Mitt Romney

[BackBlast]

Well, that was a lot to digest. You make a lot of good points, and we could debate point after point for the rest of our lives, possibly.

Thanks, pursue the points interesting to you, you are obviously not required to address any point you don't wish to.

Let me just say what I'm trying to say in very few words. Despite what you may or may not think of Mitt Romney, I know many, many, good people who were planning to support him for president. Supporting him is not evil.

I think the best bit of logic to support that statement is the fact that Mitt Romney has a good moral character demonstrated in his family life. Many other candidates do not offer that.

I'm personally looking for more than that, but I would take it over the current pair...

Brandon

[Bircher]

I am afraid since the page rolled over this might get lost, and I am really interested in understanding you views on this, so I am reposting it on the new page in hopes it will get seen

Despite what you may or may not think of Mitt Romney, I know many, many, good people who were planning to support him for president. Supporting him is not evil.

How would you reconcile that with the statement in D&C 134:1 that says that we are accountable for our actions in relation to government? It says actions, not intentions.

We are also taught we can only be saved as fast as we gain knowledge, and that we cannot be saved in ignorance, so I would not use those as an excuse on why it would be ok to support some who is evil, assuming he is evil that is.

[lundbaek]

In D&C 134: 2, in a statement regarding laws and government in general, we read: “We believe that no government can exist in peace except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.” Fortunately, the Lord has given us extensive instructions on matters of righteous government. This guidance is available in words of God’s prophets and in the United States Constitution, which, as we learn in D&C 101: 77 & 80, the Lord established by the hands of wise men whom He raised up for that very purpose. In D&C 98: 6 He made it clear that the saints are to befriend the constitutional law of the United States. And I find it significant that in the April 1935 General Conference of the Church, J. Ruben Clark stated, “To me...that statement of the Lord, “I have established the Constitution of this land,” puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself.” A few years later, in the October 1939 General Con ference, David O. McKay stated that :Next to being one in worshiping God, there is nothing in this world upon which this Church should be more united than in upholding and defending the Constitution of the United States. And in a 1967 letter to administration and faculty at Brigham Young University, President McKay wrote “It is part of our “Mormon” theology that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired; that our Republic came into existence through wise men raised up for that very purpose.

So how does Mitt Romney stack up against constitutional and moral principles? From the relatively extensive homework I've done on the subject, I consider him a potential embarrassment to the Church.

[buffalo_girl]

So how does Mitt Romney stack up against constitutional and moral principles? From the relatively extensive homework I've done on the subject, I consider him a potential embarrassment to the Church.

I concur with what you have said, Lundbaek.

[masterdmjg]

I am afraid since the page rolled over this might get lost, and I am really interested in understanding you views on this, so I am reposting it on the new page in hopes it will get seen

Despite what you may or may not think of Mitt Romney, I know many, many, good people who were planning to support him for president. Supporting him is not evil.

How would you reconcile that with the statement in D&C 134:1 that says that we are accountable for our actions in relation to government? It says actions, not intentions.

We are also taught we can only be saved as fast as we gain knowledge, and that we cannot be saved in ignorance, so I would not use those as an excuse on why it would be ok to support some who is evil, assuming he is evil that is.

To be honest, I don't have much more thoughtful responses to give. I agree with you on principle, but we seem to be going in circles as to our interpretation of the principles. I don't really know what else to contribute to this discussion. You said, "assuming he is evil." Does that mean he is evil, that you assume he's evil, or that I should assume he is evil? If I knew he was evil, it would be wrong for me to support him. I don't know that he is - does that make me ignorant?

I guess maybe to help, you might give me a politician (alive today) that was 100% spot on when it comes to freedom and the constitution. Then, if such a person exists, we may be able to determine how much we can expect out of other politicians. If that makes sense....

[lundbaek]

Well, OK now, see how much fault you can find with Ron Paul and/or Chuck Baldwin in terms of freedom and the US Constitution. It won't be easy; it will take homework, largely because the mainstream media and other politicians have done their level best to paint a bad picture of them, especially Ron Paul. Baldwin is just getting started and is virtually unknown to nearly all Americans (Note, however, the postings about him on this forum). Those of us who have been watching Ron Paul for over 10 years, and/or who have been aware of Chuck Baldwin since he was VP candidate 4 years ago, have a jump on others who only have the MSM to rely on.

[masterdmjg]

Well, OK now, see how much fault you can find with Ron Paul and/or Chuck Baldwin in terms of freedom and the US Constitution. It won't be easy; it will take homework, largely because the mainstream media and other politicians have done their level best to paint a bad picture of them, especially Ron Paul. Baldwin is just getting started and is virtually unknown to nearly all Americans (Note, however, the postings about him on this forum). Those of us who have been watching Ron Paul for over 10 years, and/or who have been aware of Chuck Baldwin since he was VP candidate 4 years ago, have a jump on others who only have the MSM to rely on.

Actually, I find it very difficult to find much dirt on Ron Paul, mainly because he isn't a contender anymore, and he didn't get much media coverage then, and he gets none now. I do remember the allegations of racism from things that were written in that periodical that had Ron Paul's name on it. But the media do that do everyone. They take things from decades ago, and try to dust it off and use it to label a particular candidate this, or that. So Ron Paul may be as close as you get to that picture I described.

I don't know much about Baldwin, other than what people have discussed on this forum.

To be honest, I only started moving in the direction of Romney's camp when it became apparent that the media were already picking McCain to be the nominee. On a relative scale, I felt Romney would be much better to go against the democrats than McCain. I think it would be a decent choice for McCain to pick him as VP.

I love Ron Paul, but the question that I think comes up, is: does someone who is so strictly for the constitution ever really have a chance to win? Will they ever? Unfortunately, when it comes down to the "big dogs," a lot of people don't vote for the one they really support, they just vote against the one who is more "scary." I don't know when that's going to change, and it's quite unfortunate.

[lundbaek]

This is just my thinking, but I don't think it's a question of whether a candidate has a chance to win or not. To me it's a matter of principle. A people who want "bread and circuses" so much more than they want honest, constitutional government, deserve the likes of what they will probably get in McCain or Obama. A recent year and a half living in downtown SLC and associating with many different LDSs every day soured my opinion of most LDS voters even more. "He's a good honest priesthood holder and wouldn't do anything like that.", "He is the one most able to be directed by the Lord in governing the country." and "I just don't believe any of that, that he really said that." are typical of the statements I heard.

Re. McCain, about 10 years ago I participated actively in a campaign to recall AZ Senator McCain, mostly for actions that were violations of the US Constitution.

I really feel badly about the vast number of LDSs who I believe are really assuming Romney is the best choice because of his church membership and activity. I have no reason to believe Ron Paul's and Chuck Baldwin's family lives are anything less than Mitt Romney's. Ron Paul has a number of times publicly expressed his concern about the future of America for his children and grand children. One of the slogan's of Baldwin's campaign is "Preserve our nation for the next generation". Romney, on the other hand, has not yet undone the damage to himself by the reports that I posted earlir on this thread.

[Bircher]

Despite what you may or may not think of Mitt Romney, I know many, many, good people who were planning to support him for president. Supporting him is not evil.

How would you reconcile that with the statement in D&C 134:1 that says that we are accountable for our actions in relation to government? It says actions, not intentions.

We are also taught we can only be saved as fast as we gain knowledge, and that we cannot be saved in ignorance, so I would not use those as an excuse on why it would be ok to support some who is evil, assuming he is evil that is.

To be honest, I don't have much more thoughtful responses to give. I agree with you on principle, but we seem to be going in circles as to our interpretation of the principles. I don't really know what else to contribute to this discussion. You said, "assuming he is evil." Does that mean he is evil, that you assume he's evil, or that I should assume he is evil? If I knew he was evil, it would be wrong for me to support him. I don't know that he is - does that make me ignorant?

I guess maybe to help, you might give me a politician (alive today) that was 100% spot on when it comes to freedom and the constitution. Then, if such a person exists, we may be able to determine how much we can expect out of other politicians. If that makes sense....

I don't mean we should I should or you should, I mean just for arguments sake let's say he is "evil".

And to say that we have to find a perfect person to compare him to in political life is kind of a straw man. No one is saying we have to have perfect people. Only Christ is perfect. I liked Ron Paul, but disagree him 100% on his position on Cuba for example.

We are all ignorant to one extent or another, we should not take offense at that. I could list the "crimes" of Mitt, but until he is announced as VP, it would be a waste of time, right now we are just discussing principles.

Are we accountable for our acts in relation to government, and is ignorance an excuse to be excused from that?

[masterdmjg]

Despite what you may or may not think of Mitt Romney, I know many, many, good people who were planning to support him for president. Supporting him is not evil.

How would you reconcile that with the statement in D&C 134:1 that says that we are accountable for our actions in relation to government? It says actions, not intentions.

We are also taught we can only be saved as fast as we gain knowledge, and that we cannot be saved in ignorance, so I would not use those as an excuse on why it would be ok to support some who is evil, assuming he is evil that is.

To be honest, I don't have much more thoughtful responses to give. I agree with you on principle, but we seem to be going in circles as to our interpretation of the principles. I don't really know what else to contribute to this discussion. You said, "assuming he is evil." Does that mean he is evil, that you assume he's evil, or that I should assume he is evil? If I knew he was evil, it would be wrong for me to support him. I don't know that he is - does that make me ignorant?

I guess maybe to help, you might give me a politician (alive today) that was 100% spot on when it comes to freedom and the constitution. Then, if such a person exists, we may be able to determine how much we can expect out of other politicians. If that makes sense....

I don't mean we should I should or you should, I mean just for arguments sake let's say he is "evil".

And to say that we have to find a perfect person to compare him to in political life is kind of a straw man. No one is saying we have to have perfect people. Only Christ is perfect. I liked Ron Paul, but disagree him 100% on his position on Cuba for example.

We are all ignorant to one extent or another, we should not take offense at that. I could list the "crimes" of Mitt, but until he is announced as VP, it would be a waste of time, right now we are just discussing principles.

Are we accountable for our acts in relation to government, and is ignorance an excuse to be excused from that?

I was just asking the questions to get a little more clarification on what exactly you wanted me to respond to. So yes, on principle, I think it's certain that knowing someone is evil, we would be accountable for supporting them.

I set up the "straw man" as you say, just to see what you would posit for an example, but you've answered correctly, in my mind. And herein lies the main difficulty of knowing for sure, one way or another, if someone is good or evil, or if we should vote for them. Since no one is perfect, especially, I would argue, when it comes to politics, we have to weigh the good against the bad. We have to also weigh the candidate themselves against those who are competing for the position against them. I am with lundbaek in saying it was an easy choice with Ron Paul as far as the constitutional principles are concerned, especially if we are comparing him the all the other "Republicans" in the race.

The wild card is, how do we know what the intents of the candidate are? Even if they are doing things that we disagree with politically, or that go against the constitution, in our minds, can we say with confidence that we know they know what they doing is wrong, and yet choose to do it anyway? Or are they actually thinking they are defending the constitution (and maybe they're wrong), and therefore, continue to support such-and-such particular bill or legislation, or whatever.

I remember hearing my grandparents, who live in Reno, criticize Harry Reid for his politics, which is fine. But then they talked about when Reid would come to the temple (they both work in the Reno temple, my grandpa is a sealer), and how they couldn't believe that he is able to hold a temple recommend. For some reason, that really bugged me, because at least in my mind, if I start questioning who should and shouldn't be in the temple, I am sowing the seeds of questioning the leaders. I believe we are to judge, to the best of our knowledge and ability, with our (at least in my case) limited knowledge of the situation politically, and as long as we are sincerely looking for someone we believe will lead the country the best. I don't expect that everyone has to agree on it.

If it were so easy, why don't we just vote for the prophet every election? Although, I am going to maybe shock again by saying, I don't know that just because someone is the president of our church, doesn't mean they would be the greatest president. Just as Mitt Romney being a faithful member of the Church (if he is), shouldn't be the reason why we vote for him.

This may be a tangent, but just to think about, is it evil for the Church to own cable TV outlets when there is a bunch of garbage that is broadcast on those very channels that they own? If it were always as easy as a question of good v. evil, then questions like that wouldn't be so difficult to answer.

[lundbaek]

I too question Harry Reid holding a temple recommend after having criticized Ezra Taft Benson in an interview with the media following a speech at BYU. He stated his opinion that Elder Benson had led members down the wrong path. His actual statement to the media, as reported by the SLTrib is posted on this forum somewhere. I thought he should have had his recommend pulled for that. I would expect that if I made public accusation that a church leader led people down the wrong path, I would face a church court. I experienced the threat of one for emailing reports of some of Mitt Romney's actions and statements in the media to church members.

[masterdmjg]

I too question Harry Reid holding a temple recommend after having criticized Ezra Taft Benson in an interview with the media following a speech at BYU. He stated his opinion that Elder Benson had led members down the wrong path. His actual statement to the media, as reported by the SLTrib is posted on this forum somewhere. I thought he should have had his recommend pulled for that. I would expect that if I made public accusation that a church leader led people down the wrong path, I would face a church court. I experienced the threat of one for emailing reports of some of Mitt Romney's actions and statements in the media to church members.

This particular conversation was before Reid said that about President Benson. That's another issue, for sure. My question is still basically the same. If Harry Reid has a temple recommend, and I assume he got it the same way I got it, then what is there to be said about the stake president? Shouldn't his recommend be suspended for giving a recommend to someone who shouldn't have one? Shouldn't the person who called this guy to be the stake president lose his? Wait....oh the prophet called him.

I'm glad I'm not in the position where I am expected to judge whether Harry Reid or anyone else should have a temple recommend, and as long as I'm not, I am not going to waste time doing it.

[masterdmjg]

I too question Harry Reid holding a temple recommend after having criticized Ezra Taft Benson in an interview with the media following a speech at BYU. He stated his opinion that Elder Benson had led members down the wrong path. His actual statement to the media, as reported by the SLTrib is posted on this forum somewhere. I thought he should have had his recommend pulled for that. I would expect that if I made public accusation that a church leader led people down the wrong path, I would face a church court. I experienced the threat of one for emailing reports of some of Mitt Romney's actions and statements in the media to church members.

You're not saying Harry Reid has led anyone in the Church down the wrong path, then, right?

[lundbaek]

No, I was not saying Harry Reid has led anyone in the Church down the wrong path, simply because I was not thinking of it that way. But now that you mention it, I will venture to say that Harry Reid, in criticizing Ezra Taft Benson's stated political views, some of which I think were made in public meetings, was trying to persuade people to his political views, which clearly contradict what prophets and apostles have said on political subjects. People who believed Reid would, in my opinion, be led down the wrong path.

Shortly after Reid's statement to the media was published in the SLTrib, I learned from our branch president in SLC, who had made inquiries thru the stake president, that the First Presidency was aware of Reid's statements. Some LDSs in SLC, where we lived at the time, were disconcerted by the report of Reid's statement. I suspect most LDSs, even in SLC, knew nothing about it.

[masterdmjg]

While the institutional church has worked consistently to keep out of the political debate, individual Latter-day Saints are encouraged to take an interest, to be involved in their communities and to vote as part of the democratic process. When some members do that and achieve high office — as in the case of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid or former governor Mitt Romney — the Church does not distance itself from them or their active Church membership. It simply recognizes that they do not speak for the Church any more than the Church speaks for government. As individuals responsible to their constituencies, they are free to support or oppose whatever political platform or policy they choose.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... ns-answers

M. Russell Ballard:
What an honor for me to be introduced by my good friend Senator Harry Reid. Thank you Senator.

Men and women who serve their constituents and country faithfully in Congress and elsewhere in government service, while also serving God through devotion to their faith, deserve our admiration and respect.
http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... nt-society

But I'm sure he wasn't referring to Reid, whose positions are "contrary to teachings of the leaders of the Church." Even though Ballard just referred to him....hmmm...

How does this guy (Ballard) hold a temple recommend? I don't know what else I can say to get you to agree it's not as easy as "if he has certain political views, he's good, or he's evil."

[lundbaek]

So what's new?

It was quite a shock to me when, in the Oct.2001 Conference, President Hinkley stated: "Those of us who are American citizens stand solidly with the president of our nation." I thought of looking for a hole to crawl into

During some sort of a gathering of world leaders held in conjunction with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Utah, President Hinkley, speaking of the UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, reportedly stated that "We are highly honored to have this good, wonderful leader with us. What a tremendous work he's doing in trying to bring peace and goodness to the people of the world." I'd lost track of when and in which SLC rag that was reported, but a cyber pal found it at http://www.deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3 ... 73,00.html I thought to myself, How could any one say that about a so-called world leader who would tell us that the anticipated reforms will erode national sovereignty, infringe on personal liberties, and lead the world into a system of global governance.

This is a load to digest. But I have gradually concluded that if President Hinkley or any other Church authority were to tell it like it is, or the way I tell it to certain people, the Latter-day Gadiantons would come down on the Church and all Hell would come with them. That would leave the Lord with only 2 options that I can think of. Bare His arm in protecting the Church, or letting us suffer the consequences. I think the Church membership in general is not ready for, or up to dealing with either of those 2 possibilities.

[BackBlast]

I too question Harry Reid holding a temple recommend after having criticized Ezra Taft Benson in an interview with the media following a speech at BYU. He stated his opinion that Elder Benson had led members down the wrong path. His actual statement to the media, as reported by the SLTrib is posted on this forum somewhere. I thought he should have had his recommend pulled for that. I would expect that if I made public accusation that a church leader led people down the wrong path, I would face a church court. I experienced the threat of one for emailing reports of some of Mitt Romney's actions and statements in the media to church members.

This particular conversation was before Reid said that about President Benson. That's another issue, for sure. My question is still basically the same. If Harry Reid has a temple recommend, and I assume he got it the same way I got it, then what is there to be said about the stake president? Shouldn't his recommend be suspended for giving a recommend to someone who shouldn't have one?

No, this isn't how it works. The Bishop and the Stake President, are essentially instructed to believe the member. Even if you have some proof otherwise, unless it rises to the level of something worth pulling them into a Church court over.

My mission president had a member of his ward who had a public salary as he worked for the government, and had his tithing records and they didn't match (obviously so), and claimed he was a full tithe payer. My mission president didn't want to give him one, but he was counseled to believe him and ultimately he was given a recommend.

Sure, you can ask follow up question, put a little pressure in certain areas if you feel inclined, but ultimately it's the person's responsibility to be honest and work out his own salvation.

Brandon

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

After not hearing from Mitt's Campaign for months (After asking to be taken off his list) I got an email a couple nights ago from [email protected] and guess what? It was all about supporting McCain and donating to his campaign, and at the bottom it said "Paid for by McCain 2008".

I wrote back and gave them a piece of my mind. It started out with the phrase "You make me sick" and I will leave it at that.

It may get me in trouble some day I suppose, but I hate getting emails about a bunch of trash.

[lundbaek]

There are still LDSs around here hoping Mitt Romney will become VP. They don't want to know that he misrepresented the Church with his past stances on certain doctrinal, moral and constitutional principles.

I wonder if any LDS who had in past publicly supported abortion and homosexual interests and publicly stated that the last time he knew of that God spoke to man was to Moses at the bush as Romnney did would be considered for a mission, especially as a mission president somewhere.

[ROB GIBBSEN]

There are still LDSs around here hoping Mitt Romney will become VP. They don't want to know that he misrepresented the Church with his past stances on certain doctrinal, moral and constitutional principles.

I wonder if any LDS who had in past publicly supported abortion and homosexual interests and publicly stated that the last time he knew of that God spoke to man was to Moses at the bush as Romnney did would be considered for a mission, especially as a mission president somewhere.

Mitt is a dirty man.......stay clear of that fool.

[lundbaek]

Mitt Romney reminds me of several pro ball players....good at their "thing". but lousy at other things that are more important in the eternal scheme of things.

[Pepper Draper]

I get the feeling Romney is a wolf in sheep's clothing and will be elected in 2012.


I have some indicators that allude to this (like his father's participation in the MKultra project) but no proof.

WHAT!!!!! I have studied MKultra and never knew that. Where did you get that information? WOW!!!!!!

I dont like Romney he is a wolf with fangs...he is a globalist. It made me sick how so many LDS people just fell all over themselves believing he was so good. His record shows that he does not support the constitution. I believe the JBS has voting records. Just the fact that he use to support abortion but then changed his opinion should tell us something about his character.

[lundbaek]

http://www.meridianmagazine.com has two articles on Mitt Romney.

http://www.meridianmagazine.com/letters ... omney.html
and
http://www.ldsmag.com/faithandpolitics/080801now.html

Both of these pages have a link inviting a reply. Here is a chance to express one's opinion of Mitt Romney as a presidential candidate.

[WYp8riot]

We dont really have to decide if a candidate is evil or not as much as we decide and judge unconstitutional behavior. THEN THERE REALLY IS NO NEED TO SECOND GUESS IF IT IS BASED ON IGNORANCE, APATHY, OR WILLFULL INTENT. Correct?

[ldsff]

There are still LDSs around here hoping Mitt Romney will become VP. They don't want to know that he misrepresented the Church with his past stances on certain doctrinal, moral and constitutional principles.

I wonder if any LDS who had in past publicly supported abortion and homosexual interests and publicly stated that the last time he knew of that God spoke to man was to Moses at the bush as Romnney did would be considered for a mission, especially as a mission president somewhere.

Hey lundbaek,

I was talking to my father about Mitt the other day and mention that he said the last time God spoke to man was to Moses.....my father thought I was crazy. So needless say I been searching for the reference but I have not had any luck. Do you know where I can find that reference?