian Liberty Party?

    If you are not associated with that organization than I apologize.

  37. Trent Hill Says:

    It is interesting to note that Mr. RRHEustis (and indeed all TAV/AHP/CLPers) avidly avoid this issue:

    Why did the National NOT endorse Chris Hanson?

  38. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Thanks for the clarification.

    The CLP is not really a formal organization that I am aware of. It’s more of an informational site than anything else. Perhaps Keith Humphrey can shed some light on his site’s mission.

    Regarding Romans 13, I don’t speak for TAV, AHP or anybody else but myself.

    I do believe that the civil magistrate is a “minister of God,” as Romans spells out, and, as the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 states, that God ordains the civil magistrate to be under Him.

    I totally believe in separation of church and state, but I reject the concept of separation of God and government. You cannot separate politics from religion, but you can (and must) separate civil government from church government.

    Hope this helps,

  39. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Why did the National NOT endorse Chris Hanson?(sic)

    This is a red herring.

    The national CP never went around endorsing every candidate in every race in every county in every state across the nation. In fact, there were very few endorsements of any candidates by the CP NatCom at all. Therefore, the lack of an endorsement for a particular candidate does not signify anything. If it did, then it would mean that the CP NatCom was opposed to every candidate it had running on its ticket, which is laughable.

  40. Trent Hill Says:

    Wrong,

    The CP National listed all candidates on their national website, made calls to various organizations, and contacted media outlets about some of their larger organizations. Several of the larger media organizations mentioned Chris Hanson as the CP’s governor candidate in Nevada, and National took measures to correct that.

    Also, National definetly does stumping for candidates that perform. Ed McGarr, Rick Jore, Jim Gilchrist. So it is not unfathomable that National might have put up money (or support in some fashion) for it’s strongest state affilliate and it’s governor candidate.

  41. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent says:
    Wrong, The CP National listed all candidates on their (sic) national website, made calls to various organizations, and contacted media outlets about some of their (sic) larger organizations.

    Is this your definition of an endorsement? Usually a formal endorsement is one made by the National Committee – the highest governing body of the party between conventions – in the form of a resolution.

    But okay, if a mere listing on the national website is all it takes for an endorsement of anything, then the national CP currently endorses (and affiliates with) at least one state party run by those who support abortion rights.

  42. Cody Quirk Says:

    Sounds like the wonderful diversity Rainbow Flag to me….

    =Did I say color is only confined to the rainbow?

    Hahahaha!

  43. Cody Quirk Says:

    Thanks for the quote, sir! Makes for a great encore: http://www.christianconstitutionalist.com/articles/20060910.htm .

    :)

    =You’re welcome! Nothing like destroying your credibility and showing people how bigoted and ignorant you are.

  44. Cody Quirk Says:

    Had I wanted to be a subject of a top-down national church, I’d have given the Mormon Church a second look.

    =Nothing like being a member of a fast growing Christian denomination that places importance of the US Constitution.

  45. Trent Hill Says:

    “at least one state party run by those who support abortion rights”

    Again you skew the facts. It’s almost habitual with you isn’t it?
    No, the National is affilliated with one state who, by and large, is 100% pro-life. To date I have met 6 people from the IAP. Only one was pro-exceptions.
    So let’s review. Let’s assume that one out of every 6 leaders in Nevada is exceptionist. If every state has 6 state leaders, then 1 out of 300 leaders is an exceptionist. This means, by and large, that the CP is 100% pro-life!

  46. Cody Quirk Says:

    Trent,

    The national Party didn’t endorse Chris Hansen because of his actions that lead up to Tampa- yes he defended himself viciously against the extremists, but in a few of his arguments, he went too far, in Jim Clymer’s view, so Jim refused to give Chris the CP’s endorsement. Even though the nutjobs want you to think that Jim and Chris are in calhoots.

    Though that didn’t hurt Chris’s candidacy at all.

    LOL!

  47. Cody Quirk Says:

    Obviously Article 3 of the CP’s Constitution, and the Nevada IAP passing a resolution supporting the CP’s platform plank on Abortion a year and a half ago mean nothing to Mr. Heustis, any rational view on abortion is automatically Pro-Choice.

    The ex-CP detractors vain efforts to destroy the CP is truely comparable to Lucifer’s (a ex-angel of heaven) efforts to ruin God’s plan.

  48. RRHeustisJr Says:

    CQ says:
    =Nothing like being a member of a fast growing Christian denomination that places importance of the US Constitution.

    Mormonism: “Fast-growing?” Yessireebob ‘tis true. But then, so is Islam.

    Mormonism: “Christian denomination?” No way, José.

    Any religion that considers Jesus Christ to be the spirit brother of Lucifer (Satan), inter alia, is demonic to its core.

  49. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent Hill says:

    “at least one state party run by those who support abortion rights” Again you skew the facts. It’s almost habitual with you isn’t it?

    Trent, you must understand that since the 1992 founding of the CP, the IAPNV has always been controlled by the Hansen Family.

    And as we know, the Hansens are Mormons; and the official Mormon position on the Life issue is pro-abortion on those “exceptional” circumstances.

    Last year on the floor at Tampa, Janine Hansen, sister of Christopher and also Executive Director of the IAPNV, admitted publicly that her pro-abortion position was rooted in her Mormon belief. This is a matter of public record.

    I am not “skewing the facts” at all. If you want links and documentation, feel free to email me, and I will be happy to provide them to you.

  50. Cody Quirk Says:

    Any religion that considers Jesus Christ to be the spirit brother of Lucifer (Satan), inter alia, is demonic to its core.

    =We don’t consider Satan a brother to Jesus at all. Sorry but the Street Preachers have been filling your head with lies again.

    http://www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Jesus_Christ_is_the_brother_of_Satan

  51. Cody Quirk Says:

    Trent, you must understand that since the 1992 founding of the CP, the IAPNV has always been controlled by the Hansen Family.

    =Maybe it’s because the Hansens are both very experienced in politics and can be active in politics 100% of the time, unlike most others. Ever think about that?
    And the majority of the State officers and committee members of the Nevada IAP are not of the Hansen family, many non-Hansens have chaired the state Party in the past too.
    44,000+ IAP’ers are not Hansens Reed!

    And as we know, the Hansens are Mormons; and the official Mormon position on the Life issue is pro-abortion on those “exceptional” circumstances.

    =Yet the LDS Church is Pro-Life and doesn’t automatically OK abortions in cases of rape or incest. Or do you prefer to leave that part out? Never mind Utah enacted a abortion ban in their state in the early 90’s until it got overturned in the US Supreme Court.

    Last year on the floor at Tampa, Janine Hansen, sister of Christopher and also Executive Director of the IAPNV, admitted publicly that her pro-abortion position was rooted in her Mormon belief. This is a matter of public record.

    =So? That means the disaffiliation faction has no right to bash the LDS Church then since they never even knew the LDS Church had a practical stance on abortion until Chris Hansen brought it up. Meaning they don’t know jack about ‘Mormonism’, including you.

    I am not “skewing the facts” at all.

    =You can’t even get your facts right on the LDS faith- you actually thought I attended a LDS ‘Temple’ in Murrieta, Hahahaha!
    Yes I believe I still have that email Reed.

    If you want links and documentation, feel free to email me, and I will be happy to provide them to you.

    Oh no, if anyone wants links or documentation, I can post here from TAV, I’ll save you the trouble Reed! :D

  52. Cody Quirk Says:

    It’s sad how ignorant and even simpleton, people can be when they think a denomination like The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints is ‘nonchristian’...

    http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/1984.htm/ensign%20january%201984.htm/we%20are%20christians%20because%20.htm?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0

    http://farms.byu.edu/display.php?table=transcripts&id=93

  53. Sean Scallon Says:

    I wouldn’t worry too much about what Reed Heustis or the TAV gang or the disaffilation gang are doing because having this meeting is as much political activity as they’re going to do for the year. The AHP was formed when the Washington state party of the CP back in 1996 left because the CP would not exclusively call itself a “Christian” party. They planned organizing the AHP in all 50 states. Well, they sort of fell short of that mark didn’t they? Since AHP members believe that political activity of any kind is useless because God has already predeterined the outcome of elections, the CP actually benefits from getting rid of people who weren’t going to do much to help the CP to begin with.

  54. Chris Campbell Says:

    Some really slanted reporting. Then again, not surprising.

  55. Chris Campbell Says:

    BTW-it is NOT clear. The Pro-disaffiliation side failed to prove the Hansen was elected by the Nevada members with full knowledge of his views. They could never aofficially provide a timeline so many of us wanted to hear. They could not prove Hansen was re-elected by the Nevada members knwing his views. Also, why did Peroutka campaign in Nevada in 2004? Why take the votes and money? Why campaign in Alaska when that Party had NO abortion stance at all?

    The “evidence” was very faulty and sparse at best. We were expected to get all piped up and rum amok. I was very open to their arguments, but they had little “there” there.

    Two, I was rather convinced it was more of a religious motivation, less about real facts.

    I would add, I dod not supprot Hansen’s views on abortion, we can hope that IAP in future uses more dicernment in electing officers, etc.

  56. Chris Campbell Says:

    RRHeustisJr Says:

    April 27th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
    Jason muses:

    When did this occur? Or is this another case of slander and libel by the defunct group to once again try to discredit, mislead, and flat out lie about the CP?

    The national CP allows state affiliates to elect pro-abortion chairmen

    -Wrong, the CP national does not have any authority to “allow” state parties anything. Reed needs to read the Constitution of the CP! The CP nationally does not have any authority to delve into state business, who gets elected, why, when, for how long, etc, etc, etc.

    We are decentralized. That is the way we psuh for in National Govt, that is the way we operate daily.

  57. Chris Campbell Says:

    Reed says:
    The CP’s personnel, which includes pro-abortion chief executive officers, dictates its true conviction regarding the Life issue, perhaps even more so than the toothless black-and-white words showcased in its Platform.

    Chris:
    Reed, I get tired of these vague references. name these officers in detail and their positions, stances, etc. All I ever heard from teh Peroutka camp prior to and at Tampa was Chris Hansen this and that. At Tampe, you all threw in Janine Hansen for good measure. You never could-then or now-prove anyone else was errant. Name them or quit the slander. As a former cop, I like something called proof!

  58. John Chance Says:

    Please see my blog, it was about Mormonism, period. As far as Christian Liberty party, they have called themselves that for well over a year, w/Mr. Humphreys prominent there as well. I asked them, they said “oh no, we are not a political Party at all..at least, for now”.

    I really wish they former CPers would be happy in AHP or some other organization. Move on

  59. John Chance Says:

    RRHeustisJr Says:

    April 29th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
    Timm Knibbs writes:
    ...is more interested in being part of a national church than a party.

    Boy, now that’s original!

    Sorry, but we Reformed Baptists are happily content with our independent bottom-up local churches.

    Had I wanted to be a subject of a top-down national church, I’d have given the Mormon Church a second look.

    Nice try though

    -Reed, where is bottom up running of church in Bible? Answer, nowhere at all. That is a call for DEMOCRACY

    Christ is King, not a democrat.

  60. John Chance Says:

    V. The Church is Visible and One
    Matt. 5:14 – Jesus says a city set on a hill cannot be hidden, and this is in reference to the Church. The Church is not an invisible, ethereal, atmospheric presence, but a single, visible and universal body through the Eucharist. The Church is an extension of the Incarnation.

    Matt. 12:25; Mark 3:25; Luke 11:17 – Jesus says a kingdom divided against itself is laid waste and will not stand. This describes Protestantism and the many thousands of denominations that continue to multiply each year.

    Matt. 16:18 – Jesus says, “I will build my ‘Church’ (not churches).” There is only one Church built upon one Rock with one teaching authority, not many different denominations, built upon various pastoral opinions and suggestions.

    Matt. 16:19; 18:18 – Jesus gave the apostles binding and loosing authority. But this authority requires a visible Church because “binding and loosing” are visible acts. The Church cannot be invisible, or it cannot bind and loose.

    John 10:16 – Jesus says there must only be one flock and one shepherd. This cannot mean many denominations and many pastors, all teaching different doctrines. Those outside the fold must be brought into the Church.

    John 17:11,21,23 – Jesus prays that His followers may be perfectly one as He is one with the Father. Jesus’ oneness with the Father is perfect. It can never be less. Thus, the oneness Jesus prays for cannot mean the varied divisions of Christianity that have resulted since the Protestant reformation. There is perfect oneness only in the Catholic Church.

    John 17:9-26 – Jesus’ prayer, of course, is perfectly effective, as evidenced by the miraculous unity of the Catholic Church during her 2,000 year history.

    John 17:21 – Jesus states that the visible unity of the Church would be a sign that He was sent by God. This is an extremely important verse. Jesus tells us that the unity of the Church is what bears witness to Him and the reality of who He is and what He came to do for us. There is only one Church that is universally united, and that is the Catholic Church. Only the unity of the Catholic Church truly bears witness to the reality that Jesus Christ was sent by the Father.

    Rom. 15:5 – Paul says that we as Christians must live in harmony with one another. But this can only happen if there is one Church with one body of faith. This can only happen by the charity of the Holy Spirit who dwells within the Church.

    Rom. 16:17 – Paul warns us to avoid those who create dissensions and difficulties. This includes those who break away from the Church and create one denomination after another. We need to avoid their teaching, and bring them back into the one fold of Christ.

    1 Cor. 1:10- Paul prays for no dissensions and disagreements among Christians, being of the same mind and the same judgment. How can Protestant pastors say that they are all of the same mind and the same judgment on matters of faith and morals?

    Eph. 1:22-23; 5:23-32; Col. 1:18,24 – again, the Church does not mean “invisible” unity, because Paul called it the body (not the soul) of Christ. Bodies are visible, and souls are invisible.

    Eph. 4:11-14 – God gives members of the Church various gifts in order to attain to the unity of the faith. This unity is only found in the Catholic Church.

    Eph. 4:3-5 – we are of one body, one Spirit, one faith and one baptism. This requires doctrinal unity, not 30,000 different denominations.

    Eph. 5:25 – the Church is the Bride of Christ. Jesus has only one Bride, not many.

    Eph. 5:30; Rom. 12:4-5; 1 Cor. 6:15 – we, as Christians, are one visible body in Christ, not many bodies, many denominations.

    Phil. 1:27 – Paul commands that we stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the Gospel.

    Phil. 2:2 – Paul prays that Christians be of the same mind, of one accord. Yet there are 30,000 different “Protest”ant denominations?

    Col. 1:18 – Christ is the Head of the one body, the Church. He is not the Head of many bodies or many sects.

    1 Tim. 6:4 – Paul warns about those who seek controversy and disputes about words. There must be a universal authority to appeal to who can trace its authority back to Christ.

    2 Tim. 2:14 – do not dispute about words which only ruin the hearers. Two-thousand years of doctrinal unity is a sign of Christ’s Church.

    2 Tim. 4:3 – this is a warning on following our own desires and not the teachings of God. It is not a cafeteria where we pick and choose. We must humble ourselves and accept all of Christ’s teachings which He gives us through His Church.

    Rev. 7:9 – the heavenly kingdom is filled with those from every nation and from all tribes, peoples and tongues. This is “catholic,” which means universal.

    1 Peter 3:8 – Peter charges us to have unity of spirit. This is impossible unless there is a central teaching authority given to us by God.

    Gen. 12:2-3 – since Abram God said all the families of the earth shall be blessed. This family unity is fulfilled only in the Catholic Church.

    Dan. 7:14 – Daniel prophesies that all peoples, nations and languages shall serve His kingdom. Again, this catholicity is only found in the Catholic Church.

    1 Cor. 14:33 – God cannot be the author of the Protestant confusion. Only the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church claims and proves to be Christ’s Church.

    Top

    VI. The Church is Hierarchical
    Matt. 16:18; 18:18 – Jesus uses the word “ecclesia” only twice in the New Testament Scriptures, which demonstrates that Jesus intended a visible, unified, hierarchical, and authoritative Church.

    Acts 20:17,28 – Paul refers to both the elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) and the bishops (“episkopoi”) of the Church. Both are ordained leaders within the hierarchical structure of the Church.

    1 Cor. 12:28 – God Himself appoints the various positions of authority within the Church. As a loving Father, God gives His children the freedom and authority to act with charity and justice to bring about His work of salvation.

    Eph. 4:11 – the Church is hierarchical and includes apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers, all charged to build up the Church. The Church is not an invisible entity with an invisible foundation.

    Phil. 1:1 – Paul addresses the bishops and deacons of the Church. They can all trace their unbroken lineage back to the apostles.

    1 Tim. 3:1; Titus 1:7 – Christ’s Church has bishops (“episkopoi”) who are direct successors of the apostles. The bishops can trace the authority conferred upon them back to the apostles.

    1 Tim. 5:17; Titus 1:5; James 5:14 – Christ’s Church also has elders or priests (“presbyteroi”) who serve the bishops.

    1 Tim. 3:8 – Christ’s Church also has deacons (“diakonoi”). Thus, Jesus Christ’s Church has a hierarchy of authority – bishops, priests and deacons, who can all trace their lineage back to Peter and the apostles.

    Exodus 28:1 and 19:6 – shows the three offices of the Old Testament priesthood (1). high priest – Aaron (Ex. 28:1); (2). Ministerial priests – Aaron’s sons (Ex. 19:6; 28:1); and (3). Universal priests – Israel (Ex. 19:6). The New Testament priesthood also has three offices: (1) High Priest – Jesus Christ (Heb. 3:1); (2) Ministerial priests – the ordained bishops and priests (Rom. 15:16; 1 Tim. 3:1,8; 5:17; Titus 1:7); and (3) Universal priests – all the baptized (1 Pet. 2:5,9; Rev. 1:6).

    V. The Church is Hierarchical
    “Accordingly, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons, men who are an honor to the Lord, of gentle disposition, not attached to money, honest and well-tried; for they, too, render you the sacred service of the prophets and teachers.” The Didache (c. A.D. 90).

    “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 44:1-2 (c. A.D. 96).

    “See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyraens, 8 (c. A.D. 110).

    “Hegesippus and the Events which he mentiones. Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows: And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained a there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.’” Hegesippus, fragment in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History, 4:22 (c. A.D. 180).

    “Since, according to my opinion, the grades here in the Church, of bishops, presbyters, deacons, are imitations of the angelic glory, and of that economy which, the Scriptures say, awaits those who, following the footsteps of the apostles, have lived in perfection of righteousness according to the Gospel.” Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, 6:13 (A.D. 202).

    “Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church…Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.” Cyprian, To the Lasped, Epistle 26/33 (A.D. 250).

    “And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expected you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures…For if all were of the same mind as your present advisers, how would you have become a Christian, since there would be no bishops? Or if our successors are to inherit the state of mind, how will the Churches be able to hold together?” Athanasius, To Dracontius, Epistle 49:2,4 (c. A.D. 355).

    “The Blessed Apostle Paul in laying down the form for appointing a bishop and creating by his instructions an entirely new type of member of the Church, has taught us in the following words the sum total of all the virtues perfected in him:—Holding fast the word according to the doctrine of faith that he may be able to exhort to sound doctrine and to convict gainsavers. For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers. For in this way he points out that the essentials of orderliness and morals are only profitable for good service in the priesthood if at the same time the qualities needful for knowing how to teach and preserve the faith are not lacking, for a man is not straightway made a good and useful priest by a merely innocent life or by a mere knowledge of preaching.” Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity (A.D. 359).

    “The immediate object of my entreaty is as follows. By the old census, the clergy of God, presbyters and deacons, were left exempt” Basil, To Modestus, Epistle 104 (A.D. 372).

    “You must know that Faustus came with letters for me, from the pope, requesting that he might be ordained bishop.” Basil, To Theodotus, Epistle 121 (A.D. 373).

    “There is not, however, such narrowness in the moral excellence of the Catholic Church as that I should limit my praise of it to the life of those here mentioned. For how many bishops have I known most excellent and holy men, how many, presbyters, how many deacons, and ministers of all kinds of the divine sacraments, whose virtue seems to me more admirable and more worthy of commendation on account of the greater difficulty of preserving it amidst the manifold varieties of men, and in this life of turmoil!” Augustine, On the Morals of the Catholic Church, 69 (A.D. 388).

    “Who can test himself by the rules and standards which Paul laid down for bishops and presbyters, that they are to be temperate, sober-minded, not given to wine, no strikers, apt to teach, blameless in all things, and beyond the reach of the wicked, without finding considerable deflection from the straight line of the rules?” Gregory of Nazianzen, In Defense of his Flight, 69 (ante A.D. 389).

    “You saw there the deacon, you saw the priest, you saw the chief priest [the bishop].” Ambrose, Concerning the Mysteries, 2 (A.D.391).

    “To this end it is well, I think, to look out for high qualifications in your election, that he who is appointed to the Presidency may be suitable for the post. Now the Apostolic injunctions do not direct us to look to high birth, wealth, and distinction in the eyes of the world among the virtues of a Bishop.” Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).

    “I have often noticed this, Sulpitius, that Martin was accustomed to say to you, that such an abundance of power was by no means granted him while he was a bishop, as he remembered to have possessed before he obtained that office. Now, if this be true, or rather since it is true, we may imagine how great those things were which, while still a monk, he accomplished, and which, without any witness, he effected apart by himself; since we have seen that, while a bishop, he performed so great wonders before the eyes of all.” Sulpitius Severus, Dialogues, 2,4 (c. A.D. 400).

    “To the fellow-Bishops and Deacons.’ What is this? were there several Bishops of one city? Certainly not; but he called the Presbyters so. For then they still interchanged the titles, and the Bishop was called a Deacon. For this cause in writing to Timothy, he said, Fulfil thy ministry,’ when he was a Bishop. For that he was a Bishop appears by his saying to him, Lay hands hastily on no man’ (1 Tim. v. 22). And again, Which was given thee with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery’ (1 Tim. iv. 14). Yet Presbyters would not have laid hands on a Bishop.” Chrysostom, Homily on Philippians, 1:1 (c. A.D. 404).

    “Theotocos,’ but not in the sense in which it is imagined by a certain impious heresy which maintains, that she is to be called the Mother of God for no other reason than because she gave birth to that man who afterwards became God, just as we speak of a woman as the mother of a priest, or the mother of a bishop, meaning that she was such, not by giving birth to one already a priest or a bishop, but by giving birth to one who afterwards became a priest or a bishop. Not thus, I say, was the holy Mary Theotocos,’ the mother of God, but rather, as was said before, because in her sacred womb was wrought that most sacred mystery whereby, on account of the singular and unique unity of Person, as the Word in flesh is flesh, so Man in God is God.” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 15 ( A.D. 434).

    “For in the early days of the faith when only a few, and those the best of men, were known by the name of monks, who, as they received that mode of life from the Evangelist Mark of blessed memory, the first to preside over the Church of Alexandria as Bishop…But sometimes it creates a wish to take holy orders, and a desire for the priesthood or diaconate. And it represents that if a man has even against his will received this office, he will fulfill it with such sanctity and strictness that he will be able to set an example of saintliness even to other priests; and that he will win over many people, not only by his manner of life, but also by his teaching and preaching.” John Cassian, Institutes, 2:5,11:14 (ante A.D. 435).

    “For although they who are not within the ranks of the clergy are free to take pleasure in the companionship of wedlock and the procreation of children, yet for the exhibiting of the purity of complete continence, even sub-deacons are not allowed carnal marriage: that both those that have, may be as though they had not,’ and those who have not, may remain single. But if in this order, which is the fourth from the Head, this is worthy to be observed, how much more is it to be kept in the first, or second, or third, lest any one be reckoned fit for either the deacon’s duties or the presbyter’s honourable position, or the bishop’s pre-eminence, who is discovered not yet to have bridled his uxorious desires.” Pope Leo the Great [regn A.D. 440-461], To Anastasius, Epistle 14,5 (A.D. 446).

    “Through my most beloved son Laurentius, the presbyter, and Peter the monk, I received thy Fraternity’s letter, in which thou hast been at pains to question me on many points…Augustine’s first question. I ask, most blessed father, concerning bishops, how they should live with their clergy: And concerning the offerings of the faithful which are received at the altars, both into what portions they should be divided, and how the bishop ought to deal with them in the Church. Answer of St. Gregory, Pope of the City of Rome. Holy Scripture, which no doubt thou knowest well, bears witness, and especially the epistles of the blessed Paul to Timothy, in which he studied to instruct him how he ought to behave himself in the house of God. Now it is the custom of the Apostolic See to deliver an injunction to bishops when ordained, that of all emoluments that come in four divisions should be made: to wit, one for the bishop and his household on account of hospitality and entertainment; another for the clergy; a third for the poor; and a fourth for the reparation of Churches.” Pope Gregory the Great [regn A.D. 590-604], To Augustine, Epistle 64 (A.D. 595).

    Top

    VI. The Church is Visible and One
    “Those, therefore, who desert the preaching of the Church, call in question the knowledge of the holy presbyters…It behooves us, therefore, to avoid their doctrines, and to take careful heed lest we suffer any injury from them; but to flee to the Church, and be brought up in her bosom, and be nourished with the Lord’s Scriptures. For the Church has been planted as a garden (paradisus) in this world; therefore says the Spirit of God, ‘Thou mayest freely eat from every tree of the garden,’ that is, Eat ye from every Scripture of the Lord; but ye shall not eat with an uplifted mind, nor touch any heretical discord.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 5:20 (A.D. 180).

    “I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it, I may point out its positive good. We are a body knit together as such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights in…We assemble to read our sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either forewarning or reminiscence needful. However it be in that respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our hope, we make our confidence more steadfast; and no less by inculcations of God’s precepts we confirm good habits.” Tertullian, Apology, 39:1 (A.D. 197).

    “To sum up all in one word—what the soul is in the body, that are Christians in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible.” Letter to Diognetus, 6:1 (A.D. 200).

    “You may learn, if you will, the crowning wisdom of the all-holy Shepherd and Instructor, of the omnipotent and paternal Word, when He figuratively represents Himself as the Shepherd of the sheep…Such are the promises of the good Shepherd. Feed us, the children, as sheep. Yea, Master, fill us with righteousness, Thine own pasture; yea, O Instructor, feed us on Thy holy mountain the Church, which towers aloft, which is above the clouds, which touches heaven.” Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, I:9 (A.D. 202).

    “We are not to give heed to those who say, Behold here is Christ, but show him not in the Church, which is filled with brightness from the East even unto the West; which is filled with true light; is the ‘pillar and ground of truth’; in which, as a whole, is the whole advent of the Son of Man, who saith to all men throughout the universe, ‘Behold, I am with you all the days of life even unto the consumption of the world.’” Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Tract 30 (A.D. 244).

    “The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother. If any one could escape who was outside the ark of Noah, then he also may escape who shall be outside of the Church. The Lord warns, saying, ‘He who is not with me is against me, and he who gathereth not with me scattereth.’ Cyprian, On Unity, 6 (A.D. 251).

    “Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree,—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.” Cyprian, Unity of the Church, 5 (A.D. 256).

    “’A city built upon a mountain cannot be hid’ The light, or lamp of Christ, is not now to be hidden under a bushel, nor to be concealed by any covering of the synagogue, but, hung on the wood of the Passion, it will give an everlasting light to those that dwell in the church. He also admonishes the apostles to shine with like splendour, that by the admiration of their deeds, praise may be given to God.” Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, 5:13 (A.D. 355).

    “’And his throne as the sun before me.’ Understand, by the ‘throne’ of Christ, the Church; for in it he rests. The Church of Christ, then, he says, shall be refulgent and enlighten all under heaven, and be abiding as the sun and the moon. For this passage says so: ‘His throne as the sun before me, and as the moon perfect forever, and a faithful witness in heaven.’” Athanasius, Exposition in the Psalms, 88 (ante A.D. 373).

    “’And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains’ The house of the Lord, ‘prepared on the top of the mountains,’ is the church, according to the declaration of the apostle, ‘Know,’ he says, ‘how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God’ Whose foundations are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which the rock the Lord promised to build his church.” Basil, Commentary on Isaiah, 2:66 (A.D. 375).

    “Not therefore on that Mount Zion does Isaias look down upon the valley, but on that holy mountain which is the church, that mountain which lifts its head over the whole Roman world under heaven…a church which is throughout the world, wherein there is one Catholic church.” Optatus of Mileve, Against the Donatist, 3:2 (A.D. 384).

    “Petilianus said: ‘If you declare that yon hold the Catholic Church, the word ‘catholic’ is merely the Greek equivalent for entire or whole. But it is clear that you are not in the whole, because you have gone aside into the part.’ Augustine answered: I too indeed have attained to a very slight knowledge of the Greek language, scarcely to be called knowledge at all, yet I am not shameless in saying that I know that means not ‘one,’ but ‘the whole;’ and that means “according to the whole:” whence the Catholic Church received its name, according to the saying of the Lord, ‘It is not for you to know the times, which the Father hath put in His own power. But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and in Samaria, and even in the whole earth.’ Here you have the origin of the name ‘Catholic.’ Augustine, Answer to Letters of Petilian, 2:38 [90] (A.D. 400).

    “It is an easier thing for the sun to be quenched, than for the church to be made invisible.” John Chrysostom, In illud: vidi Dom. (ante A.D. 407).

    “For the church is in lofty and conspicuous, and well known to all men in every place. It is also lofty in another sense; for her thoughts have nothing earthly, but she is above all that is earthly, and with the eyes of the understanding, looks upon, as far as it is possible, the glory of God, and glories in doctrines truly exalted, concerning God … Wherefore, with justice may the house of God be called a mountain (known) by the understanding, and it is perfectly visible, as being raised upon the hills; and one may say of it, and with great cause, what as a notable illustration was uttered by the mouth of the Saviour: ‘A city placed upon a hill cannot be hidden’” Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaias, (ante A.D. 429).

    Copyright 2001 – 2007 © by John Salza. All Rights Reserved.

  61. John Chance Says:

    Heaven is a Hierarchy, why then not Christ’s body—oh, thats right, then you would have to actually follow everything he said, not vote on it.

  62. John Chance Says:

    Good interview on TAV about abortion…untile last 10 minutes. For those of you on here stil loyal to CP, Peroutka states there is no CP to stop abortion. Apparently, we-unlike he, do not really exist out here. Guess we are in Wonderland????

  63. RRHeustisJr Says:

    John Chance,

    Posting an entire essay on a blog or bulletin board in order to bolster your position does not bode well for worthy discussion. Posting a link to an essay is more appropriate and courteous.

    Would you like for me to cut and paste an entire batch of rebuttal essays? I don’t think this forum’s readers would appreciate that. Nobody likes to scroll endlessly through a single posting just to arrive to the next message.

    So if this discussion is going to deteriorate to nothing more than cutting and pasting lengthy diatribes, then please let me know now.

    Thanks.

  64. Trent Hill Says:

    RRHeustis,

    Interesting that you didn’t rebut at all. Simply said he was not courteous and should post links instead.

    Awww. =(

  65. RRHeustisJr Says:

    CQ says:
    =We don’t consider Satan a brother to Jesus at all. Sorry but the Street Preachers have been filling your head with lies again. www.fairwiki.org/index.php/Jesus_Christ_is_the_brother_of_Satan

    You don’t consider Satan to be a brother to Jesus at all? Not even in the least bit?

    What about the URL you just provided? The following is taken verbatim:

    “Thus, it is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are ‘brothers,’ in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, God the Father.”

    I don’t think further commentary by me is necessary to make the point.

    That’s Mormon Doctrine, folks. Jesus and Satan are supposedly “brothers.”

    And to think that Mormons actually believe that they worship the same Jesus as Bible-believing Christians?

    As I wrote above, No way, José.

  66. Trent Hill Says:

    RRHeustis,

    Technically, that article is right. Let’s go through the motions.

    God created Satan, right?
    God created Jesus, right?
    Two beings who have the same father are often considered brothers, right?

    ...makes sense to me.
    And i’m not even Mormon.

  67. Cody Quirk Says:

    You don’t consider Satan to be a brother to Jesus at all? Not even in the least bit?

    =being all of God’s creation, if Jesus is a brother to Satan, then so were ALL the angels, Heck even I was a “brother of Satan” in the premortal life, if you put it that way, which makes Satan a offspring of God. Unfortunately that the anti-Mormon crowd takes the LDS beliefs out of context.

    What about the URL you just provided? The following is taken verbatim:

    “Thus, it is technically true to say that Jesus and Satan are ‘brothers,’ in the sense that both have the same spiritual parent, God the Father.”

    I don’t think further commentary by me is necessary to make the point.

    =So? You actually think Satan is a separate creation from God? Obviously your understanding of LDS Doctrine still is the equivelant of a chimpanzee.

    “God the Father also had many other spirit children, created in His image and that of His Only Begotten. These children include all humans born on the earth. Some of God’s children rebelled against Him, and contested the choice of Jesus as Savior. (See D&C 76:25–27). The leader of these children was Lucifer, or Satan. Those spirit children of God who followed Satan in his rebellion against Christ are sometimes referred to as “demons,” or “devils.” (See Moses 4:1–4, Abraham 3:24–28).”

    That’s Mormon Doctrine, folks. Jesus and Satan are supposedly “brothers.”

    =Just like we are all literal Brothers and Sisters of Christ and son and daughters of God.

    And to think that Mormons actually believe that they worship the same Jesus as Bible-believing Christians?

    =There’s only ONE Jesus Christ, Reed, how can we worship “another” Jesus? Just shows that you’re arguments are quite vain:)

  68. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think that’s his only way of refuting John.

    Hahaha!:D

    John’s post was well researched and accurate. Kudos to that.

  69. Cody Quirk Says:

    Trent, LDS Doctrine states we’re ALL of offspring of God, even Jesus and Satan. These nutjobs usually distort our doctine, take out of context, fabricate and falsely interpret LDS beliefs and history.
    God will deal with them harshly in the afterlife.

  70. Cody Quirk Says:

    FYI- the American Heritage Party hasn’t ran a candidate since 2002, and their website hasn’t been updated for a few years either.

    Why haven’t you organized a AHP affiliate in California? Surely you got a local AHP voter club going already?

  71. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent Hill says:

    Technically, that article is right. Let’s go through the motions.

    God created Satan, right?
    God created Jesus, right?
    Two beings who have the same father are often considered brothers, right?

    ...makes sense to me.

    Sorry Trent, your motions are faulty. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is self-creating because He is God. (See John 1). Mormons disagree with this because they reject the concept of the Trinity and believe that Christ was a created being.

    Mormons have the right and freedom to believe anything they want, but it still doesn’t change the fact that the Mormon Jesus is a different Jesus.

  72. Trent Hill Says:

    Ohk. So they reject the idea of the trinity…so do Eastern Orthodox Christians.
    Do they worship a different Jesus?

    Or maybe they just understand scripture a different way? In a way that doesn’t damage the scope of their spirituality at all?

  73. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent says:
    Ohk. So they reject the idea of the trinity…so do Eastern Orthodox Christians.

    Dear Trent,

    I freely admit that I am not an expert on the teachings of the various churches of the world. However, it is my understanding that the Eastern Orthodox church is at the very least trinitarian, contrary to your assertion above. I could be wrong though. Whatever the case might be, any church that rejects God as being three-in-person, one-in-essence (trinitarianism), teaches another Jesus by definition.

    Either Jesus is part of the God-head, or He isn’t. If one person believes Jesus is God, and the other person believes Jesus is not God, then both people logically cannot be right at the same time and in the same way.

    Logic dictates the outcome: two different Jesus’s. One true. The other false.

  74. Trent Hill Says:

    The Eastern Orthodox defines them as being three distinct beings, in one existence. This seems basically to be what the Mormon church believes. However, even if I am wrong…why should it matter? Wether or not they believe Jesus was CREATED by God (and therefor shares in his divinity) or IS actually God is irrelevant. In any case they are monotheistic, and profess belief in one God.
    However, religious debates belong somewhere else. If you want to discuss it, email me personally: As this is a forum for third party politics—notestranged religions.

  75. RRHeustisJr Says:

    Trent Hill says:
    If you want to discuss it, email me personally:

    I might take you up on that, but I don’t have your email addy.

  76. Trent Hill Says:

    Shotdown1027@yahoo.com

  77. Cody Quirk Says:

    “Sorry Trent, your motions are faulty. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is self-creating because He is God. (See John 1).

    =I don’t think so…

    Psalms 2:7, Matthew 3:17, Mark 9:7, Luke 9:35, Acts 13:33, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, 2 Peter 1:17, and so on, and so on. The phrases “Son of God”, “My Son”, “Only Begotten Son” etc. we take literally, if the Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, then he is the literal Son of God.

    Plus John 1:1 can be interpreted by LDS like this this-

    “In the beginning was the gospel preached through the Son. And the gospel was the word, and the word was with the Son, and the Son was with God, and the Son was of God.”

    Some further reading=

    http://fairwiki.org/index.php/Godhead_and_the_Trinity

    http://www.fairlds.org/Mormonism_201/m20103.html

  78. Trent Hill Says:

    I can see with that Cody.

    Thats not to say I agree. I don’t…
    but I can certainly see where that inference comes from.

  79. Cody Quirk Says:

    Either Jesus is part of the God-head, or He isn’t. If one person believes Jesus is God, and the other person believes Jesus is not God, then both people logically cannot be right at the same time and in the same way.
    Logic dictates the outcome: two different Jesus’s. One true. The other false.

    =Then obviously Jesus has dozens of clones of himself, since different christian sects and even other religions believe in Jesus differently from one another.

    Here’s our belief on the nature of Jesus Christ

    http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/emmain.asp?number=106

    Who are you to dictate logic, Reed? Your arguments against the CP lack logic itself. Your absolutionist arguments are quiet a handicap.

  80. Yosemite1967 Says:

    RRHeustis, do you really think that it is wise to be consigning people to hell for not believing in a man-made interpretation of scripture like the Nicene creed? I mean, did its authors receive it from an angel of God, or is it the product of a committee?

    It seems like a pretty sandy foundation to be standing on, but straighten me out here.

  81. Cody Quirk Says:

    RRHeustis, do you really think that it is wise to be consigning people to hell for not believing in a man-made interpretation of scripture like the Nicene creed?

    =Basically yes, he thinks it’s wise- after all, anybody not a true Calvinist is going to Hell, right?

    =And Jesus has a ‘different version’ of himself that Mormons believe in!

    LOL!

    (sarcasm off)

  82. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Cody, it would be better to let RRH answer himself, so that you don’t risk misrepresenting his position, regardless of whether he has already done so with your beliefs. It’s, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” rather than, “Do unto others as they do unto you.” :^)

  83. Cody Quirk Says:

    The clock is ticking…......

  84. Cody Quirk Says:

    So how is your email debate coming Trent?

  85. Cody Quirk Says:

    Tick, tick, tick…...

  86. Yosemite1967 Says:

    :) I commend you on your patience. :)

  87. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Hm, those were supposed to be smilies with caret characters for noses, but I inadvertently figured out how to do superscripting.

    OK, here goes a test: E=mc2

  88. Yosemite1967 Says:

    Kewl! Learn something new every day. :) (Noseless this time.)

  89. Cody Quirk Says:

    I think he’s left the building, and also people have already moved on too.

  90. clay modeling car Says:

    arrow clip art free

    girl breast com

Leave a Reply