Skip to comments.Who is Mitt Romney? [Ex-Lds author reveals why Mitt's wishy-washy culture waffles & flip-flops]
Posted on 03/08/2012 5:57:03 AM PST by Colofornian
As the Republican establishment redoubles its efforts to anoint Mitt Romney the GOP presidential nominee (an outcome likely to ensure a second term for Barack Obama), the need to understand Mitt Romney increases.
What makes Mitt the kind of person he is ruthlessly opportunistic, dishonest, insincere, willing to say anything for advantage, lacking in conscience, preoccupied with appearance, etc., on the one hand, yet squeaky clean, family-oriented, disciplined, boring, and predictable, on the other?
My new e-book, A Mormon Story, sheds light on the culture that produced Mitt Romney.
The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture.
That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture). As a result, Mormons have little incentive to inform themselves about what the scriptures call the "doctrine of Christ" (since they consider that doctrine subject to change); or to rely directly on God to know His will in applying that doctrine to their lives; or to sacrifice their security, comfort, or needs to do what is right, above all else.
In such a system, truth is relative, LDS leaders become the only reliable authority, and individual members are subservient.
Outwardly, as is well known, Mormons appear upright but that is due largely to intense pressure to conform to the norms of Mormon society, and to uphold the Mormon church's nurtured image of conventionality. Inwardly, Mormons are less independently moral, principled, and informed than they may seem (something LDS scripture quotes God Himself as saying about them). They are trained to be dependent on church authorities to tell them what to think and do, in ways non-Mormons would have difficulty relating to. They behave much like a "cult" one centered in obedience to powerful, dictatorial leaders.*
As a culture, Mormons therefore tend to lack moral courage of the sort that would enable them to rise above such social pressure and truly lead out in solving the problems and paradoxes of real life. They are inclined to exemplify not firm leadership, but timidity masquerading as normalcy.
Watch Mitt in the debates. There's fear behind his practiced façade.
Sound intriguing? You bet (as Mormons would say). To read A Mormon Story, click here.
It's time for the culture of Mormonism its relativistic, authoritarian values and traditions to receive the kind of scrutiny often reserved for controversial elements of LDS doctrine. Americans deserve to know.
*To be fair, I should stress that my characterization of "Mormons" is just broad enough to create a clear picture of the traditions, values, and tendencies that do in fact permeate Mormon culture. I don't mean to imply there aren't exceptions among sincere LDS people. Indeed, I counted myself as an exception before I was excommunicated for "disobeying" church leaders who illegally demanded I abandon my political livelihood. I know several LDS members who have fundamental integrity, and who therefore struggle with the undoctinal demands and contradictions placed on them by LDS culture.
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
The answer, says this ex-Mormon in the book referenced above is: (From the article): The book reveals a value system that ultimately has no absolutes, other than the need to conform to deep-seated, highly-controlling authoritarianism that pervades LDS culture. That culture emphasizes a Mormon tradition known as "eternal progression" undoctrinal spiritual evolution in which even God is changing. It also emphasizes the notion that the latest words of governing church leaders trump the Word of God found in the scriptures (including LDS scripture).
IOW, EVERYTHING in Mormonism -- from its theology to its social practices -- is up for potential change at the whim of the Mormon god. Bottom-line: There is no bottom-line in Mormonism! There is no bedrock doctrine that cannot be replaced!
There isn't even an Ultimate god in Mormonism...Nobody knows who the gods are that were part of the council which appointed the god of this world -- a former man, say Mormons.
So there's not even any Ultimate Authority in Mormonism!
Good question. (It's one I've raised -- and answered numerous times on various FR threads)
So how have I addressed that in the past?
One of my key points in earlier posts is I attempted to draw an "If-Then" conclusion: If LDS theology effects social positions, then patterns of evolving theology and evolving social positions yields leaders who are all too comfortable with shifting both theology AND social positions.
We have to include the psychology of certain aspects of theological history. If a religious leader views God & historical faith leaders as ones who constantly do 100% about-faces on social positions...where theology & social positions not only "evolve" but involve total u-turns, then my premise is that when you have a leader like Mitt who has already displayed a penchant for multiple total u-turns THEN that = a socially (as in social issues) unpredictable leader.
We can agree that Mitt is totally unpredictable on social issues based upon his personal track record and based upon the historic leaders and the "god" he elevates as his role models
Therefore, what threads like these show all those FREEPERS who keep saying how "aligned" we are with Mormons re: "common values" is that the Mormon church can be liberal when it wants to...and it's been awfully convenient for that to happen more and more the last few years.
Illegal Immigration liberal policy nuances...In 2011 the Lds church had TWO of its U.S. bishops deported.
Abortion: The official Mormon church position (see
http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_abor.htm) is that it's "OK" for an abortion if...
(a) Incest needs to be covered up;
(b) The baby is disabled and needs to be destroyed accordingly
(c) Mom's "health" (whatever that means...distinct from saying "life" of the mother)
(d) If the abortionist says it's "OK"
(e) If the Mormon god says it's "OK" in prayer...
E alone above could "justify" abortion to individual Mormons as long it overrides the person's conscience!
And if you need further evidence of just how liberal the Mormon church leadership can be when it wants to be, then look at how Harry Reid was welcomed with such warm open arms by an all BYU student & faculty occasion for Reid to speak there: Reid gets warm reception at BYU
As I've REPEATEDLY said: Too many FREEPERS somehow think that Romney's wishy-washiness is "unconnected" to his faith. Well, the Mormon leadership has shown it can be morally wishy-washy whenever it's "convenient."
It was "convenient" for the Mormon church leadership to pass homosexual rights for Salt Lake City 'cause they were coming off of what the MSM regarded "negative" media play re: Prop 8 in CA.
It was "convenient" for their missionary program to support aspects of immigrants being here illegally.
And, at times, it's been "convenient" for daughters of Mormon leaders and others to get abortions.
Certainly, it's been "convenient" for them to have a Harry Reid in Congress "watch out" for Mormon church interests.
Historically, it was "convenient" for the Mormon god to change his mind about skin color...even if he didn't change Mormon racist "sacred book" passages depicting open racism. And it was "convenient" for the Mormon church to slowly rid itself of open polygamy because their church was threatened, their menfolk were in jail, and they wanted statehood. Even then, it was "convenient" for their original leader, Joseph Smith, to engage in sex with many women even though his own penned Book of Mormon called polygamy an "abomination."
“Oh yeah? how much you wanna bet the economy is worse off then before, huh? I'll bet you $10,000 (reaches out his hand pathetically).. heh heh heh”
IOW your typical politician.
That sounds a lot like the god of Islam. One cannot know what Allah really wants, except what the Imam tells you Allah wants and Allah is not bound by law either and could change his mind at a moment’s notice.
“...In such a system, truth is relative, LDS leaders become the only reliable authority, and individual members are subservient...” That sounds like Islam.
I support Newt-
what makes Romney a crappy candidate
Mormons have borrowed from the best of
Mitt’s more of a typical polititian,
very disappointing, but infinately better than a Marxist-
hey that’s a good campaign slogan-
“Mitt Romney-he ain’t much, but he’s better than a Marxist”
Even the primary Mormon "god" Mitt focuses on evolved.
Per Mormon "scripture," he began as a sort of primordial goo -- "intelligence." (Lds Doctrine & Covenants 93:29,33). (Oh, & per that source, so did you!)
In fact, per D&C 93, the Mormon "god" is no more eternal past than you or I or animals. We've all just always existed!
Then we all "evolved" into "spirit babies" when we were supposedly born to a Mormon goddess (or more than one) near Kolob. We're not sure where exactly the Mormon "god" evolved in a similar manner -- but he also then was sent to a planet to become a man.
At some point, the "god" of the man who wants to represent the United States before the entire world god got his "resume'" accepted by the "council of gods" -- and they appointed him god of planet earth. And his spiritual evolution supposedly invites one where Mitt can also become a god and rule his own world, receiving worship and prayer from his to-be-born spirit kids.
Of course, all this change & transformation by the mormon god sparked quite a theological debate within Mormonism thru the generations over whether the Mormon god increases in knowledge. For a while, the obvious answer was "yes." I mean, how can you go from primordial intelligence to spirit kid to man to God without increasing in knowledge in what Mormons call "eternal progression?"
But then other Mormon theologians came along & said that was "absurd" that God would increase in knowledge.
Mormonism still hasn't settled -- let alone cared to revisit -- that debate.
Hey, we know theologians tend to debate.
But, technically, Mormonism has no official "theologians." In fact, what they've touted over & over & over & over again is that the Mormon "god" won't let their "prophet" stray...and thereby the church won't stray into total apostasy...(Never mind that they believe that Jesus Christ as the Head of the early church somehow let that church go 100% apostate)
Therefore Mormonism touts being a DIRECT connection to the very vocal chords of its god. If that's the case, there is no need for debate: When the "prophet" & "apostles" speak, all is "settled."
So why the debate? And why hasn't Mormonism ever been able to answer simply: Does God increase in knowledge? Has the Mormon god evolved?
OBEY AND PAY
I grew up in the midst of mormons.
I wish all of this would be exposed while we are still going through the primary as I believe there are many people that aren’t aware of his Mormonism.
Now allow me to add the other dimension which helps foster the duplicity we see.
Lds chooses from amongst its laity prominent, successful professional businessmen to become members of its spiritual heirarchy -- what they call "General Authorities."
It's probably almost 100% -- if not 100% -- of them these days who have a professional/business background. And it's been that way for a while now...at least since Utah moved from a more rural setting.
Now what is all-important to the business community?
CONTROLLING your image. PR. Marketing.
Well, that dovetales with duplicity. Damn the truth -- just do the market demographic research...label & color your product accordingly...and sell, sell, sell & use whatever distortion sells!
No wonder so many former Mormon leaders like Mitt Romney are "perfect" for the political field.
Add to it that they've all been proselytizer-door to door peddlers as Lds missionaries -- and have been toughened by daily constant rejection -- and you have professionally groomed candidates from whom it's extremely difficult from which to extract reality.
rudderless, unprincipled narcissist who will inevitably cater to left-wing pressure and act like a liberal too?
Why do you have to point others faults?
To this very day, the Mormon church owned DesNews is printing articles on how Mitt is still having trouble getting the Evangelical vote...claiming that if exit pollsters asked more Qs re: common values -- vs. doctrinal focus -- there would be more "alignment" between us...
And we see that misnomer repeatedly endlessly on FR as well: That Mormons share common "values."
The problem is that we see in people like Romney, Huntsman & Harry Reid -- that Mormon leaders have no seeming "core values." (I won't say that's true of ALL Mormons; it certainly seems to be the case of most, if not all, Mormon leaders).
They are gumby.
The New Testament says true Christians are living epistles -- letters to be read by all. And it's true we ALL have trouble remaining legible for others to clearly read. I'm not claiming that Christians don't have their own problems in this area.
Yet with Mormon leaders, they are living press releases -- and there's just no way you're going to get a "read" on their core -- other than you know their core is revolving...evolving...flipping...flopping...waffling...wishy...washy...
They'll probably "market" it as C.P.C.C. -- customized political constituent "care" -- so that at least, you, too, might become one of those "pool of dependencies" that the other socialists ... the Dems ... rely upon.
I mean don't you Bay State (MA) citizens feel all warm & cozy & "government-sovereigned" by RomneyCare these past 5+ years? See tagline
Two things about your post.
What you said about mormonism probably means you know nothing about it.
Romney is who he is because of his mormonism not in spite of it.
No if Romney wins, the choice will be between a guy who thinks he will be god and a guy who thinks he already is.
Yes. Either way, we're ripe for judgment...and not just for whom our citizenry elevates as "ideal" candidates.
Somebody said long ago: If God doesn't judge America, He'll have to apologize to Sodom & Gomorrah.
...a rudderless, unprincipled narcissist...
Let's remove Mormonism for just a second -- but keep one aspect of it as the "ultimate narcissist" worldview...the conviction & belief that you will one day grow from a "god in embryo" into a full-grown god of your own world.
Take ANY candidate.
Let's say Newt. (Just using Newt as a hypothetical here)
I think Newt has been a Lutheran; he's Catholic now. May have been something else as well as some point. Well, what if he re-emerged tomorrow & announced that his newest belief would be that he will eventually become a god & rule over his own world?
Do you think, for a moment, that a single belief like that would get a pass by GOP voters? By the MSM? By the Dems?
And even after it's covered as breaking news, do you think that would "stop" after the breaking news cycle ends? Do you think that little "tidbit" or "factoid" about our hypothetical Newt would evaporate from the voters' minds?
I don't think it would. Yet why don't candidate-evaluators hold Mitt to the same eval process?
Why does Mitt get a pass? Just 'cause he wears a certain religious label? And just because multi-culturalism & post-modernism teaches that supposedly all beliefs of systemized religions are equal & deserve "equal" respect?
And that's just one whacky belief among THOUSANDS by Mormons! What if our hypothetical Newt belonged to an openly racist org til age 31, baptized dead Jews in his spare time, wore magic underwear, and claimed ALL of his wives would be his simultaneously in the afterlife???
Narcissism -- in this case best evidenced by the belief that you're on your way to godhood -- not only gets a "pass" when it comes to Romney but a "thumbs up" from the GOP establishment & a high chunk of GOP voters.
Our nation is in deep, deep, deep trouble.
Discernment is long gone.