Mitt Romney - so very close, yet so very far

[bobhenstra]

Chuck, (short for Chautauquan, the daily you apparently enjoy) you have the tendency, as many here do, to hide your real name! I simply refuse to accept the idea that the re-election of Obama is a sure thing (such as if Ron Paul had won the nomination). We need and will have our Hezekiah, and as Hezekiah held the holy Priesthood, so must our Hezekiah Plus, the prophecy of Heber C. Kimball must be fulfilled! The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (country), The Parable of the Ten Virgins (church), must also be fulfilled.

I see Mitt as our Hezekiah because he holds the Holy Priesthood. I' also admit that he's done some thing I don't like, but so has every other person on this world including--me, done things I don't like! It's all in understanding forgiveness, understanding works meet for forgiveness, understanding confession! Being able to forgive others as well as myself, and not just because that's the requirement! However, the requirement is a good place to start---

There are several obviously near perfect people on this site who feel comfortable with declaring Mitt has lost the Holy Priesthood, clearly I'm not one of those people! Mitt has not lost the Holy Priesthood, Ron Paul has never held it and cannot win the nomination. Also, there's very little chance Obama the communist alien will hold the priesthood in mortality. And since there must be our Hezekiah---

That leaves Mitt as "MY" only choice!

Bob

[firend]

Chuck, (short for Chautauquan, the daily you apparently enjoy) you have the tendency, as many here do, to hide your real name! I simply refuse to accept the idea that the re-election of Obama is a sure thing (such as if Ron Paul had won the nomination). We need and will have our Hezekiah, and as Hezekiah held the holy Priesthood, so must our Hezekiah Plus, the prophecy of Heber C. Kimball must be fulfilled! The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (country), The Parable of the Ten Virgins (church), must also be fulfilled.

I see Mitt as our Hezekiah because he holds the Holy Priesthood. I' also admit that he's done some thing I don't like, but so has every other person on this world including--me, done things I don't like! It's all in understanding forgiveness, understanding works meet for forgiveness, understanding confession! Being able to forgive others as well as myself, and not just because that's the requirement! However, the requirement is a good place to start---

There are several obviously near perfect people on this site who feel comfortable with declaring Mitt has lost the Holy Priesthood, clearly I'm not one of those people! Mitt has not lost the Holy Priesthood, Ron Paul has never held it and cannot win the nomination. Also, there's very little chance Obama the communist alien will hold the priesthood in mortality. And since there must be our Hezekiah---

That leaves Mitt as "MY" only choice!

Bob

Hezekiah is likened unto the future Davadic servant who has right to rule politically by being of the tribe of Judah. Which tribe is Romney from? If he is not at least part Judah than he does not qualify as having the right to rule politically.

[firend]

Chuck, (short for Chautauquan, the daily you apparently enjoy) you have the tendency, as many here do, to hide your real name! I simply refuse to accept the idea that the re-election of Obama is a sure thing (such as if Ron Paul had won the nomination). We need and will have our Hezekiah, and as Hezekiah held the holy Priesthood, so must our Hezekiah Plus, the prophecy of Heber C. Kimball must be fulfilled! The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (country), The Parable of the Ten Virgins (church), must also be fulfilled.

I see Mitt as our Hezekiah because he holds the Holy Priesthood. I' also admit that he's done some thing I don't like, but so has every other person on this world including--me, done things I don't like! It's all in understanding forgiveness, understanding works meet for forgiveness, understanding confession! Being able to forgive others as well as myself, and not just because that's the requirement! However, the requirement is a good place to start---

There are several obviously near perfect people on this site who feel comfortable with declaring Mitt has lost the Holy Priesthood, clearly I'm not one of those people! Mitt has not lost the Holy Priesthood, Ron Paul has never held it and cannot win the nomination. Also, there's very little chance Obama the communist alien will hold the priesthood in mortality. And since there must be our Hezekiah---

That leaves Mitt as "MY" only choice!

Bob

Hezekiah is likened unto the future Davadic servant who has right to rule politically by being of the tribe of Judah. Which tribe is Romney from? If he is not at least part Judah than he does not qualify as having the right to rule politically.

[Chautauquan]

Nice try on figuring out the name, Bob. But, uh, you fail miserably. I've only ever been in the NY airport for a transfer to Kiev. I chose my username because it reflects the nature of who I am. I'm a historian who strives to share his knowledge via an education system which encourages performance, speeches in the persona of a character from history. I wonder whether your assumptions of communism come from looking up my name and getting confused... I'll be more direct, if it will help, Bob. I appreciate your openness in name, but you must also understand that there is a long and honorable tradition of pseudonyms among the proponents of freedom. Brutus, Cato, Publius.... I feel no shame in joining their ranks. If this anonymity frustrates you, I'm sorry. Perhaps we'll meet sometime on a campus and discuss things in person, but until then, sorry! I'm comfortable where I'm at, and besides, more people need to know about the Chautauqua program. It's necessary to get our history really down pat.

I'll point out I've met members from EACH of the tribes, and I'll be shocked if Mitt is anything but Ephraim, or possibly Manasseh. Beyond that, it's making a claim which I still find difficult to swallow, but also disconcerting. Of all kings to resurrect, Hezekiah? Really? Why isn't the line started earlier? Is the fact that George Washington was ordained a High Priest posthumously make him Saul or David? What about all of the others?

While declaring that he's lost the priesthood is a bit steep for my tastes (I try to assume the best of folks) I can understand the position. I still have my concerns, however, and there is little to nothing to restore my faith in the US government! I'm honestly thinking that Zion will be built on the principles of the Constitution since abandoned by our own nation. I mean, if we aren't using it, surely someone else can!

While I agree for the most part with your suppositions concerning membership in the Church likely not being applied to many politicians in this life, I'm not that comfortable deciding that priesthood=righteousness. Not to mention, righteousness doesn't equate to the right nor power to rule. You've already said that you would vote for Harry Reid if he were a Republican running for President. But let's pose a different question, to see whether your principles lie in the priesthood, or in party, or... anything, really. Let's say Harry Reid is running against... Ronald Reagan. (Yes, I'm aware this race will never occur, but I'm curious to see where this leads). Harry's still the democrat as ever, and the Gipper is his same self as in his presidency. Who's got your support, Bob? (I'll not ask your vote, after all, secrecy of the vote was considered important in days of yore, by some people I respect very highly.)

[bobhenstra]

Chuck, What I said was "If" Harry were a Republican (he's not) running against Obama (the liberal communist alien) I would vote for Harry! Anything to get rid of Obama!

Your questions involve suppositions, I hate suppositional arguments and choose not to play----Thanks!

Bob

[Chautauquan]

I understand that, Bob. But is it Priesthood, or party? Which is more important? I accept that you don't like "suppositional" arguments, but that's what parables are. Please don't dodge the question. What is the basis of your political decisions?

[firend]

i tire of party politics. i tire of people putting church before god. i tire of people placing family and friends before god. i tire of people putting country before god (just ask nazi ww2 mormons about party politics)

harry reid's fruits are wicked
romney's fruits are wicked
obamas fruits are wicked

u want to get rid of obama for another bush and cheney? They are supposed to be good christens too. their fruits are wicked also.

[bobhenstra]

Chuck, my political decisions depend upon the circumstances presented me by the candidates, certainly "not" their followers and their propaganda!

I make my own rules, but circumstances at times change. However I'll always be a conservative republican, never a demonocrat and certainly not a libertarian. But that doesn't mean I'll always vote conservative republican, at times someone comes along that is very highly qualified, someone who can walk the walk in every way "I" think important!

In 50 years of voting I've never met the politician I've completely agreed with, but many I completely disagree with------

Bob

[bobhenstra]

i tire of party politics. i tire of people putting church before god. i tire of people placing family and friends before god. i tire of people putting country before god (just ask nazi ww2 mormons about party politics)

harry reid's fruits are wicked
romney's fruits are wicked
obamas fruits are wicked

u want to get rid of obama for another bush and cheney? They are supposed to be good christens too. their fruits are wicked also.

Just standing there on the sideline calling everybody----wicked??


Relax, everything will be fine!

[bobhenstra]

[p51-mustang]

Chuck, my political decisions depend upon the circumstances presented me by the candidates, certainly "not" their followers and their propaganda!

I make my own rules, but circumstances at times change. However I'll always be a conservative republican, never a demonocrat and certainly not a libertarian. But that doesn't mean I'll always vote conservative republican, at times someone comes along that is very highly qualified, someone who can walk the walk in every way "I" think important!

In 50 years of voting I've never met the politician I've completely agreed with, but many I completely disagree with------

Bob

In an earlier post you said you were a moderate.

[p51-mustang]

i tire of party politics. i tire of people putting church before god. i tire of people placing family and friends before god. i tire of people putting country before god (just ask nazi ww2 mormons about party politics)

harry reid's fruits are wicked
romney's fruits are wicked
obamas fruits are wicked

u want to get rid of obama for another bush and cheney? They are supposed to be good christens too. their fruits are wicked also.

I agree with Firend. The constitution is the basis for the "law that shall go forth from Zion". So if you are soft or in opposition to the constitution then you are soft or in opposition to zion itself. In my view this makes you a tare and not worthy of living in zion. Mitt has shown he cares little about the C, and hence zion so he doesnt deserve my vote.

[p51-mustang]

Bob keeps referring to this Hezekiah and priesthood principle when voting for political candidates. I have never heard the brethren teach us to vote for candidates based on either of these things. The teaching has always been vote for the candidate that aligns with the constitution. Bob tell me again why I'm supposed to take heed of your counsel and ignore the counsel of the scriptures and the brethren? looking forward to hearing yours and Juliette's mental gymnastics on this.

[bobhenstra]

Stang, there are simply some questions not worth the time and effort to answer!

[Chautauquan]

Circumstance is different from principle. I am generally concerned when circumstance is the factor which determines a decision, it's like being blown about by winds of doctrine. Principles are what enable you to consistently make decisions based on a simple standard. For example, I know my opinions on elections in Russia and Ukraine (I'm biased, I served there, so that's why they pop up often). There isn't an obvious line between "conservatives" and "liberals" in the party titles, nor in the platforms. The politics is on a different plane, there. But because I have principles, I'm able to navigate and give my opinion on the matter without tripping over myself (too often).

For example, a principle I believe in is agency. This agency I hold inviolate. This is why I oppose state-sponsored (or especially owned) healthcare. We cannot force people to support something they don't personally believe in. Money is secondary. It's a tool, a means to an end, nothing more. I oppose taxes being levied or increased because of that same principle. We find in the Declaration of Independence certain unalienable rights, namely, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. When anything imposes on this, I stand against it.
I look towards the examples of George Washington and other great men, and also form principles which I believe follow the gospel, and propagate the work of the Church. For example, I'm very much against our interfering in foreign affairs. It isn't our right to dominate other nations, to change their way of life to match our own. If I believe in freedom here, I believe in it everywhere.
The obvious rebuttal is that "but wait! Other countries don't have the freedom we enjoy!" This is absolutely true. But if we try to force them to be free, we end up making them more impoverished, less free than they were before. And, let's be honest, we're often not the brightest when it comes to understanding other cultures. We severely misrepresent the rights of others, and their traditions and faith. What principles help you make decisions, Bob?

[lundbaek]

One has to ignore counsel of the scriptures and the brethren to support Mitt Romney. Why does one have to ignore counsel of the scriptures and the brethren to support Mitt Romney ? There are simply some questions not worth the time and effort to answer!

[bobhenstra]

I'm simply not tied to your interpretation of gospel principles.. That's the reason I ask you to explain the example of faith I mentioned above. It's all very simple, if you are unable to answer that question then you do not have a correct understanding of faith. And for you to understand what I base my principles upon, you must have a correct understanding of faith!

Faith is the first principle of the gospel! If you spend the rest of your life studying faith and still cannot answer the question, you do not understand faith!

First you must study faith, then you must experience it, and third--you must recognize the experience!

When you can answer the question let me know!

Bob

[freedomforall]

I'm simply not tied to your interpretation of gospel principles.. That's the reason I ask you to explain the example of faith I mentioned above. It's all very simple, if you are unable to answer that question then you do not have a correct understanding of faith. And for you to understand what I base my principles upon, you must have a correct understanding of faith!

Faith is the first principle of the gospel! If you spend the rest of your life studying faith and still cannot answer the question, you do not understand faith!

First you must study faith, then you must experience it, and third--you must recognize the experience!

When you can answer the question let me know!

Bob

Isn't this the beauty of the gospel? Everyone can have a different slant on their understanding of gospel teachings and principles, and yet, as long as they stay on the path...their chances of salvation are all identical. Some may run across the finish line and others will crawl, but we all get the same prize. The Atonement is wondrous, isn't it?

Everyone, generally speaking, defends their own understanding of scripture. Some are spot on and others aren't. Reminds me of a scripture that says "when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." (Luke 22:32) And:

D&C 108:7
Therefore, strengthen your brethren in all your conversation, in all your prayers, in all your exhortations, and in all your doings.

An open mind and a sincere desire for learning and understanding is all that's needed for the hearer, and for the teacher, an accurate understanding of the gospel. Reminds me of a scripture that says "come now, let us reason together." (Doctrine and Covenants 50:10)

The danger lies when either the teacher or the hearer may be apt to rejecting any further light and knowledge. Reminds me of a scripture that says "for he that receiveth, to him shall be given; but he that continueth not to receive, from him shall be taken even that which he hath." (JST Mark 4:20)

I pray that all of us have an open mind, and heart.

[freedomforall]

How Romney Could Win, But Lose
Fred Thompson

As seen at: http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07 ... -but-lose/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

For those of you who, like me, think that our country is badly in need of a change of direction, I have a thought that may make your blood run cold. I’ll pass it along in a minute, while you brace yourselves.

But first, a little overview as to how the presidential election is going. The most recent Washington Post/ Wall Street Journal poll has it neck and neck (47% to 47%). This is consistent with most other recent major polls. On the one hand one wonders what’s keeping Obama up. The most important electoral factor is the economy and it’s still in bad shape and not getting better. Unemployment is still at 8.2% – overall unemployment is 15% when you factor in those who have stopped looking for work or who are working only part-time – and no president has been reelected in the last 50 years with unemployment over 5.6%, except Reagan, when the economy was clearly coming on strong after a bad recession. The new jobs numbers are still terrible and our growth rate is now under 2%. Does all this mean that the Obama campaign is a big balloon that’s about to burst? Or does it indicate remarkable resiliency that will see him through? We simply don’t know yet.

What Polls And History Tell Us

There are other factors that would seem to favor Romney, in addition to the economy. In fact there is one factor, often overlooked, that benefits Romney and may well determine who gets the most votes on Election Day. It’s the fact that Obama’s job approval rating is at approximately 47%. Perhaps more importantly, it was at 46% in March of this year. Gallup, the granddaddy of the pollsters, tells us that historically, by March of the re-election year, approval ratings for a president largely portend his fate. That is, if their March approval rating is above 50% they win. If it’s under 50% they lose. It held true for Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter, Ford and Nixon. George Bush was the only modern day exception. In March of the election year 2004 his rating was 49% and on Election Day he got 50%.

That looks great for Romney, right? Not so fast my friend. The answer is yes and no. Romney may get the most votes, but this year the election will be decided by votes in only 8 to 10 “swing” states. Voters in all of the other states will either go decidedly for Obama or for Romney and those states’ electoral votes will be cast accordingly. But those states will not give either candidate the 270 electoral votes necessary to win. A candidate must have, in addition, a sufficient number of wins in the “toss up” swing states of Virginia, North Carolina, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, and perhaps Iowa and Wisconsin.

Electoral Votes And Swing States

As Bush v. Gore reminded us, it doesn’t matter who wins the popular vote. It’s the electoral vote that counts. Today you’re seeing how this plays out in the campaigns. If you don’t live in one of the swing states, you are not getting and will not get much attention. One side or the other will take your state for granted, based upon historical patterns and polling data. If you do live in one of these states you are already being inundated with TV ads, mostly attacking Romney. As of now Obama forces are heavily outspending Romney’s in these swing states.

Obama’s strategy is to demonize Romney and energize his base groups- African Americans, Hispanics, single women, students, government employees, gays and others, especially in these swing states. Eight to 10 states are much easier to target than 50, especially if you have the advantages of the presidency behind you. Incidentally, by most accounts, Obama leads in the non-swing states, meaning he needs fewer swing states than Romney does.

So there you have my nightmare scenario. Romney wins the popular vote and Obama wins the electoral vote and the presidency. It has happened three times before in our nation’s history and it almost happened a fourth. In 2004, if 100,000 votes had switched in Ohio, John Kerry would have won that state and been elected president, even though he would have had about 2 million fewer votes nationwide than Bush.

I’m not predicting this, mind you but it could happen.

[bobhenstra]

"IF" it happens that way then it's not yet time for prophecy to be fulfilled! And I think it's time!

Bob

[Original_Intent]

So MSN says that Romney is down to three main choices for VP, but WorldNetDaily suggests that Petraeus is a likely choice.

If Petraeus is the VP pick, I'd take a guess that he would be the next President.

Maybe George Albert Smith really MEANT Greek....

[lost ark]

Except Petraeus is Dutch.

[bobhenstra]

Except Petraeus is Dutch.

Dutch--I knew there was something I liked about that guy!

Bob