Romney's past as an LDS Bishop

i like how romney calls himself a pastor in the videos... when in the LDS community there is NO SUCH TITLE.

he uses it only to seem more christian.

or they say 'missionary friend' instead of MISSIONARY COMPANION. those LDS terms just don't seem christian enough, eh mitt?

 

I think you mean to say "mainstream" when you say "Christian".

The Catholic church is Christian, but I don't believe they technically have pastors (I could be wrong..?). Since the term pastor can be found in scripture, it can be used synonymously in the LDS church.

Anyway, I think I've spoken my peace in this thread. Peace out.

 

I think it is certainly valid - despite the fact that you view it is pop religion 101.

The facts are that this is a religion that was born from a con man, Joseph Smith, in New York in the early 19th century. The origins are American-centric in that they held ludicrous beliefs such as Missouri being the original garden of Eden.

This man told people an angel directed him to secret buried golden plates that only he could translate; and indeed only he could see.

The only difference between this and David Koresh is that Joseph Smith managed to run as far as Illinois before he was killed.

These are creations of man, not God. I respect the right for all to believe as they wish but that will never change the fact that this religion is relatively modern in creation and its origins are without doubt are of terrestrial origins.

You cannot believe in a faith while simultaneously sweeping its origins under the rug.

 

It doesn't have to be sinister. People don't know how the Mormon church works, so they'll be confused if he calls himself a bishop. If it wasn't for the explanation in this thread about the role of the bishop, I would not have known either. So, it could simply be a translation of Mormon-speak to something non-Mormons can understand. I'd have probably done something like, "when I was an LDS bishop -- which is like a pastor in a Protestant church -- I..." but I think it's a leap to say it's an attempt at deception.

 

It is intelligent politics to portray his religion in familiar Christian terms. If people start discussing the origins, historical beliefs and some of the present absurdities associated with Mormonism then it will be a difficult road to win full support from the Evangelicals.

Fortunately for Romney the Evangelical vote is not as decisive a factor as in previous elections and most of them would not vote for a black man or a democrat no matter who was running on the Republican ticket.

 

I'm not a Mormon, but this is a very disrespectful post to those who are.

 

If I recall correctly, Obama only spent four years as an attorney and was marginally involved in about 30 civil rights cases. He mainly served as a researcher and writer.

I love the fact that he has been criticizing Romney for have no foreign relations experience when Obama himself had zero, zippo, zilch. He was on the foreign relations committee in the Senate for barely two years, most of that spent campaigning for President. Because of his Olympic experience, Romney is far more seasoned as a diplomat than Obama ever thought of being.

As far as Obama's constitutional law professorship, I scoff at his "achievements." Most TA's have more experience teaching.

Did you see that teary eyed woman who spoke of Romney's personal humanity at the GOP convention? His campaign generallydoesn't use those kinds of information because he believes service is expected of him and so he does not think twice about it. On the other hand, if Obama shakes someone's hand, he wants the world how magnanimous he is and demands congratulations for being Obama.

 

I tell you what, when we need someone to greet the Jamacain bobsled team then we can send Romney.

 

In getting the Salt Lake Olympics back on track, Romney had experience negotiating with actual and ranking leaders of 120 nations. That was some tough sledding and he did it without a slip or a slide.

 

Aaaaaaaaaalll riiiighty theeeeen.

 

He also used over 1.5 billion in taxpayer dollars.

"No matter how well we did cutting costs and raising revenue, we couldn't have Games without the support of the federal government"

-- Mitt Romney

 

The country isn't a business and it's not an event to be choreographed. What you believe in and who you are matters when you're running a country.

 

It's too bad Romney isn't running against the Obama of 4 years ago and you could make the argument he has a foreign relations advantage. But, now Obama is going on 4 years as President of the United States, which is some pretty heavy experience to put on your resume as far as foreign relations goes. Talking to foreign functionaries about a big athletic competition seems downright paltry by comparison.

I'm glad Romney isn't a complete noob in case he somehow becomes president, but forgetting Obama's incumbency for the sake of this argument looks like a rationalization.

 

They are facts.

If a religion cannot stand up against the scrutiny of objective evaluation then it may be disrespectful under current standards but I make no apologies for the analysis.

The facts are:

Mormons believe that nothing on the planet died previous to 6,000 years ago.

Mormon teachings indicate that God punished people by making their skin dark, and conversely rewarded those who deserved it by turning their skin light.

Mormon teachings believe that hot drinks are bad and that strong drinks should be bathed in and not imbibed.

They believe Jesus walked around in America and the garden of Eden was in Missouri.

Mormon's believe there are three heavens; Celestial, Terrestrial and Telestial.

It is taught in the Book of Mormon that North and South America was populated by a civilized race for thousands of years previous to Columbus. This race had ships, horses, elephants, cattle, etc. These people, it is taught, are descendents from the cradle of civilization - even though DNA and archeology proves that this information is not factual it is still taught and believed to be true.

I could go on about the magic plates, the *facts* that Smith was hunting for buried treasure and magic stones at the time he later claimed to have his first vision, polygamy, the racist nature of the church which lasted until 1978, the spilling of blood as atonement for the most extreme sins, the modified nature of the church's beliefs in order to whitewash their past and try to align more closely with facts/science, Joseph Smith's attempt to run for president and crown himself "King of the Kingdom of God" after implementing his secret government, the planet Kolob, etc.

I sincerely apologize of these facts are inconvenient or offensive - but they are still facts.

 

And yet Obama steps in his own poop every other step -- from offending Netanyahu to his "open microphone" moments, from the non-assistance for Iranian rebels to the non-assistance for the Syrian rebels, from his apology tour to his negotiations with the Chinese. And don't forget the White House leaks in an attempt to make himself look good.

 

Government, regardless of ideology, actually is a business. It collects revenue and spends it according to the board of directors (Congress). It wages (economic) war and occasionally resorts to hostile takeovers and oversees to one degree of another the well-being of its stockholders, aka citizens. The comparisons are almost endless. The leaders represent the whole range of diversity regarding corporate ethics from greed to altruism.

 

You are an idiot.

Bush: "I'm not that concerned about [Bin Laden]"

Romney: "I wouldn't move heaven and earth [to get Bin Laden]" He was also explicit, as was Hillary, that he would not enter Pakistan on a Bin Laden-finding mission without the permission of the Pakistani government.

Obama: "I can now report that Osama Bin Laden is dead."

Obama didn't have much foreign policy experience before becoming president, it's true. But he had the judgment, which virtually no one else that ever ran for president did, to oppose the colossal flop of the Iraq war FROM THE START, at a time at which it was very unpopular to do so, and extremely dangerous to his chances at election to the Senate. Most everyone was dead wrong; he got it right.

And he made getting Bin Laden his top foreign policy dictate. He gathered intelligence and defense bosses and said, this is my priority. Get Bin Laden at all costs. And he did it.

He also got Qaddafi and helped to broker a peaceful transfer of power in the powder keg of Egypt.

He has been the most effective C-in-C at least since Reagan helped to end the Cold War and he made a more gutsy decision on Bin Laden (see: Republican Defense Sec'y Cohen who served in several admins including W's and called it the riskiest and gutsiest decision by a president that he had ever witnessed) than any since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

You pick on him for small and petty missteps, which every president has.

You ignore his major achievements like bringing to justice the man behind the first major domestic attack on our country since Pearl Harbor. The man that neither Bush nor Romney thought it was important to bring to justice and, when Obama did, Romney/Limbaugh inc. tried to take it away from him with "anybody could have done that" and "he didn't do that, the Seals did." That's like saying people don't kill people, guns kill people.

You are so far up your own ass in your tea party fantasy world that you'd vote for the Devil himself before acknowledging but one of Obama's incredible achievements, particularly in foreign policy.

Most Americans are not as stupid as you. That is why, for the first time in decades, all the polls show that Democrats are favored in the area of national security and defense.

 

p.s. Didn't include this since it ought to go without saying, but while American troops were being shot at in Afghanistan, Romney did not mention them once in his acceptance speech. When pushed on it, he said he decided instead to talk about "important" things.

We are presently witnessing the historic transfer of foreign policy advantage from the GOP to the Democrats.

That is all Obama (with an enormous assist from the tin-eared Romney).

 

You can pick any president and find somebody with a laundry-list of faux pas they've committed. Even if Obama was unusual in this aspect, that'd be a question of judgement or skill and not really the same conversation anymore that we had been having about foreign relations experience. If he was dumb as a doorpost, it wouldn't negate the fact that Obama has experience that basically can't be duplicated outside of the presidency. That doesn't mean everyone should vote for him; McCain had more foreign policy experience 4 years ago than Obama did and I went with Obama anyway. It just means the argument that one candidate has more experience than the incumbent did 4 years ago isn't valid. What was true 4 years ago is no longer true.

As for his actual performance in foreign relations over the last 4 years, I've gotten a diametrically opposite impression. I've been pretty happy with most of the decisions he's made in the international sphere. You're not for whatever reason, and that's fine. Just don't pretend he hasn't been there.