What Can Mitt Say?

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

What Can Mitt Say?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

What does he need to say? What can he say?

Don't know.

As cliche as it may sound, he needs to follow the Spirit on this.

I don't see it as a deal breaker unless he ends up sounding like a nut to most people. There will be people who regardless of what he says will equate a vote for him as a vote for the anti-christ simply because of the fact they believe what their salaried pastor or preacher tells them about Mormons...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I think he should bear his testimony of the truthfulness of the Gospel of Christ, and the need for the restoration of the Gospel.

Okay, so that won't work for the media, but it'd be so great to hear. :)

--Ray

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

btw, Hoss, do you get the impression that Huckabee is the "Anybody but the Mormon" alternative? I really feel that is where a lot of his appeal is coming from... I sometimes feel that even in the church there are members who would vote for anyone but the mormon, not because of his qualifications, but because they don't want to look like they're in lock-step with other mormons.

--Ray

Pt314 · Senior Member

All of the anti-mormon sentiment that I have seen on the internet seems ready to boil over, and he hasn't given his speech yet.

Politically this is a very precarious position.

arbilad · Head Chef

Even if he comes up with a good response, will it really help him in this day and age? Most voters don't look into the issues closely. Many don't look into the issues at all. So, how many voters will even watch this speech? How many of those will actually listen to it? When John and Jane Doe get to the voting booth in November, most of them will be voting on feelings and impressions instead of logic.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I was so impressed with Huckabee at the last (YouTube) debate. He sounded honest, sincere, well-spoken and was not apologetic in the least about believing the Bible or his convictions. He also spoke in a non-offensive way, imo.

When Mitt was asked if he believed "every word of the Bible" or something along those lines... he started quoted the 10th article of faith... "I believe the Bible to be the word of God..." then he paused. (You can't really say, "...as far as it is translated correctly" HUH?) He paused too long and it was uncomfortable. It felt like he didn't quite know WHAT to say and was holding something back. I cringed for him. I don't know what's going to become of him now.

If there was someone that was comfortable in his religion that night, it was definitely Huckabee.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

That's true, Arbi. Further in the day when Pres. Kennedy gave his speach, there were very few sources of media, whereas now there's such fracturing of ideaologies and punditry from all sorts of directions that it's a really big questionmark as to whether or not it will make a difference.

My cynical side thinks that nothing he says will help matters, but he is a really good speaker, especially when he speaks from the heart, and when he talks about his faith, I (at least) can sense a real strength of character in him...

Kinda like being a mormon in general, I suppose, all we can do is appeal to the better parts of all men and women's natures, and hope they will rise up and take heed...

--Ray

Pt314 · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:

I was so impressed with Huckabee at the last (YouTube) debate. He sounded honest, sincere, well-spoken and was not apologetic in the least about believing the Bible or his convictions. He also spoke in a non-offensive way, imo.

When Mitt was asked if he believed "every word of the Bible" or something along those lines... he started quoted the 10th article of faith... "I believe the Bible to be the word of God..." then he paused. (You can't really say, "...as far as it is translated correctly" HUH?) He paused too long and it was uncomfortable. It felt like he didn't quite know WHAT to say and was holding something back. I cringed for him. I don't know what's going to become of him now.

If there was someone that was comfortable in his religion that night, it was definitely Huckabee.

Mitt Romney definately fumbled that one. Though I can see why, he didn't want to raise further attention to what the Church considers canon.

Enough of the religion questions already!

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

rayb wrote:
btw, Hoss, do you get the impression that Huckabee is the "Anybody but the Mormon" alternative? I really feel that is where a lot of his appeal is coming from... I sometimes feel that even in the church there are members who would vote for anyone but the mormon, not because of his qualifications, but because they don't want to look like they're in lock-step with other mormons.

--Ray

I think Huckabee is the Evangelicals' sigh of relief. They were faced with an electable Giuliani, whose stance on abortion was an abomination for them; or Romney whose (current) stance on abortion was fine, but whose Mormonism was an abomination to them.

Your comment about other LDS is insightful. I feel that way myself sometimes. Mostly, though my aversion to Romney is his (in my eyes) impression of being a thoughtless Ken doll who is controlled by handlers.

If I could have Robert Kirby or some other ugly guy Mormon running, I'd be fine with it.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

yeah, I've had that same thought... the fact that he's a "pretty man", in this age, especially with someone like Edwards (who I view as Mr. Vapid, but that's just my opinion...) running, is really a detriment to him.

-- Edited by rayb at 13:41, 2007-12-03

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I think Rudy's dimples are hot.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

I wasn't aware that you'd seen Rudy's butt.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Romney can't be a mindless Ken doll... my older brother and I used to make sure Ken got beat up with our tough guy action figures when we were little and our older sister left the room... Romney walks too good for having had his legs broken as many time as our sister's Ken doll...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

yeah, I think that is what I would do too if I saw his butt...

alabamabelle · Senior Member

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

I wasn't aware that you'd seen Rudy's butt.

Now that we know what his 'big finish' is, there just isn't any possible way to take him seriously. biggrin Besides, who wants saggy, baggy and old? Panama City Beach on spring break offers a much better view.

SERIOUSLY>>>>

Regardless of what Mr. Romney says, those who are firmly in his camp will remain there, those who have reasons to be out of his camp will by and large remain out - - the fence sitters will not be too swayed by a speech.

We aren't in a bubble and people in general don't research the candidates, the issues and the impact that the individual in question will have during a tenure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. A vast majority of people are waiting to see how their favorite celebrity will vote to determine their choice. Others vote on visceral emotion only.

Then, there are ye, oh few, but faithful, who research, study and apply some deductive reasoning to the selectee who will receive your precious and sacred vote.

And for some, prayer is part of the process.

Either way the voting works out, we are in the last days. Whomever does the steering for the ship of state will have to figure that out for themselves.

-- Edited by alabamabelle at 16:05, 2007-12-03

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

When it comes to the issues Christians care about, Romney is on the same page, even with Evangelicals. That's why I don't understand the animosity.

Maybe it's like ya'll have said: Anyone but a Mormon. Which I guess I can understand, in part--anyone but Hillary. And Obama.

arbilad · Head Chef

I personally will not be voting for Romney regardless of how well this speech goes. My reasons for not voting for him have nothing to do with whether or not he is a faithful LDS.

Randy · Senior Member

The first time this was announced, I started feeling pretty nervous about it. I strongly support Romney (and not because he is a Mormon) and I also have a vested interest in how the Mormon church is presented. Although these are two separate things, they can both be powerfully impacted by this speech.

Making predictions is the surest way to invite egg-on-face syndrome, but I feel I want to make a prediction (and hope it is right by the way). I predict that the speech will be stunningly well done, and stunningly effective at causing people to take notice of Romney. And that a significant percentage of that notice will be overwhelmingly positive.

Although I've never wanted him to make "the speech" I see that as a politician he's smart to take advantage of an opportunity to be noticed and heard. Politicians don't get too far if they turn down too many opportinities to have people listen to them, especially opportunities that are handed to them on a silver platter.

One thing I'm not going to predict is whether this will affect his campaign as a net positive or a net negative. So I will wait and see, white-knuckled.

Randy · Senior Member

Oh, and I also believe that the speech will be a net positive for the church even if he never mentions the church. Maybe especially if he doesn't.

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

Randy wrote:
Although I've never wanted him to make "the speech" I see that as a politician he's smart to take advantage of an opportunity to be noticed and heard. Politicians don't get too far if they turn down too many opportinities to have people listen to them, especially opportunities that are handed to them on a silver platter.

Excellent view; I had never thought of that, but you are likely correct.

How often does a political candidate get to say "Okay, I'm giving a big, important speech on Thursday, everyone watch" and have said statement greeted by more than a "what else is on?"

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I've no doubt Mitt Romeny is a faithful LDS by the usual standards of judgement. However, I maintain that an otherwise faithful LDS who supports homosexuality, government programs that deprive citizens of property and agency, and taking away from Congress the responsibility to declare war is at best ill informed on the US Constitution and his/her responsibility to "befriend" it, and willing to compromise moral standards. Mitt Romney has demonstrated to me and lots of others that he fits in that category, along with most LDSs.

I realize that most LDSs have not had the opportunity to hear or read those powerful words of Prophets and Apostles when they spoke on the subjects of Constitution, freedom, and maintaining our free agency. If Church leaders were to renew admonitions about Constitution, freedom, and maintaining our free agency, those forces within America who are striving to abolish the Constitution, much of our freedom, and take away yet more of our free agency could and surely would initiate persecution that would disrupt our building and missionary programs.

Even if Church leaders are quiet on these subjects, we are continually admonished to read the scriptures. If one is sensitive to the topic, the applicable scriptures will jump out of the pages. But if one is resentful or resistant of these subjects, then it probably won't happen.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I guess the church leaders just aren't living up to your standards, Lund.

--Ray

Hoss Cartwright · Senior Member

lundbaek wrote:

....However, I maintain that an otherwise faithful LDS who supports homosexuality......

    Please define the term "supporting homosexuality."

    Does your worldview require political leaders to stand outside the state house with "God hates fags" signs? Or do you require government leaders to do everything they can to deny as many rights as possible to homosexuals?

    I mean there's denying marriage to gays, and then there are laws that allow employers to fire employees for simply being gay. What is your position on that? What do you require of a political candidate to be "pure" in this area?

Because there are lots of sins that we do not make illegal in this country. Is every politician who supports unwed mothers with welfare benefits sinful? Is every leader who allows beer sales on Sunday somehow sinful?   Is every political leader who doesn't arrest people for "shacking up" sinful? Where do you draw the line?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

My former Seminary teacher now works at the Church Office Bldg. and told MrCoco that the Church is receiving more hits now on its website than it did during the Salt Lake Olympics. Their chat led to the conclusion... "If Mitt wins this thing, it's going to be the biggest missionary event in the history of the world."

Hmm.....

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Hoss Cartwright wrote:

Because there are lots of sins that we do not make illegal in this country. Is every politician who supports unwed mothers with welfare benefits sinful? Is every leader who allows beer sales on Sunday somehow sinful? Is every political leader who doesn't arrest people for "shacking up" sinful? Where do you draw the line?

OOOO! Good point, Hoss... I wonder in all the years Dr. Paul has been delivering babies, how many unwed mothers were his patients? And how many of those unwed mothers that were his patients got a break on his professional fee because they were poor?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

Okay, back on topic, I saw a nice little clip at FoxNews from Hannity and Colmes about the forthcoming speech.

I thought it was pretty good.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314944,00.html

(Hannity and Colmes also had a nice clip on the BSA and Philadelphia)

arbilad · Head Chef

rayb wrote:

I guess the church leaders just aren't living up to your standards, Lund.

--Ray

That's unfair, Ray. Lundbaek said nothing to indicate that. He merely said that they are silent on certain issues. That is not condemnation. That is merely observation. Church leaders are emphasizing basic doctrine much more lately, because that is what the church needs to hear.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yeah, ray!

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I apologize for being unfair. I was stating how Lundbaek's comments made me feel. He states things as though "new" LDS are not getting a message he deems as a crucial criteria for casting a correct vote. The implication is that the church is failing in helping members of the church make the correct choice in the voting booth.

Further there's an underlying implication that if I support Romney I'm deceived... I'm glad Lund has his principles. I agree with many of them, but to make one Gospel principle or one quote from one GA or one section in the doctrine and covenants more important than all others, imo, is to place the cart before the horse... I stated the vibe I got... that the church leaders weren't doing enough to educate "new" LDS to the need to uphold the Constitution in the way that he interpreted it.

I'm more than pleased to know that I'm wrong.

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

But stating that they are silent also infers that they are silent for a reason, and that has been hinted strongly at several times in the past. Plus, implication, nay the statement has actually been made above that those who don't have the scriptures jump out at them to where they understand it from the same point of view, then there is an issue of sensitivity when reading the scriptures.

The only thing I'm aware of that we're supposed to be sensitive to when reading the scriptures is The Spirit. And if this is one and the same thing as what lundbaek indicated, then people all over the world who are members of the Church should be flocking in droves to support Ron Paul and / or the Constitutionalist / Libertarian parties if they have the Spirit with them... otherwise, we're left to infer that there is only a select few who are actually seeing "the light".

If we're going to be talking about Church Leaders talking about what we need to hear today, what have they, specifically Pres. Hinckley, been saying in regards to stuff that is or could reasonably be political in nature? One of the foremost things that comes to my mind is the need for tolerance and getting rid of acrimony and all those little things that are seemingly common place in political "discussion" and debate. The next thing that comes to mind is the counsel to be prepared for more global interaction and less isolation... not from a fatalist standpoint, but from a standpoint that the Gospel is going forward quickly to all the world. On the economic front, we are always counseled to get out of debt and stay out insofar as possible.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree, Gordon B. Hinckley's optimism for the future is an inspiration to me. I don't begrudge any member for voting for anyone (even >>GASP!!

(funky.... my post got chopped cuz I used < < together... )

--Ray

-- Edited by rayb at 12:47, 2007-12-04

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I'd be a lot more optimistic if I was almost 100, too.

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

I resent the implication that because I disagree politically, I must be

"ill informed on the US Constitution and his/her responsibility to 'befriend' it"
"willing to compromise moral standards... along with most LDSs"
ignorant of "those powerful words of Prophets and Apostles when they spoke on the subjects of Constitution, freedom, and maintaining our free agency."
not "sensitive to the topic"
and "resentful or resistant of these subjects"

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Resentment leads to the dark side...

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Everyone repeat after me, "there is no conspiracy".

Euphrasie · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:

Resentment leads to the dark side...

...where they have cookies. Wanna follow?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

If there is no conspiracy, why did then President Benson tell us in 1988 that " A secret combination that seeks to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries is increasing its evil influence and control over America and the entire world. (See Ether 8:1825.)"? What was President Packer talking about when he spoke in a 16 Jan 2007 BYU devotional talk of Moroni's warning to "us in our generation" about "this secret combination which shall be among you. [Ether 8:20, 2324]"

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

And Lund, you believe Mitt's a part of that conspiracy?

--Ray

dianoia · Senior Member

Well, my resolve to stay out of the political threads lasted for what... five days?

I'm LDS and I'm not American. So where does that leave me?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

It could be a variety of things. It could be a combination of things. It could be anything that seeks to fight against the Kingdom of Heaven.

It could be Hollywood, Dollywood, Bollywood, PETA, OPEC, The New York Times, The Sierra Club, Disneyland, Proctor & Gamble, Green Peace, Walmart, Sons of Confederate Veterans, or any other number of organizations or entities...

And I'm not trying to be facetious.

It could very well be the ever increasing rise in power and influence of the groups pushing agendas for social engineering... like organized crime / and gangs, the GLBT groups, and sleeper cells of people in our nation that hold allegience to foreign powers...

It could even include individual politicians and judges.

Essentially, a secret combination according to the scripture is any sort of system, even if it is down to a single individual, where that person covenants with the devil to do wickedly as the means of getting gain and power. It is easier to conceptualize it as an organization like the Gadiantans of old, but it doesn't mean that is the only way it exists.

Randy · Senior Member

Who are these modern secret combinations? Well, for example...

Al Qaeda and other Global Jihadists. And their leftist allies in the media and government.

As a young man reading the Book of Mormon I saw how the government battled the Gadiantons in open warfare. That seemed odd to me, seeing that most of the American wars up to that point were against other governments, not a gang of criminals. There seemed to be no parallel to our day. However, now our government is fighting un-uniformed bad guys who have no allegiance to any government. The parellels seem much stronger now.

Republicans and Democrats need to join hands with Americans of all walks of life to battle these modern-day Gadiantons. If every potential ally who disagrees with one issue is eliminated, then that battle will not be effective. That's why, when I vote, I vote for politicians whose views most strongly reflect my own. In my view, a politician who has no political skill might as well stay home and crochet doilies. Yes, political goals fall apart into impotent piles of worthless protoplasm if the politician is unable to compromise with, and form alliances, with people that they have disagreements with.

So...

Go Mitt.

-- Edited by Randy at 15:10, 2007-12-04

arbilad · Head Chef

As a young man reading the Book of Mormon I saw how the government battled the Gadiantons in open warfare. That seemed odd to me, seeing that most of the American wars up to that point were against other governments, not a gang of criminals. There seemed to be no parallel to our day. However, now our government is fighting un-uniformed bad guys who have no allegiance to any government. The parellels seem much stronger now.

I got a different message from those passages. The Gadiantons were always seeking rule. For instance, when Kishkumen was sent to murder the chief judge, or when Nephi, by prophesy, revealed that one Gadianton killed another for the chief judge's seat. Even when they were fighting openly, they wanted rule. Their terms were always "surrender, let us rule, or we'll kill you." The unconstitutional wars we're fighting nowadays are against people who, if we are to take them at their word, simply want to exterminate us all, or at the very least drive us from their lands.

Randy · Senior Member

Well they aren't all that bad . They would rather convert us to their religion and make us subject to their caliph than to just kill us. So it's about rule after all.

Killing us is their second choice. "Surrender, let us rule, or we'll kill you." Fits.

Randy · Senior Member

Heh, well my home computer can't edit my posts, so I'll just explain that I put a little note at the end of my first sentence above between Less Than and Greater Than brackets that I was resorting to sarcasm. Apparently, the software took it as something other than what I intended, and all there is is an empty space between "bad" and the period.

arbilad · Head Chef

Their statements seem very heavily weighted towards "We'll destroy you."
Also, the Gadiantons were, as often as not, homegrown bad guys. The Gadiantons who took over the government were Nephites. It strains credulity past the breaking point to say that we are so righteous that there are no efforts on the part of the rich and powerful to control the government.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Did someone say cookies?

Roper · Senior Bucketkeeper

I don't believe the WTC attacks were any kind of conspiracy involving our own government.

I do believe the anthrax attacks were the work of homegrowns. As an aside, do you know that every large metropolitan area in the country receives millions of dollars in federal funding to prevent and prepare a response to a bioterrorism attack? A whole lot of folks are making a whole lot of money getting ready for possibly the least likely method of a terrorist attack. Things that make you go hmmmm...