Mitt Romney, Desert Book, the Church, and the Constitution

[ithink]

Just about everyone knows that Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney is Mormon. It is also evident that Deseret Book is putting him on their website (http://www.ldslivingmagazine.com) and in their emails (Subject: LDS Events & Headlines: Romney Takes Michigan, January 16th, 2008 -- Romney Wins Michigan--GOP Frontrunner) exclusively because he is Mormon. We know that of a surety because Deseret Book doesn't even mention any other presidential hopefuls besides Mitt, and the single difference between Mitt and the others is his common religion. What I'm saying is that if Mitt Romney wasn't Mormon, there wouldn't be any mention of any candidates. So to continually serve up Mitt Romney propaganda with every email and splashed all over the Deseret Book LDSLiving website simply because he is Mormon is hypocritical. Are we to favor Mr. (er, Brother) Romney over others simply because he is LDS? I read that Mitt is asking everyone to overlook his religion. Mitt says "Some believe that such a confession of my faith will sink my candidacy..." but the corollary is should a confession of his faith float it? Of course neither is any good, since to support Mitt because of his religion is no different than not supporting him because of his religion either. It's just a different side of the same hypocritical coin.

What makes this further unpalatable is the fact that Deseret Book is owned "... wholly by Deseret Management Corporation, which is owned by the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the LDS Church)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Book) Only a modern day legal fiction (holding company) stands between the Church, the Bookstore, and it's propaganda machine (def. propaganda -- "ideas, facts, or allegations spread deliberately to further one's cause..." see http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/propaganda ). Deseret Book is managed separately, but is not entirely separate. When I telephoned Deseret Management Corporation to find out who sits on the Board of Directors, I was told DMC was a "private" company and that information was "confidential", and the attendant would not acknowledge Church leaders were not on that board, and if there are, then this is certainly a conflict of interest. But Romney isn't complaining, he seems to love this, but any honest person would realize you can't do this. Romney says "There are some who would have a presidential candidate describe and explain his church’s distinctive doctrines. To do so would enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution. " http://www.ldslivingmagazine.com/articles/show/1318). So why then is it OK to let "the Church bookstore describe and explain a presidential hopeful's distinctive doctrines" when this clearly would "enable the very religious test the founders prohibited in the constitution", which ironically is the only time I've ever heard Romney mention the Constitution, which he is happy to let the Church bookstore violate on his behalf.

If we examine the scriptures, we get a picture of who should be sought after to attain that high office of President. Said the Lord: "And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood." (D&C 101:80) Furthermore, "And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:5-10) The Lord makes no distinction on religion, only that we diligently seek out "honest men AND wise men".

Even though I am Canadian, I have claim upon your American Constitution even though you Americans, God bless you, are the direct stewards of it. That is what the Lord meant when he said it "belongs to all mankind". I am calling on you all, the stewards of the Constitution, to be accountable to your stewardship. Deseret Book and the Church: if you are going to mention candidates, make sure you mention the forerunners based on their merits, not on the badge of religion that they wear. For example, one of the candidates (not Mitt Romney) wants to disband the IRS, repeal income taxes, and eliminate the Federal Reserve. This candidate is of course Ron Paul. Dr. Paul is not Mormon, but he is a strict Constitutionalist, and in being so, he surely must find favor in Gods eyes in trying to preserve that righteous document. Sadly, in doing so, it seems he finds no favor among the people who should embrace what he stands for more than any other. But this LDS people have a track record of going after that which they ought not. Let me give an example. Many will remember J. Reuben Clarke. Brother Clarke was a prophet (an Apostle in the 1st Presidency), and a Constitutionalist as well. He was put in the high position of counsellor in the First Presidency, or so he was told by President McKay because "you are the greatest Constitutionalist in the Church". While he was a lawyer, Brother Clarke wrote a 16 page memorandum (which is available in the National Archives in Washington D.C.), in which Clarke says the 16th amendment (Income Tax) wasn't ratified properly. In short, federal income tax is not legal. So here we have a prophet, a good and "honest and wise" man, put in his position to "wake up the people", and he's saying federal income tax is not legal. But years later, along comes the LDS Senator Orrin Hatch. Not only does Mr. Hatch not agree with President Clarke, he has his lawyer contact Bill Benson, who is author of "The Law that Never Was", which is saying basically the same thing President Clarke is saying -- that income tax is not legal, or at least not Constitutional. When the lawyer Warren Richardson gets in touch with Bill Benson, he says "I am making this call on behalf of Senator Orrin Hatch. ... you cannot permit that book [The Law That Never Was] to get in the hands of the kooks out there. We know what you are doing...You don't understand what I'm trying to do? You have all of the books printed that you want. You name the number of books, and then you put a price on each and every book, and we will pay it. But then we want you never ever again to speak to one person, never again to get on one radio station, one television station or one group of people...Warren then said, 'The last thing we want are all 17,000 certified, notarized documents that you have -- and you will be a multi-millionaire.'” http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/letters.asp So here is Senator Hatch, a Mormon, using extortion in fighting against the Constitution, fighting against President Clarke, fighting against President McKay, fighting against God, because God stated "therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil".

This example with Orrin Hatch shows you cannot simply engage anyone (including Mitt Romney) because of the tag they wear, you must “diligently search” out those who will only support that which is Constitutional. To do anything otherwise cometh of evil.

ithink

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

So, are you going to send this to anyone at Deseret Book or the Church office building?

I think that you have valid concerns, valid points, and you should consider it.

Even if you feel you should send it anon.. I would send it.

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

Send it send it send it!!!!

[truthseeker]

Great Post! Well said! Couldn't agree more.

[shadow]

ithink, I think that's a great post.

Not to change the subject too much, but I bank at Deseret First Credit Union (Church owned). I had to call them the other day and I was put on hold. You should hear their "on hold" message. It went something like this. "Is your teenage driver embarrassed to drive the family car? Check out our low interest rates on auto loans." Yikes!! That kinda goes against what the church teaches doesn't it? Here is another part. "Are you tired of your old house but don't want to move because you like your ward too much? Ask us about a home equity loan to spruce up your house." Provident living at it's best, all recommended by our church owned credit union. Try calling 1-800-326-3328 and see if you're put on hold. The message is quite anti-mormon regarding finances.

Deseret book isn't the only church owned business out of line.

[lundbaek]

The link (http://www.ldslivingmagazine.com) leads to a place to respond to the Mitt Romney article.

[Stephen]

Sweet. Well written. Amen. Please do send it.

[watersofmimir]

I think that the prejudice against Mitt Romney's faith throughout the South (and other parts of the country, apparently...like Iowa) more than outweighs the benefit it brings him in the mountain states.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all know that, if Romney was Baptist, he would have been unequivocally declared the frontrunner a long time ago.

[lundbaek]

Why might Romney have been unequivocally declared the frontrunner a long time ago, were it not for him being LDS? He is not an "insider" like the others, and would probably be more difficult for the LDGs/globalists to control. For that reason, I believe, the LDGs would try to derail his campaign, whatever church he affiliated with. The LDGs want someone in the White House they can control. Even Hillary could be tough for them to control.

[lundbaek]

So how about some or all of you going to that LDS Living site (http://www.ldslivingmagazine.com) and letting them know what you think of Romney. A short and sweet max 2 sentences should be easy enough.

[watersofmimir]

The man is exactly what the Republican Party looks for in a candidate. He is the epitome of the three-way conservative who still knows how to be diplomatic and listen to reason.

With all of the crazy stuff that's been happening since this whole shindig got started, he is the only Republican who has remained in the top three the whole time--specifically for that reason.

Why was he #1 for so long in Iowa? Because he focused his efforts there, and because he unites the conservative base.

Then Huckabee came along campaigning as The Real Christian Candidate and took Iowa from Romney for one reason and one reason only: he is die-hard Baptist and Romney is Mormon. His radical fiscal philosophies didn't matter; all that mattered was that he used to be a minister.

Why is he having so much trouble against McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee when they are so clearly liberal in so many ways?

Because he's Mormon.

You know it's true.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

I think that the prejudice against Mitt Romney's faith throughout the South (and other parts of the country, apparently...like Iowa) more than outweighs the benefit it brings him in the mountain states.

Whether we want to admit it or not, we all know that, if Romney was Baptist, he would have been unequivocally declared the frontrunner a long time ago.

Not true, his positions on abortion and gay marriage while in Massachusetts eliminated him from most staunch Baptists and others that I have met here.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

The man is exactly what the Republican Party looks for in a candidate. He is the epitome of the three-way conservative who still knows how to be diplomatic and listen to reason.

With all of the crazy stuff that's been happening since this whole shindig got started, he is the only Republican who has remained in the top three the whole time--specifically for that reason.

Why was he #1 for so long in Iowa? Because he focused his efforts there, and because he unites the conservative base.

Then Huckabee came along campaigning as The Real Christian Candidate and took Iowa from Romney for one reason and one reason only: he is die-hard Baptist and Romney is Mormon. His radical fiscal philosophies didn't matter; all that mattered was that he used to be a minister.

Why is he having so much trouble against McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee when they are so clearly liberal in so many ways?

Because he's Mormon.

You know it's true.

He was #1 in Iowa so long because he was the only one there spending money and talking to them. He spent a whole lot more then anyone else as far as I know anyway. But once the competition arrived, things changed dramatically. His Hate campaign did not go well with many Iowans. Mitt himself is making his religion be more of an issue then it would be. He is using the media to create news to get publicity. Negative news is still news.

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

Did Harry Reid have a hard time becoming the majority leader event hough he was a Mormon? How about the other 16 members of congress that are LDS.....????

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

I tried to respond and got this

Application error (Rails)

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I don't buy it. What evidence do you have that it is anti-mormon bias?

[ShawnC]

He was #1 in Iowa so long because he was the only one there spending money and talking to them. He spent a whole lot more then anyone else as far as I know anyway. But once the competition arrived, things changed dramatically. His Hate campaign did not go well with many Iowans. Mitt himself is making his religion be more of an issue then it would be. He is using the media to create news to get publicity. Negative news is still news.

I agree with you Love, he has been running quite a negative campaign. I think that people and even some members tend to make more of the issue of his religion than even the media sometimes. Many of his type talk about change, but then simply maintain the status quo of Bush style politics and mudslinging.
I try hard to maintain a positive and open outlook between Romney and Paul. I have a Ron Paul sign and some car magnets. Many in church have asked me about him and it has opened up some good conversations. It's good to hear why people support Mitt Romney. The problem that I see, is that the vast majority within my LDS neck of the woods support Romney and they don't know why. When they are honest with themselves, they admit it is because he is and LDS church member and also admit that they have no knowledge of his past or even his current trends and policies. Many also seem to hone in on issues like abortion and gay marriage and pay no attention to other issues that the president actually has a greater deal of control over. Abortion and gay marriage are issues that are ultimately decided by the courts, not the president, I know that there are other stipulations, but still...

I recognize the good in Romney and try to maintain that in conversations with others. Given my experiences and current knowledge base, my vote and support is for principle and for hopefully absolving the responsibility of supporting the secret combinations and destroying true agency. This is some of the reason that I support Ron Paul.

I missed tithing settlement so the Bishop called me in to chastise me. This is another story. First thing he brings up is asking me why I am a Ron Paul supporter. It was a good conversation and allowed good opportunity to express some ideas. I was disappointed though because even my Bishop who is generally a very humble man pulled the "lesser of two evils" thing on me. His support is for Romney and he doesn't know why either other than he is the lesser of two evils.

Shawn

[Proud 2b Peculiar]

And you didn't say something about not supporting evil? That a vote for evil is evil still?

Too bad you didn't have that quote from Hyrum Smith to give him.

[a-train]

The only hope for the Republican White House this year is for Romney or Paul to win the nomination and then run together in the General Election.

Romney will keep the masses happy while Paul would keep it real.

However, a Clinton/Obama ticket would probably be an unstoppable force.

-a-train

[SwissMrs&Pitchfire]

I'm expecting a cross party ticket this year. Maybe Hillary and McCain.

[Stephen]

Why might Romney have been unequivocally declared the frontrunner a long time ago, were it not for him being LDS? He is not an "insider" like the others, and would probably be more difficult for the LDGs/globalists to control. For that reason, I believe, the LDGs would try to derail his campaign, whatever church he affiliated with. The LDGs want someone in the White House they can control. Even Hillary could be tough for them to control.

I have no idea if Mitt is an "insider" or not.

He bought votes at the straw poll in Florida which doesn't look good. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bRGMrPP4as

He was introduced by a bonesman George Bush Sr. at his "Faith in America" speech. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Mr-2mff6Q

He has changed his views over time... http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marr ... ey/record/

There is evidence that he will deny his testimony of Joseph Smith given a little pressure. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kqjrmb7YSPM

He also will say things to look good even if they are false... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrfOdLqMogs (second half of the video is anti-mormon...stop when the song comes on)


Given that...I don't know if he truly is a Gadianton or not...but from the evidence I see...he is more politician than statesman.

Mitt being elected would more than likely expedite some of the prophecies regarding persecution of our people. Can you imagine if an LDS president made a decision that the people ended in disaster! Public sentiment could change on the LDS people in a day.

[Stephen]

ithink...for the life of me I can't locate that 16pg paper by J. Reuben Clark. The search engine at that site is a monster. It returns thousands of results. Can you or someone else find that paper? I'd love to read it.

[AussieOi]

Hello waters of mimi.
true, false, perception. how are we to know. I'm sure Mutt is spending millions on focus groups and he knows the answers. I'm sure the bus loads of eager BYU morbots know too.

It seems to me like this discussion is about which wolf is going to tell us they car for the sheep most.

Saying "The man is exactly what the Republican Party looks for in a candidate" made me laugh out loud. Do you actually believe that the powers that be are looking for a person who is "diplomatic and will listen to reason"??? Mate, stop reading text books. This isn't how it works. Maybe for the rank and file fodder that stand at rallies wiht the flags and signs, but not in reality.

You want to know how it works, read John Perkins, confessions of an economic hitman. I don't believe all of that book, but, that IS how it works.

The machine picks their candidates,and then tells the people which ones they can vote for, and the teams change ends every 4 or 8 years, and the crowd think they steer the ship.

The man is exactly what the Republican Party looks for in a candidate. He is the epitome of the three-way conservative who still knows how to be diplomatic and listen to reason.

With all of the crazy stuff that's been happening since this whole shindig got started, he is the only Republican who has remained in the top three the whole time--specifically for that reason.

Why was he #1 for so long in Iowa? Because he focused his efforts there, and because he unites the conservative base.

Then Huckabee came along campaigning as The Real Christian Candidate and took Iowa from Romney for one reason and one reason only: he is die-hard Baptist and Romney is Mormon. His radical fiscal philosophies didn't matter; all that mattered was that he used to be a minister.

Why is he having so much trouble against McCain, Giuliani, and Huckabee when they are so clearly liberal in so many ways?

Because he's Mormon.

You know it's true.

[AussieOi]

I missed tithing settlement so the Bishop called me in to chastise me.

I don't go. when asked to "come in" I do, and then tell my bishop not to ask me if I am a Full Tithe payer as I wont answer the question. I tell him I don't want to have a fiscal relationship with my bishop when I only enter his office once a year to do this. They usually agree. I tell them I am, if they want to tick their box, but i tell them i prefer to be asked how i'm going spiritually

This is another story. First thing he brings up is asking me why I am a Ron Paul supporter. It was a good conversation and allowed good opportunity to express some ideas. I was disappointed though because even my Bishop who is generally a very humble man pulled the "lesser of two evils" thing on me. His support is for Romney and he doesn't know why either other than he is the lesser of two evils.

Humility and intelligence are two very separate attributes. As long as these dope bishops listen to the lord to help their wards, and not Fox, we'll be fine.

[HeirofNumenor]

The machine picks their candidates,and then tells the people which ones they can vote for, and the teams change ends every 4 or 8 years, and the crowd think they steer the ship.

Alexis de Tocqueville was a young french judge who came to America in 1830 to study our system and how it could work in France. In 1833 he published "Democracy in America" in which he stated (roughly) that "the king-makers put forth the candidates and control the parties. every so often they will allow the other party to win so that the people will feel they have a voice in the matter -- but they still control both parties, and they obey their agenda"

Very much like today's GOP and democrats.