Quantcast
Faith

Mitt Romney speaks about obstacles at Arizona young single adult gathering

Comments

Return To Article
  • antodav TAMPA, FL
    Jan. 24, 2014 10:35 a.m.

    There is nothing "paradoxical" about the Gospel of Jesus Christ. God making his Son into humble carpenter, as well as God calling a simple farm boy to be his chosen prophet in the last dispensation, are perfectly consistent with how he has operated throughout history. God never calls the rich, the powerful, or the proud to be servants in his kingdom. He calls those who come from next to nothing and thus will be humble enough to recognize his hand in all things, instead of taking all the credit for all that they accomplish themselves.

    Perhaps this is why Mitt Romney was not allowed to become president of the United States. He comes from wealth and privilege and is disconnected from many of the core teachings of the Gospel. Many of his policies and past statements were directly in contradiction with what General Authorities of the Church have taught. He cared more about the praise of the world than doing what was right in the sight of the Lord.

    Remember, this is a man who once denied that revelation has even occurred since Moses. Not someone members of the Church should be looking up to.

  • Lilly Munster netherlands, 00
    Jan. 14, 2014 7:25 p.m.

    Remember, Romney made his millions destroying the jobs and lives of others. He didn't CREATE businesses, he gutted them. For his personal profit. He left behind thousands of Victims. He may be a Hero to SOME Mormons, but he is not a Hero to We Moral Mormons. He gave us a gigantic Black Eye, and a reputation of callousness, xenophobia, greed and insolence. He lost, simply because Americans rejected him completely. Rather than creating photo opportunities he will NEVER be Cool) he should be giving away some of the millions.....billions...he stole from others.
    A Dancing Horse, with million dollar tax deductions? I would say "shame" but he has none.

  • BobF2012 kitchener, 00
    Jan. 14, 2014 11:24 a.m.

    As an active member of the Church, and a liberal Democrat, I'm very glad Mitt Romney wasn't elected. A Romney presidency would have meant more suffering for the poor (in addition to an increase in the number of poor people in this country), more wars, and more division. He came across as an elitist candidate, caring nothing for the poor, and only wanting to further enrich the already rich. He also changed his stand on major issues, depending on his audience. I'm sorry to see him speaking to Church groups; I'm sure that, in time, he'll fade into obscurity as all defeated presidential candidates eventually do.

  • michael.jensen369 Lethbridge, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:20 p.m.

    @Stouger, in some ways you may be right, but honestly, don't go there man. It just stirs up trouble. I'm independent myself, but be careful with equating whole parties as contrary to the Church. There may be things associated with certain parts of their platform that are opposed to Christ's teachings, but brother, be careful.

    Mitt Romney was not speaking in behalf of the Republican party in this setting. He was speaking in behalf of Mitt Romney, a member of the Church. Harry Reid has done devotionals for members that are Democrats. So it's happened for members from both parties. Mitt did not bring up his party or their platform at this function, as far as I can ascertain from this article. I think that's important to point out.

  • michael.jensen369 Lethbridge, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 3:17 p.m.

    From the Church's Newsroom:
    The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.
    The Church does not:
    Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
    Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
    Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
    Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.

  • Stougar Stafford, VA
    Jan. 13, 2014 2:24 p.m.

    @airnaut

    You find what you look for. Just type in "Monson & Reid" in google and see the first image that comes up. You might just see a bonus apostle in the picture for good show.

    The LDS church is not aligned with the Republican party. It is simply aligned with organizations that promote good values. When a temple recommend interview question is "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints," you can probably see why few would be Democrats. There morals are not in line with the church.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 13, 2014 12:30 p.m.

    Jon1
    Arlington, VA
    I am sick and tired of one of the underlying themes in Mormon culture that you can only be a good and true member of the church if you are a card carrying Republican. The comments thus far have degenerated into the typical right wing harangue. Some of us LDS members find this anything but Christ like.

    8:14 a.m. Jan. 13, 2014

    ============

    Agreed.

    BTW --
    I haven't seen any Apostles running around speaking with Sen. Harry Reid.

    Picking Political sides is dangerous.
    [Ask Catholics how they felt about Pope Pius XII shmoozing around with Hitler.]

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 11:50 a.m.

    It sounds as though the YSA Conference address kept on a non-partisan plane; I hope so.
    Mitt's demeanor and composure are good points. However, I wish to answer some things opined on this thread with some points of my own. I don't know who said these things and it's not worth going back to check as it is not personal with me; I care about the issues and hope I allow all men the same right to their opinions as I have to mine.

    I think it not at all proven that Mitt would have made a good president, nor that he would have achieved national unity, nor that he would have reduced the deficit markedly. Mitt seems a nice man and tries to be a good man. His recent handling of partisan mockery of his having a colored boy in his family was classy; he handled it well.

    Yet he is divisive (contempt for honest millions who earnings too miniscule for income TAX; hostility to foreign nations even those traditionally allied to the USA) and his increasing the military to 600,000 men and his likely increase of military involvement would not help the deficit.

  • laVerl 09 St Johns, AZ
    Jan. 13, 2014 9:26 a.m.

    I'm basically relieved that Romney didn't get elected. My reason is based on the fact that most political success requires compromise on issues and sometimes that leads to compromise on moral issues. And to complicate matters, the President of the US is also the Commander in Chief of the military, which has become the police force of the world. This venue has shown that the President of the US has been become more and more a "puppet" figure in world affairs as world-wide big banking interests have become the policy maker.
    As it now stands, Romney is a hero who stood for the "good" in America. If he had won, I'm afraid he would have been compromised or assassinated.

  • Jon1 Arlington, VA
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:14 a.m.

    I am sick and tired of one of the underlying themes in Mormon culture that you can only be a good and true member of the church if you are a card carrying Republican. The comments thus far have degenerated into the typical right wing harangue. Some of us LDS members find this anything but Christ like.

  • NeilT Clearfield, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    No doubt Mitt Romney is a good man. Unfortunately I was disappointed in his campaign. He governed MA as a moderate and tried to for President as a tea party conservative. The Republican party has been taken over by extremists who hate President Obama. They have demonized him in the most shameful way. Many view The Republican party as the anti-Obama party. I still voted for Mitt and hoped he would win. I don't like President Obama. I just can't bring myself to hate someone over political differences. Romney was never able to connect with the poor, minorities, and women. America is politically polarized and it not all Obama's fault. Labeling 47% of the country as government free-loaders didn't help his campaign. I wish Republicans would stop demonizing the poor, immigrants, and minorities and focus on being more inclusive.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 13, 2014 6:10 a.m.

    @ Jack, I get your point, but I am quite sure my comments apply and suggest you think it through. As for the campaign, I had prior experience with Romney, and as I considered all the facts and the things being said, it was my conclusion that he was not suited to be President, even though he is a talented person. His talents and the demands of the office were not a good match. This does not mean he is not a good man - I know he is. But that does not mean he should be President, and I think he knew it.

  • vidottsen Payson, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:33 p.m.

    I don't know if the country would have unified more under Mitt, but I do know he would have given everything he had to try to do so. I think the LDS church would have become an "Achilles Heel" for the opposition to go against, bringing up every supposedly "new" bit of information to make his faith look strange and bizarre. However, ignoring that issue, Mitt would have quietly worked in the background, working across the aisle to bring some semblance of honorable resolutions to health care, unemployment (including under employment), immigration, military strength, and world leadership. I think he would have had a brilliant cabinet that looked like a cross section of the country to tackle real issues. In other words he would have acted like an executive and not a perpetual campaigner.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:02 p.m.

    Shaun,
    The country is polarized because of the current administration's far-left socialistic agenda. Mitt would have steered the government to greater efficiency and lowering of the deficit - who can object to that? Furthermore, Mitt had great success in dealing with an opposition which had overwhelming majorities in the Massachusetts legislature.

  • Jack Aurora, CO
    Jan. 12, 2014 9:13 p.m.

    @Esquire,
    I don't think you get the point of the article. Mr Romney used his experience to illustrate his point, as I am sure you use your experience to make your pints of discussion. He is allowed to do that, he experienced it. From your comments, I will guess that you did not like him as a candidate, it doesn't make his remarks to the conference any less true.

    @Shaun,
    Maybe Mitt would have worked with both sides of the aisle to bring consensus, like he has done before. Maybe he has some experience in reconciling groups that would have been useful in slowing the advance of the bitter rancor and partisanship so evident in Congress.....just a thought.

  • jscmomof4 Zebulon, NC
    Jan. 12, 2014 3:28 p.m.

    Mitt Romney would have been the best President this nation has known! I pray he will run again! What could have been in 2012, can still be in 2016! Please consider running again, Mitt, please!!!! #DraftRomney

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:58 a.m.

    @brentbot. Why do you think this country would be united and not polarized? If Mitt did win but everything stayed the same congressional wise he still would of had a divided congress.

    So are you implying that democrats would of worked with Romney for the greater good?

  • fani wj, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 10:06 a.m.

    The Romneys are awesome people!

  • Carol P. Warnick Ephraim, Utah
    Jan. 12, 2014 9:03 a.m.

    I always wonder why people can't see people as I see them. And I think "why can't people vote from their heart."? But life isn't that way. There are too many "wants" and "needs" that seem to get in the way of the heart and if someone is rich and you are poor shades your oppinion.

    The world would be a better place if he listened more to the heart. My head and heart told me that Mitt Romney was a good man, a good leader, a good American that had much to offer our country. But it wasn't to be until hearts were softened so they could see as I see and believe as I believe.

  • BrentBot Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:11 a.m.

    Our country would be a much different and better place if Mitt had won. We would not be polarized, but rather a united country

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Jan. 12, 2014 8:07 a.m.

    While there may be some good messages here, what this event and this article do is mix politics and religion. By a powerful inference, the connection between the Republican party and the LDS Church. I suspect that most church members are tone deaf on this issue.