Romney asked if Salt Lake will influence him.

[_Jason Bourne]

You may choose to believe that two conservative Republicans would honestly approve of the federal government's interference in people's religion. I say this kind of inconsistency calls for inquiry into their motive. I provided you with the most obvious motivation for doing so. I don't think it takes cynicism to call this for what it is.

You may indeed be right. But your conclusion is based on suppisition only, and a cynical view. Nothing more.

I am blind because I conclude differently then you. I see.

It seems to me that you are obstinate, and that in your obstinacy you choose to play blind. Very punny, by the way.

I doubt I am any more obstinate then others such as yourself when you have a strong opinion.

I am sorry. I recall one. Can you enlighten me on the other?

I'll let you do your own work on that. Go back and think carefully about our exchange. Hold your hand in front of you and every time you see me point to what I accept as evidence, extend a finger. Count the total number of fingers when you reach the last piece of evidence.

Cute. I guess you think you are witty. I asked politely for you to point out what I missed. Would it have been that tough?

By the way, as an aside, every President for many years have had Billy Graham in to Chat and consult with them, Do you think if Romney were President and he invited Gordon Hinckley to the white house for a fireside chat that would be acceptable?

Oh, so you see the two as comparable. That's interesting. I do not. I think it would be singularly unwise for Romney to invite Hinckley down to Washington to confer with him. I hope he never has the opportunity to do so.

I am sure he will not because of the bigotry that so many still hold for Mormons. It is totally acceptable and quite fashionable currently.

You may believe that everything is OK today, and that Americans have no reason to be wary of a Mormon president. The real question is this: has the LDS Church done enough to convince others that there is nothing to fear? I don't think they have, and until they do, I don't think they will secure the trust of the nation. Personally, I think there are enough red flags to disqualify (implicitly) Romney from the presidency.

I simply disagree with you. I think much of this is based in your own knee jerk reaction. Others it may be based in bigotry. Since this is a republic don't vote for him if you are worried. Personally, I think out of the three top runners for the republicans he is the best choice. There are two others I like as well or better. Mike Hukabee would be great. And there is a Democrat that I would support over them all-Tom Richardson, but since Hillary is anointed queen he has no chance. And there is no way I will vote for Clinton.

[_Jason Bourne]

"No president could possibly take orders or even input from religious leaders telling him what to do,'' Romney, a Mormon, said today on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' program. ``My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to our nation.''

Sounds to me as if Mitt just broke one or two of his temple covenants. Wonder if his bishop will call him in for a talk ....

I see nothing in the temple covenants that require anyone to obey every word about every issue from the LDS prophet. I usually find what you say intelligent Rollo and agree with you often. I find neither in this comment.

[_Jason Bourne]

I hate to make a political plug, but I like Dennis Kucinich. Unfortunately, I doubt he has a chance, which is really too bad. He would totally rock as a president, IMHO.

Kucinech is a left wing wacko idiot whose ideas are so far left that he could be chummy with Fidel. One wonders how he was ever elected a mayor let alone a congressmen. One would think the trouncing he had in his previous run would have encouaraged him to stay home and not further embarrass himself.

And Romney is a flip-flopping jackass, nothing more.

No he is not. He has modified some positions like all politicians do at times. Study your history on this. Some of the greatest presidents ever have modifies views. Why is a politician locked into one position forever. Ronald Reagan was a democrat that became a republican and a conservative one at that.

Not only do I disagree with his views, but I have no guarantee that he's not going to switch them to something even more stupid once he becomes president. That alone would make me suspicious of anyone.

Disagreeing with his views is a fine reason not to support him. I happen to agree with most of his views thus he has my support.

Of course, knowing what covenants he has made in the temple doesn't help much, either.

And this is religious bigotry and knee jerk.

[_Trevor]

But your conclusion is based on suppisition only, and a cynical view.

My suspicion is based on a reasonable inference, which just about anyone who knows the context of Mormon efforts to fight gay marriage would reach. This is, after all, the organization that has committed millions of dollars and its own "expert" witnesses in the fight against gay marriage in court. This is the same organization that made its position on the issue quite public.

Cute. I guess you think you are witty. I asked politely for you to point out what I missed. Would it have been that tough?

If you can't muster the effort to look through this thread closely, what should we make of the care which you exercise in other matters of evidence?

I am sure he will not because of the bigotry that so many still hold for Mormons. It is totally acceptable and quite fashionable currently.

Yes, Jason, all that matters is that you hold the moral high ground. In the meantime, while Romney loses, the LDS can continue to wallow in mantras of persecution and bigotry when they could have done something productive to earn people's trust. Since their arrogance won't allow them to do such things, they will continue in this self-defeating, vicious cycle of moral superiority and failure.

I simply disagree with you. I think much of this is based in your own knee jerk reaction. Others it may be based in bigotry. Since this is a republic don't vote for him if you are worried. Personally, I think out of the three top runners for the republicans he is the best choice. There are two others I like as well or better. Mike Hukabee would be great. And there is a Democrat that I would support over them all-Tom Richardson, but since Hillary is anointed queen he has no chance. And there is no way I will vote for Clinton.

Well, Jason, you are simply wrong. You want to see in my words a simple, knee-jerk reaction. They are not. Since when does a lifetime interaction with Mormonism, and thoughtful, even scholarly consideration of the subject manifest itself in knee-jerk reactions? So all of that living, reading, and studying counts for nothing?

As for your personal political decisions, they sound reasonable. Overall, you seem like a thoughtful, intelligent, reasonable person. I am fine with you not agreeing with me on why others might fear a Romney presidency. It could be that my egghead historical concerns ultimately mean nothing, but I want to give other people just a wee bit more credit when they distrust the notion of a Mormon in the Oval Office. It could be, however, that it is simple bigotry.

I am still interested in the source of that bigotry, which as a word does not, in my opinion, contain its own answers. I want to look beyond theological answers to the problem to find historical answers.

[_Jason Bourne]

Cute. I guess you think you are witty. I asked politely for you to point out what I missed. Would it have been that tough?

If you can't muster the effort to look through this thread closely, what should we make of the care which you exercise in other matters of evidence?

Ok. No big deal really. I am not that invested in message boards. They are a pass time. If you want to conclude that because of this I have sloppy research skille elsewhere I really do not care. Interestingly though, in the time you typed this and the other snotty reply you could have reiterated the point I did not recall. Whatever.

I am sure he will not because of the bigotry that so many still hold for Mormons. It is totally acceptable and quite fashionable currently.

Yes, Jason, all that matters is that you hold the moral high ground.

I did not say you are a bigot. In fact I do not think you are. You have given your reasons. I am fine with that. However you are naïve if you do not think there are many that do not like Romney just because he is Mormon. Political analysist Dick Morris points this out all the time.

In the meantime, while Romney loses, the LDS can continue to wallow in mantras of persecution and bigotry when they could have done something productive to earn people's trust

.

I do not have any persecution complex at all. But if Romney losses in part it will be because of religious intolerance and boigotry. Do you really deny this?

Since their arrogance won't allow them to do such things, they will continue in this self-defeating, vicious cycle of moral superiority and failure.

Most likely you are correct for the vast majority of TBMs.

I simply disagree with you. I think much of this is based in your own knee jerk reaction. Others it may be based in bigotry. Since this is a republic don't vote for him if you are worried. Personally, I think out of the three top runners for the republicans he is the best choice. There are two others I like as well or better. Mike Hukabee would be great. And there is a Democrat that I would support over them all-Tom Richardson, but since Hillary is anointed queen he has no chance. And there is no way I will vote for Clinton.

Well, Jason, you are simply wrong. You want to see in my words a simple, knee-jerk reaction. They are not. Since when does a lifetime interaction with Mormonism, and thoughtful, even scholarly consideration of the subject manifest itself in knee-jerk reactions? So all of that living, reading, and studying counts for nothing?

I will concede that to say your reactions were knee jerk was not accurate. My apologies.

[_harmony]

If Romney wins the nomination, it will be more or less because the other candidates killed themselves off. But will he really be handed a mandate for his ideas, or will he be elected simply because the country is not willing to elect a woman to be president?

[_Trevor]

Ok. No big deal really. I am not that invested in message boards. They are a pass time. If you want to conclude that because of this I have sloppy research skille elsewhere I really do not care. Interestingly though, in the time you typed this and the other snotty reply you could have reiterated the point I did not recall. Whatever.

Evidences:

1. Romney and Hatch, at the same time, approve of government meddling in polygamy in the 19th century.

2. Dushku witness to Romney running his pro-choice platform past the Brethren.

However you are naïve if you do not think there are many that do not like Romney just because he is Mormon. Political analysist Dick Morris points this out all the time.

Of course there are a good number of people who would not vote for Romney because he his Mormon. It is fair to say that many of them are motivated by bigotry.

I do not have any persecution complex at all. But if Romney losses in part it will be because of religious intolerance and boigotry. Do you really deny this?

I believe you when you say you do not have a persecution complex, but you may have a soft spot for the underdog whom you believe is being unfairly treated. Undoubtedly in this day of razor-thin voter margins bigotry could decide the whole thing.

My apologies.

No big deal. I can be a class A jerk.

[_Jason Bourne]

If Romney wins the nomination, it will be more or less because the other candidates killed themselves off. But will he really be handed a mandate for his ideas, or will he be elected simply because the country is not willing to elect a woman to be president?

People are elected for all sorts of reasons. Bill Clinton did not have a mandate on his first go round. Ross Perot can be thanked for putting him there.

[_Inconceivable]

Jason buddy,

You belong to a church where the leadership teaches the strict doctrine of following the prophet. You do not believe these teachings. Good for you. Neither do I.

No problem here.

Hey I was kind of tough on you in my last post. But my point is really this. The Church may teach follow the prophet. At the same time they teach that you need to get your own answers that what he says it right. Now that can be confusing until one understands that the only correct answer one is supposed to get is that what the prophet ways is right.

Yes I know the mantra-Follow the Brethren- and then you will not go wrong.

No room for me here, Jason, at least while you are in somewhat of a disagreement with yourself.



How about if we try and put Romney's situation into perspective of Mormon reality?

38 What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:38)

Let's suppose Mitt get's a phone call from God's Mouthpeice, the Prophet, Seer and Revelator, Special Witness, the Mind and Will of the Lord, Legal Administrator of All Keys to the Last Dispensation of the Fullness of Times (er.. Gordon B. Hinkley) or in other words, pretty much GOD HIMSELF.

And He asks, "Brother Romney, would you do something for me?":

Answer:

a) crickets chirping.. then a click.
b) "it depends.."
c) "just say the word"
d) "hell no."

Well, what is his record on following the prophet or other leaders for that matter? I'm not sure. I've heard he has held many callings in the church. Has he ever turned one down? I don't know.

I think a question like this is worth asking him, then another to follow that would tenure the statement given (that inspired this thread).

[_Dr. Shades]

People are elected for all sorts of reasons. Bill Clinton did not have a mandate on his first go round. Ross Perot can be thanked for putting him there.

Actually, it's the opposite. Ross Perot can be thanked for George Bush not suffering an even more humiliating loss.