Mitt Romney: No revelation since Moses.

[il Padrino Ute]

Why does the media insist on making such a big deal about Romney's religion? There is absolutely no reason for any kind of religious litmus test for a Presidential candidate, yet the media keeps it up.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is it more important to most Mormon Romney supporters that he say things as a good faithful Mormon would, or that he say things most calculated to get him elected?

Of course these Mormons will give him a pass. He's "lying for the Lord".

Didn't he say that he couldn't imagine anything worse than polygamy?

I love the MOrmon suppoters who will say that he is just twisting and dancing on this issue, but not ON ALL THE OTHER ISSUES HE HAS CHANGED POSITONS AND TWISTED AND DANCED.

DRoss has little credibility in my book.

After doing a bit of digging I have found a little more of the quote -but not all of the context:

"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."

I wonder why he was laughing ... funny how he seems to contradict himself at the end of the ENTIRE quotation.

There's also the article in the SLTrib:

http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_7780619

[Frank Ryan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story...b-ed018d03bf31


An exceptionally odd comment, for a Mormon. Peter will be glad to know that the rock the church was built on was actually... just a rock. Sadly, the Catholics have possession of that rock now, so maybe we should think of joining with them?

Mitt is all over the place- on everything.

Surprised I haven't seen this posted yet from DJRoss. He is usually on top of Mitt stuff.

Romney is the ultimate politician. He soft sells and backs away from his religion when convenient and trots it out at other times.

If he takes the primary I'm he is going to back away from some of his new found scummy friends like Bob Jones

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by Frank Ryan

Romney is the ultimate politician. He soft sells and backs away from his religion when convenient and trots it out at other times.

If he takes the primary I'm he is going to back away from some of his new found scummy friends like Bob Jones

Romney is really no different than any politician in that respect. Look at Mrs. Clinton claiming to be Methodist for an example.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

You guys kill me ... How would you answer this loaded question:

"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?”

You've totally ignored the absurdity of it in favour of your rancour lol ... my goodness, I GUARENTEE EACH ONE OF YOU WOULD SAY THE EXACT SAME THING -if you have not already under different circumstances

What are you talking about? Of all the answers that would come to my mind, saying, in effect, that the church isn't true is pretty far down my list.

It is a stupid question, but an even worse answer.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

I have to agree with this only if he was correctly quoted. This is where I have issues. I can no longer accept any article at face value given the how poorly people's comments are taken out of context, reworded (creative paraphrasing), or completely ignored (parsing out provisos, caveats, etc). The idea behind the article was clearly (at least IMO), to find a wedge between Romney and his LDS faith. Reason for doing so? Well it would not be hard to see a liberal journalist thinking that if they create a wedge between Romney and true blue Mormons, that his popularity will wane and he will no longer be a threat.

Again this has nothing to do with the issues of what our country needs. This is another hack piece. So if and I mean IF, Romney actually made that comment and was quote verbatim and the quote used in this article in the context it was given, than Mitt made a mistake on how he answered the question. Otherwise, I remain unconvinced that this was exactly how things transpired.

You seem to post Romney info from news sources when it is favorable.

Is there any real doubt that Romney said what the article claims? Has Romney taken issue with the quote and said he never uttered those words? And exactly what context would explain his quote? I can't think of one.

Romney was right not to talk about religion. And religion shouldn't be the basis of a vote. And the question asked was a dumb one.

I fail to see how that makes his answer any less stupid or misleading. If he is going to attempt to answer such silly questions as the one offered, he needs to be prepared for this kind of analysis.

You can't blame the media for this one. The media didn't put those words in his mouth.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You seem to post Romney info from news sources when it is favorable.

Is there any real doubt that Romney said what the article claims? Has Romney taken issue with the quote and said he never uttered those words? And exactly what context would explain his quote? I can't think of one.

Romney was right not to talk about religion. And religion shouldn't be the basis of a vote. And the question asked was a dumb one.

I fail to see how that makes his answer any less stupid or misleading. If he is going to attempt to answer such silly questions as the one offered, he needs to be prepared for this kind of analysis.

You can't blame the media for this one. The media didn't put those words in his mouth.

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.

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Is it more important to most Mormon Romney supporters that he say things as a good faithful Mormon would, or that he say things most calculated to get him elected?

Of course these Mormons will give him a pass. He's "lying for the Lord".

Didn't he say that he couldn't imagine anything worse than polygamy?

I love the MOrmon suppoters who will say that he is just twisting and dancing on this issue, but not ON ALL THE OTHER ISSUES HE HAS CHANGED POSITONS AND TWISTED AND DANCED.

DRoss has little credibility in my book.

Not sure your book is really worth reading

[DJRoss]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You seem to post Romney info from news sources when it is favorable.

Is there any real doubt that Romney said what the article claims? Has Romney taken issue with the quote and said he never uttered those words? And exactly what context would explain his quote? I can't think of one.

Romney was right not to talk about religion. And religion shouldn't be the basis of a vote. And the question asked was a dumb one.

I fail to see how that makes his answer any less stupid or misleading. If he is going to attempt to answer such silly questions as the one offered, he needs to be prepared for this kind of analysis.

You can't blame the media for this one. The media didn't put those words in his mouth.

Yes I post positive on Romney. I admittedly am a supporter therefore you can be assured that I am biased. That is where I differ from most of these hack pieces on Romney. They are often disguised as a "let us see where this leads us" story when the destination has already been mapped out ahead of time, and they are just looking for whatever they can find to force in that direction. Again, I explained that if the quote is accurate and it is being correctly used in the context in which it was given, than IMO Romney made a bad mistake.

I would like to know the authors bias? Of course full disclosure seems to be something that is greatly lacking in todays so called information media.

[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 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.