Your home for discussing politics, the restored gospel of Jesus Christ, and the principles of liberty.
Original_Intent wrote:As much as I don't care for Mitt (as a political leader), and as poorly as I think this reflects on his character and willingness to stand for truth let the consequence follow - I think this incident is not worth making much of a fuss over. I look at it and it slightly reinforces my opinion of him, but again I don;t think it is really usefule as a talking point for convincing people that Mitt is not the man to support.
His record and past policy positions provide much more legitimate grounds for doing so. The evidence that he changes position on almost any issue depending on which way the political winds are blowing is damning (if not in an eternal sense, certainly in the sense of whether he should be supported or not.)
I still maintain, if he had a true change of mindset and would stand for constitutional principles, I would still support him in a minute. Anyone that can listen to him talk for more than five minutes and not realize that he is a Mormon snake oil salesman who will say whatever he feels he needs to in order to "seal the deal" is in my opinion, not only deceived, but not even trying to perceive truth.
Go ahead, trot out some General Authority or other who supports him - so what? That's evidence that Mitt is the Lord's Annointed choice for POTUS? Please, just go back to kneeling to the queen of England and Prince Charles, Prince William, and Prince Harry. Obviously God was in control of the bloodline that their superior spirits were born into, it's obvious that they are therefore ordained of God as well.
natasha wrote:Col. Flagg wrote:Mark wrote:I don't disagree with much of your assessment here of Romney as a politician Col. I am not a Romney man as I think he is much like most any other politician out there who stick their finger in the wind and say whatever will get them elected. I responded on this thread because I think it is totally unfair to say as the thread title suggests that Mitt Romney denied the first vision as we all know he did nothing of the sort.
That is nice to hear.
As I said before Bro. you or anyone can judge his faults as the political figure and have every right and responsibility to declare where he doesn't measure up as a constitutionalist but when this kind of silliness comes up about the mans testimony of the gospel and claims are made that are blatantly false I will step in and defend him as I would any other member because I think that is just slanderous crap.
I thought he really dropped the ball with the question and intentionally side-stepped it so as to avoid looking like a kook in the media's eyes, but the question he was posed was akin to the Pope being asked if he believes in mass... but Romney went out of his way to say that "I don't know that anyone has spoken with God since Moses". While he isn't directly denying Joseph's vision, he isn't exactly saying he believes it either. That's what a slick politician does - they find a way to side-skirt the issue and give an answer that neither denies or confirms.
It never ceases to amaze me Col how you know just what is in someone else's mind.
Nat, how am I reading his mind? And am I attesting to such? I simply stated what he said, nothing more.
From the beginning Mitt made it clear that this election should not be decided by religion...to make it otherwise would have been a diservice to any other Latter-day Saint wanting to run for office in the future.
I'm not saying he did or didn't - I'm just reiterating his response to the question he was posed that he danced around.
Mahonri wrote:People had challenged me in a thread a while back about my assertion that Mitt Romney denied the First Vision in a TV interview while running for President. It was removed from the news website it was originally posted on, but I finally came across it on youtube.