Mitt Romney: No revelation since Moses.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

This is an interesting issue. On one hand, you have a very valid "pearls before swine" concern. On the other hand, if every member a missionary, what better platform than a national media junket to clarify misconceptions about the Church, if only when asked?

I agree that the media's fascination with Mitt's religion is clearly a ploy to trip him up. No different than asking about Rudy's estranged son or his previous failed marriages. All candidates are subject to mud slinging and personal wrangling.

However, have we really had any "pearls before swine" questions so far in this election? I can think of a few that were borderline ridiculous....garments, Jesus and Satan being brothers, secret temple passwords....things like this have no bearing on how Mitt will make his decisions as President.

However, if Mitt rolls out the religion card at any time during his campaign, I dont think it that unfair to ask him directly what role personal revelation or mandates from the Prophet will play while in office. That DOES have a bearing on how he will be President. It goes to the essence of how he makes his decisions.

I am confused why we run from answering some very basic questions that, if asked in a missionary discussion, we would be plenty happy to answer....WoW, revelation, is the Bible the word of God, etc...

I think Mitt could and should take a more firm stand by answering directly these questions. So far, it seems like he has chosen, for the most part, to do the political sidestep when asked most questions about our Church beliefs and practices.

What about when Wallace on 60 minutes asked Romney if he was having sex with his wife prior to their getting married. Talk about behaving like a swine.

Unfortunately for Romney, is that he has to decide on whether to be a missionary for the church during the campaign for the purpose of spreading the gospel or run for the presidency. He will not be able to do both. The more he focuses on answering questions regarding his faith the more media attention will be focused on that and not his political platform. As much as this might fascinate millions of viewers not acquainted with Mormonism a la LDS, it does little to keep voters focus on just what Romney is wanting to do regarding Taxes, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Education, Health Care, etc.

This is why I believe that the pounding since almost two years ago by the media has been his religion, and will continue to be his religion until he either falls out of the race or becomes elected. Even than if he does become POTUS, the religion card will rear its ugly head periodically.

In spite of all this he remains a strong candidate, and the amount of negative press he has garnered is proof that he is the guy to beat right now.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

What about with Wallace on 60 minutes asked Romney if he was having sex with his wife prior to their getting married. Talk about behaving like a swine.

Unfortunately for Romney, is that he has to decide on whether to be a missionary for the church during the campaign for the purpose of spreading the gospel or run for the presidency. He will not be able to do both. The more he focuses on answering questions regarding his faith the more media attention will be focused on that and not his political platform. As much as this might fascinate millions of viewers not acquainted with Mormonism a la LDS, it does little to keep voters focus on just what Romney is wanting to do regarding Taxes, Foreign Policy, Immigration, Education, Health Care, etc.

This is why I believe that the pounding since almost two years ago by the media has been his religion, and will continue to be his religion until he either falls out of the race or becomes elected. Even than if he does become POTUS, the religion card will rear its ugly head periodically.

In spite of all this he remains a strong candidate, and the amount of negative press he has garnered is proof that he is the guy to beat right now.

He is in an awkward position, no question. But I fail to see why that is any excuse at all to actually give false information about the church. If the choice is to be a missionary v. not be a missionary as you claim, then what is it called when you spread false information about your religion? Is there a single active church member other than Romney who would say that there has been no revelation since Moses?

[MikeWaters]

Wow, I will have to remember that, the next time I am asked about the church. I will look at it as only an opportunity for me and the church to be embarrassed.

Nice going Mitt. You are sending a great message to young Mormon kids. "Get what you can get in this world, and don't let the church hold you back.".

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Wow, I will have to remember that, the next time I am asked about the church. I will look at it as only an opportunity for me and the church to be embarrassed.

Nice going Mitt. You are sending a great message to young Mormon kids. "Get what you can get in this world, and don't let the church hold you back.".

How about don't waste your time with journalist that have an ulterior motive, get the job done, become president of the US and be in a position that can really put the church on the media map worldwide.

How many times did I have to answer the how many wives do you have question while living in Sweden. Or better yet, why I had electricity in my home and drove a care, etc.

When I was cutting my teeth early living in Sweden I tended to not waste time on gospel question posed by those I recognized immediately as having ulterior motives regarding their asking. I would be blunt, sometimes I would answer sarcastically so when they talked to others taking what I said at face value, they ended up looking like the idiots they were.

Now given this perspective which I am sure you have employed at least once in your life, and reading this new article, which perspective should I have regarding Romneys comments?

Again I said that context is important to me and I hope it is with you as well as others in this forum as I assume that many here are educated beyond the 8th grade.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He is in an awkward position, no question. But I fail to see why that is any excuse at all to actually give false information about the church. If the choice is to be a missionary v. not be a missionary as you claim, then what is it called when you spread false information about your religion? Is there a single active church member other than Romney who would say that there has been no revelation since Moses?

In the truest politician rhetoric, Romney left himself plenty of wiggle room regarding his comments. You may not like that, and think that he should just blurt it out "...In the Name of Jesus Christ Amen", but honestly some fights are worth having another day.

Even Christ himself used political speech to skate the thin ice of the Pharisees and Sadducee's. How long would he have lasted had he had the biblical equivalent of a national press conference? How long would he have lasted if he had gone amongst the Sanhedrin and stood before them and told them to bow down before their Master the Creator, Their Messiah, The Great Jehovah?

Romney isn't even close to that kind of life and death controversy, and yet he still tries to exercise caution. If he indeed made the comment somewhat off handed in jest, he could have IMO chosen his words a bit more prudently, but hey, he isn't perfect. I am not going to hang him out to dry because he had a hard time with a question that should have never been asked. "Let's see, Moses is highly recognizable to Christian and Jew alike so I'll go with that. Joseph Smith definitely qualifies, but to bring him up would be to open that religious litmus test can of worms that I am trying to avoid since it is

1. unconstitutional, and
2. If I allow it or get sucked into it I will not be able to bring the focus of my candidacy on my politics as the media will turn my faith into a circus that would drown out any value my platform possesses.
3. Even worse it could do allot to harm the issues on freedom of religion that are already in danger outside of the US, such as in Canada where criticisms by religious corners are being punished by the court system.

So I better go with "...and perhaps some others...Yeah sure I know the Holy Ghost communicates to us on the Lords behalf, and that from a spiritual perspective is indicative of speech, but this guy is a hack and wants to stir the pot, so I will keep it on a literal level... No God has not actually ever spoken to me."

It isn't that cut and dried, and to believe so is to be naive. Try living in the mission field for most of your adult life and dealing with this kind of garbage on an almost daily basis.

[MikeWaters]

Let's cut to the chase. He's distanced himself from the church.

This is not shocking.

Does it make a difference that he is a former stake president? I guess it matters if you believe that former SPs are somehow better men and less worldly, etc.

Like I've said before, in many ways, a successful run here by Mitt is the worst thing that could happen to the church. You will see mainstreaming of the church from the church power-structure like no one's business. Declarations of the restoration? Forget about it.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

He is in an awkward position, no question. But I fail to see why that is any excuse at all to actually give false information about the church. If the choice is to be a missionary v. not be a missionary as you claim, then what is it called when you spread false information about your religion? Is there a single active church member other than Romney who would say that there has been no revelation since Moses?

What I find interesting is you have yet to read the full quote, and that you fail to concede that it is taken out of context. I'll post it, or at least another version again for your reading pleasure:

"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?" reporter Natalie Jacobson asks.

Romney laughs and then replies, "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."

It's easy for a rational person to concede that he was laughing at the absurdity of the question ... and that he mispoke a little ... but that his point is HE does not have that "frequent of communication". The statement is consistent with other statements made by Romney on Meet The Press if you would go and read the transcript.

I wonder if the reporter behind the ABC news article will respond? I wonder if we will ever get to read a transcript of the interview?

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let's cut to the chase. He's distanced himself from the church.

This is not shocking.

Does it make a difference that he is a former stake president? I guess it matters if you believe that former SPs are somehow better men and less worldly, etc.

Like I've said before, in many ways, a successful run here by Mitt is the worst thing that could happen to the church. You will see mainstreaming of the church from the church power-structure like no one's business. Declarations of the restoration? Forget about it.

Hyperbole at it's best. FEAR fuels your hope that he won't win the nomination. It frightens you beyond measure that you may have to actually stand up for what you believe and not anonymously here on this board.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

What I find interesting is you have yet to read the full quote, and that you fail to concede that it is taken out of context. I'll post it, or at least another version again for your reading pleasure:

"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?" reporter Natalie Jacobson asks.

Romney laughs and then replies, "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."

It's easy for a rational person to concede that he was laughing at the absurdity of the question ... and that he mispoke a little ... but that his point is HE does not have that "frequent of communication". The statement is consistent with other statements made by Romney on Meet The Press if you would go and read the transcript.

I wonder if the reporter behind the ABC news article will respond? I wonder if we will ever get to read a transcript of the interview?

Curse those complete quotes.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Curse those complete quotes.

Why am I not surprised that you would chime in too. The complete quote has already been posted. It isn't like it changes the fact that Romney essentially disavowed revelation since Moses. He knows for a fact that what he is saying is totally misleading, and he knows he doesn't even believe what he is saying. So what if the "main" point he was making is that he doesn't have frequent communication with God?

And the wiggle room that DJ wants to lean on isn't even helpful for Romney. "Perhaps some others?" Perhaps? That works if you aren't a firm believer in the restoration of the gospel. But he is (or at least says he is), making his statement a blatant lie.

I have no problem with dodging questions on religion. I have no problem with refusing to answer religious questions, or hedging on them. But to outright lie about your religious beliefs suggests to me that he is a person who is willing to say or do anything to get elected, and that is a dangerous man. He has shown himself willing to flip on any given political issue; now he has shown himself willing to flip on religious issues as well.

All of DJ's rationales given are excuses for not talking about religion at all. Mitt chose to discuss religion, so those excuses are bunk in this example.