Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

treehugger

If Mitt Romney Nominated, Then What For The Church And Members?

Recommended Posts

IMHO, Romney would have been a great President. I was so disappointed that he lost in 2012. I would have supported him if he had run this time, but paradoxically I am somewhat glad he decided not to do so.

Share this post


Link to post

IMHO, Romney would have been a great President. I was so disappointed that he lost in 2012. I would have supported him if he had run this time, but paradoxically I am somewhat glad he decided not to do so.

 

Why? because he said "I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that" 

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2015/01/22/mitt-romney-climate-change/%C2'>

Share this post


Link to post

In Canada,prostitution is legal,but,a prostitute cannot advertise,solicit,or run a bawdy house. Such is the weirdness of the law.

In other words, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." ;)  (I should clue in any MD&DB Denizens who are from that Great, White, Vast Expanse of Northern Land Known as Canada (and elsewhere): "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was a policy initiated by U.S. President William Jefferson "Call Me Bill" Clinton regarding the service of gays in the U.S. Military.  Before the Obama Administration did away with it, the policy was that military powers-that-were would not ask regarding a service member's sexual orientation, while the service member would not volunteer such information.)

Share this post


Link to post

Why? because he said "I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that" 

 

There's not a politician/officeholder alive with whom I agree about absolutely everything.  (You've heard the old saying, "If two people are of exactly the same mind on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary"? ;):D)

 

P.S. And I know what you're saying.  Why anybody doesn't think President Obama is The Bee's Knees is beyond me.  Personally, I wish we would amend the Constitution to give the man a few more terms. 

Share this post


Link to post

There's not a politician/officeholder alive with whom I agree about absolutely everything.  (You've heard the old saying, "If two people are of exactly the same mind on absolutely everything, one of them is unnecessary"? ;):D)

 

P.S. And I know what you're saying.  Why anybody doesn't think President Obama is The Bee's Knees is beyond me.  Personally, I wish we would amend the Constitution to give the man a few more terms. 

 

So you do not agree with Climate Science and the evidence.

Romney also said, "many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it"

 

Do you agree with the church manuals? 

 

"Some employers are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should." 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

Share this post


Link to post

My reading of Stargazer's comment was that his relief had nothing to do with Romney himself (whom he said he would vote for) but rather the obsessive media focus on LDS, all the bizarre conversations with politicians and talking heads debating if Mormons are Christians and whether or not a Mormon could ever be President, etc.

But that may be me projecting.

Share this post


Link to post

"There is a tide in the affairs of men which, taken at the flood ..."

According to some pundits the US needs a new face and new blood , like a Clinton or a Bush.

Share this post


Link to post

Why? because he said "I’m one of those Republicans who thinks we are getting warmer and that we contribute to that"

No, because I thought he would have run the government better than the current incumbent. I hope that I am entitled to believe this, Free Thinker.

It happens that my approval of Romney has nothing to do with any one particular utterance he has made. It is the overall package. And I am not going to argue with anyone over it, because it's pointless now.

And as to global warming / climate change, it's reasonable to suppose that humans contribute to it to some degree or another. I differ from those who are hyperventilating about it, however, because I doubt there's much we can do to stop it, because I don't believe that we cause 100% of the problem.

Share this post


Link to post

So you do not agree with Climate Science and the evidence.

Romney also said, "many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it"

 

Do you agree with the church manuals? 

 

"Some employers are not fair to their employees; they pay them less than they should." 

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-31-honesty?lang=eng

This was not directed at me, but I just thought I'd chime in anyway.

I am not convinced that Church manuals are faultless and contain only true facts and statements. I believe that they are largely correct, but not infallible.

It is very likely that some employers underpay their employees. And some overpay them. And some pay them just right. So what?

It happens that I don't believe in a government-mandated minimum wage. But if we have a minimum wage, then it ought to be indexed to inflation.

Share this post


Link to post

My reading of Stargazer's comment was that his relief had nothing to do with Romney himself (whom he said he would vote for) but rather the obsessive media focus on LDS, all the bizarre conversations with politicians and talking heads debating if Mormons are Christians and whether or not a Mormon could ever be President, etc.

But that may be me projecting.

Actually, no. My relief concerning Romney not running this time is due to the feeling that the electorate would welcome a younger, fresher face as the Republican candidate. Having lost in the General Election once, I believe that he would be seen as "damaged goods", and thus his participation in the primary process would be somewhat devisive.

As to Romney attracting attention to the Church, well, what's not to like about that?

Edited to fix a confusing sentence

Share this post


Link to post

Why? Did you do your own scientific research like them? Do you have scientific papers? 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPPkmuHdN8Y

Guess what? I'm not going to discuss this subject with you. At the very least it is off-topic for the OP.

Share this post


Link to post

Why? Did you do your own scientific research like them? Do you have scientific papers?

OK, I will relent to the extent of inviting you to read my blog post on the subject, in case you're interested on what I think. It is here:

http://cyberherbalist.wordpress.com/2014/03/19/were-all-going-to-die-warm-up/

But we shouldn't be bloviating about it here in this topic.

Share this post


Link to post

Mormon Free Thinker,

 

I can't do better than Stargazer's response.  It echoes my thoughts nearly perfectly:

No, because I thought he would have run the government better than the current incumbent. I hope that I am entitled to believe this, Free Thinker.

It happens that my approval of Romney has nothing to do with any one particular utterance he has made. It is the overall package. And I am not going to argue with anyone over it, because it's pointless now.

And as to global warming / climate change, it's reasonable to suppose that humans contribute to it to some degree or another. I differ from those who are hyperventilating about it, however, because I doubt there's much we can do to stop it, because I don't believe that we cause 100% of the problem.

 

Here, too:

 

It happens that I don't believe in a government-mandated minimum wage. But if we have a minimum wage, then it ought to be indexed to inflation. 

 

Share this post


Link to post

"Let's deal with poverty," -- Mitt Romney, that is a Christian LDS attitude 

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/romney-says-leaders-both-parties-072505615.html

 

I am opposed to dealing with poverty.  Problem is, I have difficulty finding a viable potential presidential candidate whose goes around saying:  “Let’s not deal with poverty.”  

 

In fairness, at least Romney has a track record of actually having some success in dealing with poverty.  

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By HappyJackWagon
      I've been hearing rumors since the last conference that there will be some significant changes to the ways we experience and worship in the temple. Most significantly I'm hearing that there is an effort afoot to shorten the endowment to help reduce the logjam of names. As we know, a person (or group) can go to the temple and be baptized for 150 people within the same time it takes a person to do 1 endowment. I've long wondered about this discrepancy and how it could easily cause an imbalance in temple work. I've seen temples limit the number of baptisms one person could do. For a while on youth trips each youth was limited to just 5 names even though we had time to do more. So it would make sense to me to somehow shorten the endowment. Changes have been made before so I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.
      With that general background, I'm also hearing that Pres. Nelson wants temple worship to be his legacy. For that to be the case I would suspect some significant changes would be needed, else why would it be "his" legacy. He is definitely a mover and a shaker, making things happen quickly so I think it fits his personality to move with changes he may have been considering for many years. In general I enjoy his ambition and determination to make things happen.
      I'm also hearing about mandatory meetings in early January for all temple workers where supposedly they will be informed of these changes so they can be prepared. Perhaps January meetings for all temple workers is a totally normal thing (I don't know as I've only ever served as a veil worker).
      So, it makes sense to me that changes could come, as early as the next few weeks. So I've got a couple of questions.
      1- Would you welcome changes to the length of time it takes to perform temple ordinances? (I call these efficiency changes)
      2- Is the family history/temple approval system adequate for temple work to move forward in a faster way? IOW- will there be enough names (without duplication) to keep up a faster pace?
      3- Are there other changes (besides efficiency) that you might expect to see?
      *Please keep the discussion respectful, both to each other and also to the temple rituals. There are a couple of specific items/topics regarding temple worship that shouldn't be discussed.
    • By nuclearfuels
      With all the new Temples being announced and my excitement builds at attending the dedications of said Temples, can the experts on this forum and the Journal of Discourse experts comment as to a future Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Temple on Mount Horeb (Moses and the Burning Bush site)? Perhaps during the Millennium?
    • By SettingDogStar
      The First Endowment was administered in the Upper Room of the Red Brick Store in Nauvoo. The room is not very big and Joseph said that he spent the day giving all the different "..washings, anointings, endowments and the communication of keys pertaining to the Aaronic Priesthood, and so on to the highest order of the Melchizedek Priesthood, setting forth the order pertaining to the Ancient of Days, and all those plans and principles by which any one is enabled to secure the fullness of those blessings.."
      My question was how they would have been able to arrange the room to match the temple layout? What else do you think Joseph included that Brigham Young eventually cut/rearranged in the Nauvoo temple and in later arrangements of the endowment?
      I can't find Josephs original plans for the layout of the Nauvoo floors. However from the ones I can find it doesn't seem to include the rooms that were built in later temples like St. George and Salt Lake. When the Nauvoo temple was finished they hung curtains to section off the different portions of the endowment but I feel like Joseph would have specific rooms built for that purpose? Or no?
      Just curious on your thoughts!!
    • By Cyclingmom
      I’m just wanting some dialogue on something I think about often. I’m active in the LDS church. I believe that it teaches good pronciples and I believe in Christ. I believe families are forever. What I have a hard time with is believing families are only forever IF certain rituals are done in an LDS temple. My heart and mind can’t quite wrap around any possible reason for that....but I’ve tried to have faith. The problem is; it’s the BASIS of our religion. “Families can be together forever”, and “go to the temple”  are pounded in us. But (for example) when a very righteous non LDS friend whose husband has died tells me she knows she will be with her husband again, and sees no reason why some ritual would need to be done....one that she can’t even do now until she’s dead....I tend to agree with her! Did Christ teach that at all? It seems to me that He would have taught us about sealing to a spouse, etc. if that were the bottom line. There are so many examples in life where the ideals we are taught just can’t work out. Blended families, deaths, etc. So, yeah....I do have faith that it will all work out in heaven and that maybe we just don’t have all the understanding needed. BUT shouldn’t we have a logical reason with the minds God gave us? I can’t see it. I want to but I can’t. 
    • By nuclearfuels
      So in the Primary class I teach, my coteacher is incredible and brings video clips from a Jewish film library.
      Last Sunday we learned about Solomon's Temple, which imitated the Tabernacle Moses built, and Moses' Temple imitated/represented the actual, physical Garden of Eden with the Tree of eternal life being up on top of a hill and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil being lower than the hill, according to Jewish scholarship.
      Was the Garden of Eden a Temple? A representation of mortality, condensed?
      Hoping Robert Smith will weigh in on this.
       
       
×
×
  • Create New...