Romney front runner for VP pick

arbilad · Head Chef

Romney front runner for VP pick

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

It sort of makes me mad... like Romney's selling out by hooking up with him.

(I see Romney as a much better choice than McPain.)

arbilad · Head Chef

The issue of who each major party chooses as VP is not terribly important to me. It's kind of like overhearing a pig talking about what prom dress it will wear to the prom. A nice dress doesn't change the fact that it's a pig.

Organist · Senior Member

I reread some of the things that a then desperate McCain said about Romney earlier in the campaign. McCain was utterly dispicable. With today's emotions, I would rather see Obama in office than McCain.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Best news I've heard regarding the election in awhile.

NRA · Veteran Member

Cocobeem wrote:
It sort of makes me mad... like Romney's selling out by hooking up with him.

(I see Romney as a much better choice than McPain.)

Amen!

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I'm glad that some folks here seem to be aware of Mitt Romney's demonstrated disdain for certain moral and constitutional principles. I think if Romney were to get the VP slot, more LDSs would have the opportunity to awaken to the cowardice and treachery that has been for decades converting our once constitutional republic into a socialist dictatorship. I wrote him twice suggesting that he stand up for moral and constitutional principles, but received no reply.

NRA · Veteran Member

Isn't that a bit harsh just for being snubbed?

nitasmile · Senior Member

from the article: "He is queaky-clean and fully vetted by the national media."

A new word, queaky-clean! I like it! :)

I didn't like how they used the immature language of McCain choosing someone else if he couldn't "stomach" Romney, in referencing a potential alliance.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I assume the comment by NRA "Isn't that a bit harsh just for being snubbed?" was meant for me. My harshness is not because Romney did not reply. I would not expect a reply to even my second letter, text of which I posted here somewhere, I think. What should I expect from a LDSs who would not publicly tell of God and Christ speaking to Joseph Smith in 1820, as did President Hinkley on one of those Larry King or Letterman shows a few years ago. Romney has never publicly denied the things I called to his attention. He has muffed a great opportunity to promote the very kind of government that Prophets told us we should be striving for.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I wonder if Romney is sort of going at this "piece-meal"... you know, line upon line?

I think if he came out all gang-busters like the Church of the 60s and 70s (yes, I think we're in a different Church now) that it might just backfire and he'd really turn everyone off...?

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I remember well the gang-busters approach to the freedom issue by the Church in the 60s and 70s, when Prophets and Apostles asked members to read and study the US Constitution and to get involved in promoting constitutional principles in government. In the October 1987 General Conference members were told the following by then President Ezra Taft Benson:

1.) First and foremost, we must be righteous.

2.) Second, we must learn the principles of the Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers.

3.) Third, we must become involved in civic affairs to see that we are properly represented.

4.) Fourth, we must make our influence felt by our vote, our letters, our teaching, and our advice.

Not only did American LDSs generally not respond to such admonitions, but some members were really turned off. Some openly criticized Ezra Taft Benson especially for his admonitions as an Apostle and a Prophet, even as recently as LDS US Senator Harry Reid in a 2007 statement to the media (and reported in the Salt Lake Tribune and I think the Deseret News) following a speech at BYU.

IMO (and I had the opportunity in 1999 and again in late 2006 to speak with one emeritus Seventy about this) American LDSs failed to respond to Moroni's warning in Ether 8:23-24 and are now beginning to experience the consequences described in 23. I think the Church has done a strategic withdrawal from this particular battlefield to avoid greater losses on other battlefields.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

So maybe Romney's our new strategy...?

arbilad · Head Chef

Denying church principles (as Romney has, on revelation, for instance) does nothing to promote them. I don't see in the slightest how Romney promotes our beliefs.

LoudmouthMormon · Profuse Pontificator

10 reasons Mitt Romney should be McCain's VP pick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10) The National Cathedral could be renamed the National Tabernacle
9) NASA could commission a satellite 'to hie to Kolob'
8) The Secret Service could be renamed the Sacred Service
7) All official government prayers could include the phrase 'that we all can get home safely'
6) Napoleon Dynamite could get someone other than Pedro elected
5) As Veep, he could not only explain things in Layman's terms, but also Lemuel's terms
4) As Veep, he could issue pardons in exchange for 100% home teaching
3) Not only could he pronounce 'Nuclear' but also 'Mahonri Moriancumer' and 'Maher Shalal Hash Baz'.
2) At his inauguration he could get McCain to swear on the Bible 'as far as it is translated correctly'
1) Anything to tick off Ed Decker!

-- Edited by LoudmouthMormon at 12:39, 2008-07-01

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I think if he came out all gang-busters like, "WE ARE THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH AND EVERYONE ELSE IS LIVING A SORROWFULLY PHONEY EXISTENCE!" he would get nowhere. I think people of the younger generations appreciate that he doesn't claim to know it all when it comes to religion. Knowing enough to commit his life to certain standards is still a good example. There are things in our Church's history that bother me... can anyone honestly say there isn't? No other candidate that I can remember has a family that even comes close to his. They almost look phoney, they're so perfect.

My former Seminary teacher is now over correlation in SLC and told MrCoco that the Church received more hits on its website when Romney was running than at any other time in history... blew away the Olympics time. The LDS Church would no longer be in the shadows and largely unknown. (I think we sometimes like to think we're bigger than we really are.)

arbilad · Head Chef

Coco, there's a difference between not being overbearing with our doctrine, and outright denying fundamental principles of our church. For instance, we could probably get a lot more members if we played down the Word of Wisdom. But the missionaries still teach it because it's an important principle. Romney denied the principle of revelation, for instance. He didn't introduce it in a played down way, he flat out denied the principle of modern revelation. We don't need to make the church more PC for it to be more acceptable. We need to be careful about how we evangelize what we believe, not change what we believe.
The difference is this: all my coworkers drink coffee, and sometimes someone offers me coffee. I merely tell them I don't drink coffee, and go farther if they're interested. The overbearing method would be to start yelling, "How dare you offer me coffee! That's an evil substance and I can't believe that you're drinking it, much less offering it to me!" The Romney method would be to accept the coffee and start drinking it so that people don't think he's weird or doesn't fit in.
And honestly, there really isn't an aspect of the church that bothers me. There are things I don't fully understand, but they don't bother me. I know that eventually I'll find the resolution to my lack of understanding.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

He could have easily said, "these are my beliefs" without coming across as putting others beliefs down. He chose denial instead.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Maybe I don't know what "fundamental principles" he's denied...

He said he doesn't believe in revelation? Our whole Church is a "revealed" Church, so I don't see how that can be. We aren't a "reformed" Church or break-off, a la Luther... Joseph Smith started the whole thing via revelation. I'm confused...

arbilad · Head Chef

Cocobeem wrote:

Maybe I don't know what "fundamental principles" he's denied... He said he doesn't believe in revelation? Our whole Church is a "revealed" Church, so I don't see how that can be. We aren't a "reformed" Church or break-off, a la Luther... Joseph Smith started the whole thing via revelation. I'm confused...

Apparently, so is Romney:

"Well, I don't recall God speaking to me. I, I don't recall God speaking to anyone since, uh, Moses and the [burning] bush, or perhaps some others, but, but I don't have that frequent of communication."

That's a direct quote from him. He did say "perhaps some others", but a believing Latter Day Saint wouldn't have to add the "perhaps". We know for certain that He has communicated with others. We can name a whole line of them since Joseph Smith. And under them there are GAs, Stake Presidents, Bishops, Auxilary Leaders, and parents for their families. Not counting personal revelation, which he also denies in his statement ("I don't recall God speaking to me")

As you point out, revelation is fundamental to our church. And yet Romney denied it in this statement.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Do you know what the question was that he was asked?

I don't believe most or even "several" of the Stake Presidents, Bishops, or I'll go so far as to say GA's have "talked" with God face to face as Moses (or Joseph Smith) did. If they have, they sure have been closed mouthed when it comes to (what could be) a powerful testimony. Certainly not following in the footsteps of Joseph Smith at any rate. I'm of the mind that "many are called but few are chosen." And few means few. Just my opinion, I'm well aware there are others who believe a majority will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom.

arbilad · Head Chef

Fair enough, Coco, you should know the context of the question. Here is the question that was asked to which the quote was a response:

Should God speak to you, and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as president, or should He speak to your prophet who would speak to you, how would you make that decision, how would you handle that?

They didn't say anything about face to face. They're talking about revelation in general. And it's a fair question. Given the LDS belief in continuing revelation, what if he were to receive a revelation that would appear to be against his duties? I personally don't think that there ever would be such a conflict, but in dismissing the question the way he did, he is effectively saying "I don't believe that God talks to the Prophet, so you shouldn't be concerned."

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

That is about the lousiest question I have ever seen. Seriously. Lousy.

I mean, what if your newly converted wife came up to you in tears and said, "If Pres. Monson told you to drive a stake through my heart and then be sealed to the 16 year old hottie babysitter, would you do it?" You gonna' stand there and say, 'Heck yeah!'

I mean, really. Unless you've had some time to think about it (like we all have on this board) that is really a lousy question and one that would catch you off guard. I believe his nervousness in his answer reveals his concern for representing the Church in a negative way. I'm not going to take his answer to this ridiculous question to mean much of anything. I still think he's a pretty good and decent man who has always tried to direct people who want to know about the religion to the source (lds.org or whatever). I hardly take that to mean he doesn't believe in the principle of revelation.

arbilad · Head Chef

Well, I interpret it entirely differently. I guess we'll have to leave it at that. And it's not like the question hit him entirely out of the blue - the same question was asked as Kennedy when he ran for president, and there were many parallels drawn between their two candidacies. It beggars disbelief to think that he wasn't ready for just such a question when it had been asked of Kennedy.
There is plenty of other evidence that Romney is not a nice man. You can search through the archives on this board and find a lot of it. I can also post more. His wife, for instance, was a donor to planed parenthood, and he solicited campaign donations from them when he ran for governor.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, I agree that it's a lousy question.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

As long as we're asking ridiculous rhetorical questions, would you (all of you you dislike Romney) like him better if he weren't LDS? Is it possible for you to take religion out of the picture where he is concerned? I find it ironic that the people who like Romney the least are fixated on his religious beliefs - both in and out of the church. Out of the church, he's viewed with suspicion because he's one of those loony cultist Latter Day Saints. Within the church, he's judged unfit because he's a Bad Mormon.

It's quite humorous, really.

-- Edited by bokbadok at 16:14, 2008-07-02

arbilad · Head Chef

Bok, while I believe that the religion aspect is important (he's a hypocrite for claiming to be LDS and not acting in accordance with that), I wouldn't like him even if he wasn't LDS. For instance, in the past he has worked towards gun control, abortion, gay marriage (he implemented it in Massachusetts despite the lack of a law from the legislature creating it; he merely followed the court's direction, even though the court itself said that the legislature needed to pass a law, which it didn't). Romney has more flip flops than miami beach during spring break. He would be a horrible president, even apart from his religious hypocrisy.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

I don't like him for his positions on gun contorl, socialized medicine and gay marraige.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Just as bad was his statement to the effect that the president should consult with lawyers about going to war with Iran. Again, Romney blew a great opportunity to teach a very important constitutional principle that was last honoured in December 1941.

arbilad · Head Chef

BTW, I think that it goes the other way too. I think a large number of people ignored Romney's stance on the issues, and were prepared to vote for him solely because he is LDS. I personally talked to many such people in my ward.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Dude, every Mormon is a hypocrite. Are you debt-free? Guess you're a hypocrite then cuz the Church's teachings are to get out of debt. You haven't done that, have you? You're a hypocrite and shouldn't claim to be LDS.

He changed his mind on gay marriage, right?

Wasn't the healthcare thing actually saving Mass. a ton of money?

Anyway... I can't keep all these facts in my head so I'm gonna' wait 'till we're all talking about this again in 2012 when he possibly runs against Obama. Unless, of course, the Mayan calendar delivers some cataclysm and then I'm off the hook totally.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Re. Romney's mandatory health care program in MA:

It is socialist, and LDSs in years past have been told to "eschew" socialism

It is an infringement on free agency, and LDSs have been virtually commanded to protect free agency.

Following is the main paragraph of the first of two letters I sent to Mitt Romney over about a year ago, that may explain my reasons why I believe LDS voters should reject him.

"As a politician, you have a documented history of disdain for certain moral and constitutional principles. You demonstrated opposition to the Boy Scouts policy prohibiting homosexuals from serving as scoutmasters. You promoted homosexual propaganda in Massachusetts schools through the "Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth," funding this bureaucracy of social engineering instead of eliminating it. You advocated governmental recognition of homosexual adoption rights, domestic partnerships and homosexual civil unions. In your 1994 Senate race against Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-MA, you promised a gay GOP group that you would be a stronger advocate for them than Kennedy was. And you promoted and initiated compulsory health insurance for all Massachusetts citizens which forces all MA citizens to purchase health insurance, and contribute via taxes to the cost of health insurance for MA citizens who somebody will consider unable to afford it. This is socialism and deprivation of free agency."

And BTW, we are out of debt. Well, at least the house is paid for and the cars are paid for, but sometimes I think the kids will never be paid for.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Well, sheesh... you make him look really bad, lundie.

But what about the exposure it will give the Church? Maybe that's the point now, since we are clearly into the funnel too far to get ourselves out as far as socialism is concerned. Every election the candidates will be more and more liberal, right? I mean, I don't see the trend reversing itself.

And btw, we're out of debt, too. That's why I picked that particular teaching, rather than say, 100% home/visiting teaching or something.

historian · Senior Member

Coco's accusation of hypocrisy intrigues me. It sounds like she means that only perfect adherence to all the commandments prevents you from being a hypocrite. I'm not there yet, although I am 100% on VT.

I thought that a hypocrite is someone who claims one standard, and does another -- sneaks out behind the barn to smoke or something. Or someone like Romney who claims membership, but will advocate positions in direct opposition to church teachings. I may owe a little money, but I don't encourage others to go out and spend, spend, spend.

Here is something from the Bible Dictionary, but I don't know that it solves anything:
Hypocrite
The word generally denotes one who pretends to be religious when he is not (though it is sometimes used to mean simply a bad man, e.g., Job 8: 13; Job 13: 16; Isa. 9: 17; Isa. 33: 14). Hypocrisy was the besetting sin of the Pharisees, and was severely condemned by the Lord (Matt. 23: 13-33; Mark 12: 38-40; Luke 11: 37-44; Luke 20: 46-47).

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Are you going off the "lousy" question to claim that Romney doesn't believe in revelation?

Maybe it depends on your version of what "pretending to be religious" means... being seen attending Church, etc. when you secretly go behind the barn with your laptop and put more fine-twined linens on your consumer debt.

I didn't realize Romney was encouraging others to denounce revelation.

Alright, I'll give you that no one perfectly keeps all the commandments. I do think, as bok said, we might be holding Romney to a different standard because he's LDS. We will never have a viable candidate that is "righteous" enough - or am I just a pessimist?

arbilad · Head Chef

We need at least some righteousness. The outward evidence is that Romney doesn't even make an attempt.
And his answer to the question is very illustrative, because he was expecting it. Yes, it was a lousy question. But he shouldn't have denied revelation, one of the fundamental cornerstones of the church.
If I go into a job interview, and they ask me what my greatest weakness is, it is up to me to come up with a good answer, even though I think that's a lousy question to ask a job applicant. Still, many people ask it, so I should be prepared with an answer.
Romney knew that question would be asked. And the answer he gave is the answer he prepared.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I am conficent that Mitt Romney knows that God and Christ both spoke to Joseph Smith in 1920. But I am not so sure he realizes that it is the responsibility of Congress to declare war, not that of the president, with or without consultation with lawyers. Or else, like others, he just doesn't care. Full speed ahead and damn the Constitution. His compromises on moral principles while running for the US Senate and as Governor of Massachusetts were egregious. His change of stance on those moral issues I have every right and good reason to assume were made for the sake of his political career.

As disappointed as I am in Mitt Romney, I am far more disappointed in the huge number of LDSs who seem to think that because Romney is LDS, whatever he does will be acceptable and right for the country.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

But what about the spreading the Church thing?

I mean, nearly everyone on the planet would know what the Mormon Church was after a term with him as President. Even if we had a good, constitutional President, what about Congressmen (who declare war) and Senators... they control the drift of the country too, right?

Do you think there could be a different focus now? Maybe I'm a pessimist, like I said, but I don't see how we can really change the trend of the nation at this point - just like we don't hear from a Benson-like GA anymore. Now it's "strong families and food storage" - a different concentration? In fact, the whole Church feels more "global" to me... is it just me? I get that especially with our new First Presidency.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

Re, the spreading the Church thing, there are many members, and I suspect certain General Authorities who seem to believe it is acceptable for certain accomplished entertainers, including ball players, to do their thing on Sundays because they usually draw favourable attention to the Church. 45+ years ago I was told I'd not be worthy of a temple recommend if I competed in my sport on Sundays, even though I was preparing for another try at the US olympic team, and nearly all competition and finals of the trials in my event were scheduled on Sundays.

I apply the same basic standard, perhaps still somewhat grudgingly, to any political office seeker and/or holder. The Lord has given us standards by which to judge them. Included in those standards are the principles of the US Constitution. He has also given us moral principles by which we must judge them. To excuse any LDS politician for violating those principles is out of the question for me. There was IMO one presidential candidate, and there is, IMO, a new presidential candidate, who meet those standards to my satisfaction as best I can determine. At any rate, neither has ever supported homosexual interests, neither has ever demonstrated a propensity to violate any constitutional principle, and neither believes the president has the responsibility to declare war. One of them was alleged to have called the LDS Church a "cult". I don't care what either of them think of the LDS Church. I do care what they think of the US Constitution, and what they have thought all along of such things as homosexuality and abortion.

If a president were to try to adhere strictly to the US Constitution, he might well be assassinated. He would, with the current makeup of Congress, be in constant conflict with it. And that was bad enough when Eisenhower and Reagan were president.

I see our country in deep trouble, rapidly sliding into a socialist dictatorship. I think it is too late to reverse the slide. I think Cocobeam is right that we cannot change the trend of the nation at this point. Our only recourse, or salvation, is strong families and preparedness.

However, and you all must be sick of me pounding on you with the Constitution, but like it or not, several prophets have in past warned that we have apostatized in various ways from the Constitution, and have spoken of that day when the Constitution will be on the very verge of destruction, or when it will "hang, as it were, by a thread".   But, certain prophets and apostles, including Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Melvin J. Ballard, J. Ruben Clark, and Ezra Taft Benson, have testified that the Constitutions role goes beyond just providing a free nation in which the gospel and true Church could be restored to the Earth. The Constitution will become the governing system for the whole world during the Millennium.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

lundbaek wrote:

45+ years ago I was told I'd not be worthy of a temple recommend if I competed in my sport on Sundays, even though I was preparing for another try at the US olympic team, and nearly all competition and finals of the trials in my event were scheduled on Sundays.

Hold the phone! Are you kidding me???

See, in my lowly opinion, I think ole' Steve Young has done more for missionary work and exposure of the Church in general than hundreds of the 19 year olds we send out on a regular basis. We're talking grand scale here, people. Same with Donny Osmond and he never served a mission, either. But come on! You have this talent or skill and no one else in the world has it - I just don't see how you can fault these people one little bit, but I know plenty of people do.

What was your sport, lundie?

I'll tell ya, if my kid has a chance at the Olympic team... well. Never mind.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

My best sport was rowing and sculling. There were times when I really regretted my decision to obey the branch president and give up Sunday competiton, which was all I had available to me. There used to be 70 who used to make a big deal over certain LDS professional atheletes, and in 1985 I wrote him a letter, countersigned by my bishop, that gave him one big piece of my mind. The reply was described by me bishop as "mealey mouthed". It's no big deal now, so many years later.

So what has this got to do with Romney? I twice gave him a nice big piece of my mind, too. One might say I verbally kicked his butt. He might draw a lot of attention to the Church, but he sets a lousy example for those many Church members who might still be trying to figure out what's right and what's wrong in the political arena.

historian · Senior Member

Wow, lundy!

Having given up something precious for moral principle, you have certainly earned the right to speak out for principles.

bokbadok · Senior Bucketkeeper

The Constitution will become the governing system for the whole world during the Millennium.
I've heard this said before, and I often wonder how that fits in with the idea that Christ will personally reign as King on earth during the Millennium, when the Constitution specifically denies monarchy by definition.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Doesn't the BOM say that if the king is righteous, having a king is actually the best way to go...?

dilbert · Senior Member

Sure, but you would have to amend the constitution pretty heavily to change it from what we currently have to a monarchy.

Would there still be a legislature that would pass the laws (as opposed to Christ being the law-giver)? If Jesus Christ vetoed a bill passed by the legislature, could congress override the veto with a 2/3 majority vote? Would there be a supreme court that could decide whether bills signed into law by Christ are constitutional? Would Jesus Christ be up for re-election every 4 years? Would Christ even be eligible to lead our government since he wasn't a natural born citizen of the US?

I just don't see how you could possibly have checks and balances if you have deity at the head of the government.

I'm still trying to reconcile the idea of what has been said about the constitution in the millennium (lundbaek can provide the quote--I'm pretty sure he's posted it on this board before) with the idea that Christ will reign as King during the millennium. I suspect it doesn't mean the obvious.

lundbaek · Profuse Pontificator

I also am confused about how the US Constitution and its principles will apply during the redemption of Zion and the Millennium. Im not concerned about it at the moment, certainly not nearly as much as I am concerned about preserving our nation for the next generation.

In the Priesthood session of the April 1966 General Conference, Elder Marion G. Romney included in his talk the statement "When Zion is redeemed, as it most certainly shall be, it will be redeemed under a government and by a people strictly obeying those "just and holy principles" of the Constitution that accord to men their God-given moral agency, including the right to private property."

And in the dedicatory prayer of the Kirtland Temple Joseph Smith prayed "...may those principles, which were so honourably and nobly defended, namely, the Constitution of our land, by our fathers, be established forever." I assume "forever" includes the Millennium.

In the Journal of Discourses 6: 342 - 347, one can read "The Constitution and the laws of the United States resemble a theocracy more than any other government now on the earth....the kingdom of God will be extended over the earth;....even now the form of the Government of the United States differs but little from that of the kingdom of God....Whoever lives to see the Kingdom of God fully established upon the earth will see a government that will protect every person in his rights,....

Best I can do for now.

DoubleD · Senior Member

. edited to say, what I said wasn't nice, so it's best not to say anything at all.

-- Edited by DoubleD at 22:14, 2008-07-05

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Come on, DD, you can say it. We're just talking here, right? Nobody knows *everything.*