When the news of Mitt Romney's Florida video broke on Monday evening, I was incensed -- but not for its political implications. His arrogant and out-of-hand dismissal of half the population of this country struck me at a visceral level, for it sullied the religion that he and I share -- the religion for which five generations of my ancestry have lived and sacrificed, the religion whose official mantra is "to take care of the poor and needy throughout the world." My first impulse was to rent an airplane towing a banner: "Mitt Romney is Not the Face of Mormonism!"
I was a supporter of Romney 1.0. That was in late 2007, when we had far more in common. We are both Mormons and we both served foreign missions for our church at the same time, he in France and I in Brazil. Some of my best friends had been some of his best friends for decades. Although I am a registered Democrat, his accomplishments as Governor of Massachusetts appealed to me. I contributed the maximum amount to his early presidential primary bid.
I also became an emissary to him, presenting what I felt was an attractive proposition. Helen Whitney, who had recently completed a four-hour PBS documentary, "The Mormons," was also intrigued with Romney, enough that she asked that I propose to him one hour of national coverage on PBS if he would allow her to interview him only about his religion.
"It's a good religion," she said to me, "but he is hiding from it. He needs to own it."
I delivered the proposal in person. He declined, stating that he and his advisors had concluded that the issue of his religion would simply go away. It didn't, but his candidacy did.
Early in 2008, to my dismay, Romney 1.0 became Romney 2.0 by moving far enough to the right to lose my support. He has kept moving ever farther to the right. He has made this move in a successful attempt to gain the nomination, and in an ongoing attempt to persuade no more than 53 percent of the country that he should be the next President.
The issue of Romney's Mormon faith has never gone away, although its presence has waxed and waned as other issues have come and gone. How -- or if -- he chooses to use his religion as part of his public biography is up to him, but the fact that he is the only Mormon ever to be the nominee for the Presidency of a major political party makes it inevitable that even if people do not judge him because of his religion, they will judge his religion because of him. Given the unfolding news of this week, I regret to say that Mitt Romney is not the face of Mormonism.
Romney 1.0 was that face. Having been a missionary myself, I know the formative power of two years of missionary service. Having served as an assistant to one bishop and four stake presidents -- and Romney served as bishop and stake president -- I know the even greater formative power of those offices. I understand completely what his father George meant when he said, "I am completely the product of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." That face of Mormonism is the one that calls on some of its members, particularly bishops and stake presidents, to devote as many hours gratis to their church jobs as they do to their professional jobs. It is the one that summons up extraordinary acts of love, compassion and generosity, often in response to the deepest tragedies of life -- and death.
But it is not the one that dismisses out-of-hand half the population of the United States by saying, "My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." As a bishop and stake president, Romney worried about those very people. Indeed, he worried far more about them, and spent far more time and means in assisting them, than the others in his flock who were more fortunate.
The very basis of Mormon community, stretching back to the earliest years of Mormonism nearly two centuries ago, is that the more able have a sacred obligation to assist the less able. That sense of physical community was institutionalized in the Church's Welfare Program, which sprang out of the Great Depression as an exemplary and effective means of combining church and government assistance not only to give to those in need, but also to help them to help themselves. Any who have visited Welfare Square in Salt Lake City, as did the producers of a recent "Rock Center" documentary on MSNBC, cannot help but be impressed with what we have attempted, for over seven decades, to accomplish through what is now an international network of church facilities and volunteers.
Judge Mitt Romney as you will, and vote for or against him as you will; but do not judge Mormonism on the basis of the Mitt Romney that was unveiled to the public this week. He is not the face of Mormonism.
Rev. Joanna Harader: Principles for Being an Offensive Christian
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Mitt Romney has been Mitt Romney for a long time. While the 47% comments were unearthed just recently, his business practices and politics have been around for years. All of his business dealings are still not known, but for what is known, he has practiced the art of deception and has pilfered, pillaged and plundered for riches for years while hurting individuals and families, in the name of being industrious and personal enrichment.
So if the 47% comments had not come to light, should the deceptive face that Romney showed be viewed as the face of the Mormon church? Is this really a matter of his personal qualities and character, or is it also in part the culture and expectation of Romney's church? If it's not a matter of the church, perhaps his church should address the divergence between their stand and his.
---------------------------------------------------->
As Christians the scriptures clearly tells us that we are "ambassadors." We are representatives of Christ. We will be known by our fruit. Consequently our deportment or comportment is important, because others will judge us by what they see, and may be impeded from seeing Christ in us because of how we act.
If how Mormons carry themselves is as important as it is to Christians, then Romney talks the talk, but his business dealings and politics undermine his religious values and make him look like a hypocrite.
But I fully support Mitt Romney today.
I don't like his stand on immigration - the only issue on which I am an extreme liberal. His stand on that coincides with the views of much of the GOP base - and way too many members of the LDS church.
Being a Republican or a Mormon doesn't mean you are right all the time.
Mitt Romney's taped comments in May in Florida have been grossly distorted by Democrats and the liberal media. When he asserted that it was not his job to worry about the 47 percent, he was not taking about his job should he be President. He was talking about his job as a candidate. He was indicating that he knew he had to direct his campaign effort toward other groups.
Governor Romney was not running as the face of the Mormon church in 2008. And he is not doing so today. But he is a lot closer to Mormon teaching than is Harry Reid - who clearly is an embarrassment for most Latter Day Saints.
http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/video/ann-romney-part-1-9-25-12/1418674?auto=true
Prince is biased. So is Ann. Anyways, just for balance we might listen to the woman that's been married to him for decades. Mitt has been a man of service and compassion where the rubber meets the road...person to person. Wouldn't you think that this attribute of compassion would translate into his goals for the country and looking out for everyone, including the "47%" he referred to?
Prince was basing his analysis on Romney's statements, which have frequently been that he does not care about the poor in this country, because among other things, they "won't vote for him" or "already have safety nets".
His wife certainly should see a side of him that the public doesn't, but her agenda is also to help him get elected.
Also, Romney donates 30% of is income to charity because he hates poor people.
http://www.ldsphilanthropies.org/humanitarian-services/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/edwindurgy/2012/05/17/an-inside-look-at-the-millions-mitt-romney-has-given-away/
- A belief in personal responsibility and individual accountability.
- A belief in the obligation and ability of communities, families, and private organizations (rather than government) to make a better world and help the poor.
Where is Dr. Prince in denouncing Harry Reid's very public shaming of his religion? Mormons are taught to not bear false witness--Harry Reid has been embroiled in ethical controversy after ethical controversy (including his whopper of a tax claim) since he's held public office. Mormons are supposed to be kind to others--but Harry Reid is one of the nastiest people in Washington. You could say he's just doing his job and that's separate from his religion, but how is that different from Romney? You could also say that Romney's no better, but again, Dr. Prince is denouncing only Romney. The fact that he doesn't touch Reid tells me his interest isn't in protecting the integrity of his religion but in scoring partisan points. That's fine, but please cut the pious crap about concern for the public face of Mormonism.
A couple of additional thoughts specifically for my LDS brethren who can't grasp Brother Prince's points:
D&C 49:20--"But it is not given that one man should possess that which is above another, wherefore the world lieth in sin." Don't like that? Take it up with God. He said it.
And this from the great teacher King Benjamin, quoted from Mosiah chapter 4 in the Book of Mormon:
"17 Perhaps thou shalt say: The man has brought upon himself his misery; therefore I will stay my hand, and will not give unto him of my food, nor impart unto him of my substance that he may not suffer, for his punishments are just—
18 But I say unto you, O man, whosoever doeth this the same hath great cause to repent; and except he repenteth of that which he hath done he perisheth forever, and hath no interest in the kingdom of God.
19 For behold, are we not all beggars?"
Sounds pretty clear to me.
I promise you, because of your article a good number of non-active LDS members will remain that way, some active members will not remain in the Church, and some investigators will stay away from the Church entirely. If your intent was otherwise, it has backfired. It has caused a great peal of laughter and mockery from those in that "great and spacious building". Haven't you read their comments here?
You, sir, have made a grave mistake by publishing this article. I respect your right to not support Mr. Romney politically, but you have attacked him on a religious level in front of the world and the division you have caused is a mockery to us all.
From the theft of a fiction manuscript making its way into teachings to everything else associated with the history. Prince has nothing to do with our opinion - history does.
Instead the author seems to feel 47% of the population should be my permanent dependent.
All of us need helps some of the time, but it's only a small percentage that may be impaired and need ongoing support.
They should read the following and make their apologies known:
Doctrine & Covenants 42:88-93
88 And if thy abrother or sister boffend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she cconfess thou shalt be dreconciled.
89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a ameeting, and that not before the world.
90 And if thy brother or sister offend many, he or she shall be achastened before many.
91 And if any one offend aopenly, he or she shall be rebuked openly, that he or she may be bashamed. And if he or she confess not, he or she shall be delivered up unto the law of God.
92 If any shall offend in secret, he or she shall be rebuked in secret, that he or she may have opportunity to confess in secret to him or her whom he or she has offended, and to God, that the church may not speak reproachfully of him or her.
93 And thus shall ye conduct in all things.