A Little History:
Our story begins in Pocatello, Idaho, circa 1972, when the lovely Debby Christensen agreed to a first, though fateful date with admirer, David Croshaw. Long story-short, he bade her follow him, and they went arm-in-arm to the Logan, Utah temple for establishment of an eternal family unit, Generation 1, on May 23 1973.

From their first blissful summer in Salt Lake City, educational pursuits took them to Provo/Orem, Utah, birthplace of Leslie and Rebecca, and to San Francisco/Oakland California, birthplace of Colin and Matt. Then, for establishment of livelihood, expansion of the tribe with Abby and Dana, and for raising/unifying of Generation 2, it was back to the roots in Pocatello for a rewarding sojourn.

In time, driven by a raging, but commonly shared sense of adventure and independence, one-by-one, Generation 2 escaped the homeland to distant regions of the country and the world, each ultimately developing their own tribal expansions by pairing with worthy mates and initiating Generation 3.

Now sensing fulfillment of their purpose in Pocatello, Generation 1 has also left those roots and transplanted to Cascade Idaho, from which base, they anticipate more abundant contact with The Posterity, Generations 2 and 3, in the future. That contact however, awaits fulfillment of a call to LDS missionary service in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, wherein they hope to help the state of the world by sharing the love of Jesus Christ.

So now, including Generation 0 (Grandma and Grandpa Christensen) home base includes Yuma, Arizona, Pocatello, Idaho, Cascade, Idaho, Vancouver, BC, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Spokane, Washington, Boise, Idaho, Los Angeles, California, back to Boise, Idaho, and on and on (Generation 3+) to infinity.

Our Mission Statement:
This is the blog of our eternal family unit. Initiated years ago, it served well as a journal, but even more so, as an archive of our personal interaction. It was a gathering place, a confabulation instrument, a unifying force for four generations of widely dispersed and progressively prolific posterity, and their valued associates. Though it served these purposes well for many years, it eventually took a back seat to new-kids-on-the-block, Facebook, and Instagram, and was sadly forgotten.

We now move to resurrect this blog with an added functional purpose of archiving the missionary experiences of Generation 1, of their movements and activities as they participate with The Gathering of Israel in the land northward. In so doing, we hope that via their own comments and posts, this blog will again serve to gather and unify the posterity and their friends.

As in the past, that the young and vibrant may know the old and tired, that enduring bonds may be fostered and maintained, that experience and encouragement may be openly shared, that posterity may embrace truth, and that hearts may be knit together, we must resist detachment despite our geographic divergence. We shall do so here.

Wednesday, December 12, 2007

Somethings to consider.

Most-Dangerous Animal in the World

Click on the above link to view the most dangerous animal in the world. Yes this is a very dangerous animal.

Right now Crystal and I are watching an interview with Mitt Romney and Sean Hannity and Alan Colmns. As I consider certain the prospect of Mitt Romney being the next president I must admit I'm not fond of the idea for various reasons. One of the reasons is because I don't think it would reflect to favorably on the church as a whole. If he did anything wrong I'm 99.999% sure that opponents of the church and those who are fence sitters would blame the church or at least the fact that he is a Mormon.

Also, as I was watching the interview and I noticed his reaction to them asking him about something Mike Huckabee said about Mormons and the belief that Satan and the Savior being brothers. I noticed that I'm bothered by his reaction whenever anyone asks him about the deep doctrinal questions and the not so deep doctrinal questions. His reaction is generally the same. He stumbles on his words and becomes visibly uncomfortable. I know about his speech and I respect the fact that he gave this speech regardless of how it will effect his candidacy. However, as a Mormon it bothers me that he struggles with owning up to what he is when the cameras are on him. One of the only things I know about his father is that he was quite the opposite.

The other thing that bothers me is that he has had a history of waffling on issues where he should not waffle. During some of the early debates I watched I noticed one of the candidates showed that he really had guts when it came to his stance on moral issues. He never danced around the question nor did he become uncomfortable when he explained what he believed. This candidate was not Mitt Romney. Instead it was Senator Brownback from Kansas and sadly he dropped out of the race. There were times Romney spoke about certain moral issues and he danced around those issues.

So no I really don't want Mitt Romney to be the Presidential candidate. If he were a little stronger about who he was and what he believed and would own up to his deep doctrinal religious beliefs then I might approve a little more of him.

I read a story to the boys I teach on Sunday about a Mormon soldier. To paraphrase the story his rough and tough drill sergent said that what got him about Mormons was that they "were good even when they didn't have to be." Perhaps it would be appropriate to say is Mitt Romney true to what he believes no matter how many people are watching him? I think for him being a public figure it's extremely important that he represent Mormons in a positive light.



Crystal said...

Is this what you were working on for 2 hours last night after I went to bed? As you know, I am not a fan of Mitt Romney- especially the more I see of him. To me, he is not standing "at all times, in all places" for very much except that he has "economic experience."

Of course, I am sure I will just vote republican when next November rolls around, I just wish that the candidate does not misrepresent or run scared of LDS ideals...or have public records of adultery sponsored on the tax-payers dime... or calling The Church a Cult and the adversary "Jesus's Brother"... or who a person seems angry and jumpy all the time... We are in a fine fix. I think you should run, Matt. I will vote for you and we would not even have to move. Love you, hope you are having a good day at work- I am HOME DOING NOTHING for the first time since September! HAH! (this is boring)

Lori said...

Okay, Mia and Jack were standing here when I opened the link and saw a bare bum. Maybe you should have put on there that it wasn't suitable for children. I know it was done in innocent fun but the content was a bit inappropriate for some viewers.

Leslie said...

Well, sadly, that's what politics is all about. Every candidate is trying to win the votes of as many people as he can.

If he tries to run on a "Mormon" ticket, or even a "I represent Jesus Christ" ticket, he will not win. If everyone was interested in the principles and values of the church they would have converted when they talked to the missionaries. (I wonder how many people in the U.S. have never talked to missionaries?)

As a missionary, in the MTC, the first thing they tell you when meeting people is that you should build on common beliefs and not differences. So, if your contingents have a belief in God- focus there. If they really believe in family- focus there. I think Mitt is trying to look for those commonalities and not focus on the differences, which is probably why he seems uncomfortable.

Also, I think it's dumb that people ask him doctrinal questions, especially the deep ones. He's not running to be a religious leader. He's running to be a secular leader.

All of that said, I have had more respect for other men. It does bother me that he has changed his stance on particular issues over the years, but then haven't we all. At least I have...I haven't always felt exactly the same about every political issue. But I do think he should address why he changed his stance. I might feel more comfortable if I understood the why.

Speaking of politics, go to this website and you can see how your ideals match up with the candidates: http://www.speakout.com/VoteMatch/senate2006.asp?quiz=2008

Becky said...

First of all, there are certain things that I don't like about Mitt Romney, most importantly is his changing stance on abortion. That said, I do not think that Mitt Romey should be expected by anyone, mormon or otherwise, to answer doctrinal questions about the church. He is not a spokesman for the church, he is a candidate for president. No other candidate is asked to explain his religion in such detail. I think that it is totally inappropriate to expect that. I think that might be why it kindof seems like he is uncomfortable, or seen as trying to avoid the question when he is asked those kinds of things. He SHOULD NOT have to answer them. There should not be a religious litmus (sp?) test for anyone, even a mormon.

I agree with Leslie that he is trying to find common ground with his belief in Jesus Christ and his family values. You should not vote for someone, or vote against someone based on their religion. You should vote for who you think would be best for America, not best for the church. Like Mitt said, he is an American running for president, not a mormon running for president.

If you think that Mitt is not owning up to his deep doctrinal beliefs, just look at what he said in his speech. He said that he is an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, and he lives it's precepts. He said that it has affected the man he is and how he lives his life. He should not have to say any more than that. He basically bore his testimony to the entire world that day when he said that he believes that Jesus Christ is the Savior of the world!! And look at how he lives his life, it is virtually scandal free, he has been married to the same woman for 30 years and has raised 5 productive, well balanced children. HIs opponents have been hard pressed to find any scandal, so they are attacking his religion. I actually really liked Mike Huckabee until his recent attack on his opponents religion. You don't see Mitt Romeny doing that to anyone else. He has not stooped to that level.

I don't know who I am going to vote for, the pickings are slim. Rudy Guliani is a social liberal and doesn't try to cover it up, and I am disgusted with Huckabees recent attack on mormonism to pander for votes. I really don't like Romey's changing stance on abortion. But like Leslie said, heaven knows I have changed my stance on a lot of things over the years!! All I know is that religion SHOULD NOT be a consideration. I don't think we should expect a person running for president who happens to be mormon to be a perfect member of the church. That isn't fair, and it really is an impossible standard.

I feel like I am trying to convince everyone to vote for Mitt, but I'm really not. I just feel like he needs to be defended a little, because he is attacked by everyone, mormons and non-mormons alike. He can't make anyone happy on the mormon issue, and my point is HE SHOULDN"T HAVE TO!! It's not fair and no one else is asked to do such a thing. I feel like we need to focus on how he, and any other candidate, will effect America for the better.

That's all, I'm done with my rant :)


PS: Harry Reid is also a mormon....you never hear anything about that. I mean he is the freaking senate majority leader for crying out loud!! Just something to think about....

Leslie said...

Oh yeah, and one other thought I had after all of this...discrimination in the U.S. is illegal. If I was being interviewed for a new job and that person asked me about my religious beliefs before hiring me, I could sue ...and I'd win.

Crystal said...

I dont think anyone expects anyone to explain deep doctrine, but just to not be uncomfortable with it. People are VERY CURIOUS about the church- it is very non-mainstream.
At Valerie's birthday party, Maurice (my ex-husband), his mother, and the lady I nannied for this summer all approached me and asked of the kids, "which ones are mormon?!" People are curious.

Besides that, as we all know, there still is a very real sense in this country that "we" are a cult.

Perhaps it is not what was intended for persons running for president of this country, but if a person does "change his mind" a lot and he is running to represent the whole country, I see precedent for knowing a little about his foundations and grounding. That is, what is his moral standing? What are his values? oh! They are based in his religion? ok... well, what does this religion subscribe to?

If we go with the idea that we can not ask about religion, we also could not ask questions relating to race, sex, age, sexual orientation, immigration status, etc... and is that feasible in this type of deal?

Also, I have to say, after 9/11 happening in my back yard in 2001, I can not tell you the peace it brought me to see my president knelt down in prayer in the days that followed invoking the name of God. It was that act alone that for me, defines the first term of President Bush.

Becky said...

I totally agree with you Crystal, about being able to ask about religion and I also really love that about president bush. I'm not saying it can't be asked about, I just don't think that he should address any doctirnal issues because where would it stop? That would just lead to more questions that he would be bound to answer because he gave in to that line of questioning. That is a really slippery slope because it gives people license to use his comments as ammunition against him and against the church. Again, he isn't a spokesman for the church. I think that he was pretty clear in his speech about his dedication to the church, and he has discussed some general things about our dedication to Jesus Christ and family. But I really don't feel that someone's candidacy for president is the proper forum to use to discuss the church. That seems a little inappropriate to me. I understand and appreciate that people are curious, but they should be referred to the church's website or the proper authorities for those answers.

Leslie said...

I agree with both of you. We should always want and have a good, moral man leading our country. We should have someone who tries to stay close to God...agreed.

But when Bush ran for President, I didn't hear many people ask him doctrinal questions about his born again faith. I understand that mainstream Christianity is a little better understood, but still...

If I was on national TV and someone asked me out of the blue about the relationship between Satan and Jesus I might also be a little uncomfortable, not because I can't answer the question, but because there's a lot of context that needs to be explained to answer that question. My guess is that they weren't going to give him 10 minutes to explain the context around his answer. Taken out of context an answer might seem very strange. It's that way with a lot of our doctrine.

All of that said. There are things that bother me, and I still don't know if I'm going to vote for him.

Crystal said...

I actually dont know the answer to that either- but the answer, I think might cause me to squirm as much as the question itself...

I think people are just like "wow, that is something I have never heard of- do you really believe that?!"

Others are bashing and others say... well, ARE they Christian? because it is important to most people in the republican party. Also, it is politics, so it gets ugly.

I think part of the reason Bush did not get grilled about his beliefs is because he is mainstream and most mainstream Christian beliefs are pretty well understood.

I honestly think Romney is a good guy, but he needs to not give a speech like he did last week and then dodge questions that stem from the speech. I do not think most people are trying to bash him, they just want clarification and they want to know it from him and not missionaries.

I bet that the lds.org site is getting way more hits than ever before after his speech (which is GOOD... I converted because of the things I found there, the Book of Mormon and the missionaries).

I just wish that Romney himself was more representative of what "we" believe in terms of his voting record. Some things are not black and white- like caffeine and hot chocolate- others are- like abortion and gay marriage.

The reason I loved Brownback is that he never appologized for his anti-both views, that is what I would expect from a Mormon, he is a mainstream Christian, however.

Last year, the bishopric announced to our ward how we should vote on a particular issue pertaining to gay marriage during sacrament meeting. That said a lot to me- that it is THAT important.

It is that immovability that I wish we were seeing so that people would not be confused between him -v- his faith.

notthecroshaws said...

I guess I'll leave my thoughts on the whole thing. By the way has Dad been asleep for the past 2 days? I would have expected a lengthy reply from him. I'm sure it's in the works though.

My thoughts on the speech were that he wanted to give this speech so that he could get it out of the way and not answer any more Mormon questions. I don't think it will sway enough voters to make a big difference. There are many people I'm sure who won't vote for him simply because he's Mormon and the speech didn't change that. I'm sure there are also some who will vote for him now. I also think there are some people who won't vote for Huckabee for the comments he made. I don't think the general public is as dumb as he thinks they are. I'm not really that surprised by comments like that coming from a Southern Baptist minister either.

I think non-Mormons are expecting him to answer all the questions about polygamy and the gold bible and Brigham Young riding across the plains on a white buffalo while the Mormons are expecting him the be a super missionary to the masses. I don't think either is a very fair or realistic expectation. It's easy to sit at home and be very open with our beliefs from the comfort and security of our couch. I'm sure it's a completely different thing to be talking about the church in the venue he has. I think we're kidding ourselves if we say we would be completely open and not hold anything back. As soon as I experience preaching my beliefs to millions of people I'll tell you how it goes.

The waffling is a completely separate issue. He made a mistake and he knows it and is trying to make ammends. I feel like he is sincere. I'm also not naive. I would like to know the circumstances surrounding his pro abortion vote. It's never a simple black and white decision. I'm choosing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

My last thing is this: if I don't vote for him, who will I vote for? Rudy? Of course not. Huckabee? That's pretty much out of consideration. Maybe McCain. I'll probably vote for Ralph Nader I guess. That or write in a vote for Homer Simpson.
My decision won't be made for a while.

Matthew said...

First of all I'm sorry Lori. I probably should have put something to the effect of "This may frighten children."

I remember after the documentary aired on PBS the institute director in Charlottesville fielded quite a few questions during institute. I remember being impressed by the way he answered the questions. He unapologetically told us the truth. He also didn't seem to be uncomfortable with the questions either.

The other thing is that whether any of us like it or not he is a representative of the church. Come to think of it all of us are representatives of the church. Isn't that what is meant by "every member a missionary"?

I don't expect him to be a mega missionary but I would like him to be a little less uncomfortable with what he believes.

Matthew said...

It just seemed like when he had to field questions off the cuff he was a bit uneasy with explaining how he feels. As a politician he should know how to answer these questions with a bit more of a sure footed answer.

notthecroshaws said...

What documentary are you referring to?
You can't compare an institute director answering questions to a handful of students in an instutute building of his own faith with Mitt Romney fielding questions on worldwide TV in front of tens of millions of people. And you're kidding yourself if you think you wouldn't be uncomfortable if you were in his shoes. Think of the burden he has to feel as the only Mormon to ever run for president (except Joseph Smith). Cut the guy a little slack. I don't want to see the debates turned from real issues to a religious argument.

notthecroshaws said...

I am very happy to see I have raised such mild mannered, timid children.

notthecroshaws said...

yahn. Did somebody say something? You woke me up... Wow! there's been quite a discussion going on here. Well, here's my long reply: About the abortion thing, he has explained that, and I believe it is on record. I'm not sure I remember all the details, and you should probably check it out yourselves, but my understanding was that he was raised by a mother who was a politician, and although and acitve Mormon, she was pro-choice. He was influenced by that, and said that he was not necesarily pro-abortion but rather pro-states' rights in the matter. Then, when the questions of stem cell research and cloning came along, he could see that it was a slippery slope and could get way out of control. That is when he saw the light and turned to the right on the issue. When asked about his flip-flop in one of the debates, I heard him say to the moderator, something like, "I changed because I recognized that I had had been wrong. Simple as that, I was wrong." Seems like everyone is uptight about him changing, but I guess we should be happy that at least he changed in the right direction. And yes, cut him some slack. Have none of us ever changed our minds?

Also, when asked by a reoporter for response to Huckabee's Christ=Satan comments, I heard him say something that was entirely consistent with his coming-out-as-a-Mormon speech: "The Church leaders in Salt Lake City have already responded to that matter, and I have nothing furhter to add."

Yes, we are all representatives of the Church, but we are not representatives for the Church. We have general authorities and official PR representatives for that purpose. As a presidential candidate, or as a president of the country, Romney should be a good example of Mormonism, but he would cannot be pushing the particular doctrines of his religion on the public. That is what he said in his speech. The only way he can enforce that is to refuse to answer the nosey, prying, leading, ulterior questions pushed on him by the media and his opponants. Otherwise, it would never end.

OK, that's the best I can do on short notice.

Love you all, Dad

Valerie said...

hah hah, I am Valerie... incognito... guess who I really am. I give you one try.

So when someone asks ME about the church, I should say the authorities have answered those things and I have no further comment... right?
Alos, not a month ago when asked about abortion on the televised national debate (FOXNEWS, we tivo'd it) he said when asked about abortion, "it is tricky because it involves a mother's life as well." That was more on the order of days ago, not years, not months- a few weeks. Again... "changing one's mind" is one thing... going back and forth in certain company is another.

Matthew said...

I've heard that two issues will start a fight faster than anything. Religion and politics.

Dad you've told me something new about his family I didn't know. I knew his father George Romney was the governor of Michigan and a presidential candidate during the time of the Vietnam war. However, I was not aware that his mother was in politics too. I learn something new every day.

I think most of you assume that I dislike Mitt Romney. That is not true. During the debates I noticed
he's a straight shooter when it comes to his stance on issues about finances. However, he seems much more evasive when he was describing his stances involving moral issues. On the contrary I remember that Senator Brownback was a straight shooter when it came to his stances on moral issues. He was very unapologetic about his stances and he was also speaking to a national audience and he never became uncomfortable when he proclaimed his view. I remember feeling a little disappointed that it wasn't the mormon candidate who took that stance.

Jason & Dana said...

Me Talking seriously about Politics is like me eating my vegetables, I only do it when Debbie
makes me.
I am the least educated or qualified to talk about all this. Believe it or not, I don't even know the
channel # of fox news.

I look at my past stake presidents, and their spiritual maturity. And think of them all as great men
called and trusted of God. Which I thought I heard that Romney has served in that capacity. If
that the case, I think he is qualified on a spiritual level for what ever may come his way and I
would trust that.
If anyone knows an easy way to talk to non-members about the church, let me know. A challenge
for anyone, go up to a stranger, ask them if they have heard about Presidential candidate Mitt
Romney's religious beliefs and then start bearing your testimony to them. I can assure you it
probably wont come out as smooth as you would like it too. Then let them drill you about what
you said.

Ok, enough from me.
Shouldn't we all be debating here weather college football should have a playoff instead of the
traditional bowl system?

Leslie said...

Wow, Matt. You started a great debate. :)

I do think the abortion issue is tricky as well (strike me dead). I understand what he was saying.

Not to change the subject...but abortion is not a cut-and-dry issue. If a woman is going to die because of a pregnancy, I think she should have the right to decide whether or not she terminates the pregnancy. If she already has 4 small children at home, do we just say, "sorry, you have no choice. you must die". Also, if a woman is raped by a close male relative, do we make her carry that baby to term? (Which I think is in line with what the Church says.)

If you don't give someone the opportunity to explain themselves fully, you'll never know their complete thoughts on an issue. Ask for a one-line answer, and you'll always be disappointed and always have something to criticize.

notthecroshaws said...

I think Dad and Leslie put in words what I tried to but couldn't. Talking with someone you know when asked about the church is completely different than Romney being asked the questions in front of millions. You cannot argue that it is the same thing. I said this before, as soon as one of us goes in front of the entire country and answers those questions that he was asked and doesn't have any hesitation in your voice, then you can start to criticize him about that.
And answering questions about moral issues is completely different than being asked specifically about your religion, especially when most of the comments are of a derogatory nature. Senator Brownbeck's questions were not the same questions that Romney got.
I don't think that you dislike Romney, I just think you don't like him enough to run this country over other candidates. There isn't going to be a perfect candidate. I think our disappointments with him as a Mormon affect how we compare him with someone else who you don't hold to the same standards.
And of course there should be a playoff system in college football, that's a no brainer.

notthecroshaws said...

Just in case anyone is wondering, the Church's policy is that abortion is acceptable in the case of rape or incest, and in the case of the mother's life being threatened by the pregnancy. Also, for the purposes of church discipline, abortion for any other reason is considered to be a major sin, but is not considered to be murder.

notthecroshaws said...

One more thing:
Looks like Matt wins the prize for the most comments on a blog entry. Good work Matt!

abbynormal said...

Wow, how have I skipped out on the blog for this long? I've missed the great debate! Almost everything I've thought to say as I've read all the comments was voiced by someone else. Mom and Dad, you definitely brought up some strong-willed, opinionated kids, and I wouldn't have it any other way. :) All I really have to say now is, since I've been living in DC, I've learned to pay closer attention to the whole politics game (I'm still getting over that same mentality Jason mentioned.) and plenty of people ask me my thoughts on Romney all the time - so I try to stay as informed as I can.

That being said, I'm tired of people saying, "He needs to explain himself for his changes on [fill in]!" He has. Repetitively. Look it up. I prefer to think of it as evolving as he's gotten more experience and understanding. Not flip-flopping. (That would require changing and then changing BACK. Otherwise, it's just a flip.)

As far as the church. As has been mentioned by others, he is not a spokesperson for the church. The end. He has zero reason to explain the deep doctrine of what he believes, nor would I like him to do so on national TV. Even if he had a chance to explain it all with context, it would surely be taken out of context and crucified by the media. (Pun intended.) The phrase I've heard over and over is that he's running for President of the US, not pastor. There is already all sorts of pressure on both sides about him not catering to Salt Lake City. I think he's doing the right thing in deferring to the authorities. Anything faith-based is going to sound odd, if the question is worded secularly. ("You're a Catholic, right? Do you REALLY believe that when you put this bread/water in your mouth, that it REALLY changes into the body/blood of Christ? LITERALLY? Could you explain that?!")

My favorite clip of Mitt is from a radio interview when the guy was secretly taping him during the commercial breaks. This one of those "I read a book" guys who thinks he's now an expert on everything Mormon - more of an expert than, say, a Stake President. I think the guy meant for it to negatively affect Romney. If you ask me, he's never looked so good. It's right here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-G9hydflwEQ
Give the guy a break.

My last thought is to a comment where wishes were expressed that he vote consistent with our beliefs. There are people of our faith on both sides of the spectrum in politics. Two words: Harry Reid. There's a reason the mainstream media leaves him alone.

Politics is a dirty business. Don't trust everything you see/read. Judge Romney for his political stances, not on his religion. He is a man of faith, and that is where it should end. If that is all you can focus on, the media wins.

That is all.

P.S. Matt, your link at the top was blocked on my work computer for being "Tasteless." And I'm glad. I can't imagine what I would have done if it had gone through just as my boss walked up.

Crystal said...

You all would not believe how fast and hard my heart is racing in reading these emotional responses!

So Abby, Transdifferentiation comes straight from the New Testament "this is my body broken for you" and "this is my blood spilt for you" not that hard to extrapolate- Christ said it to His apostles... what is way more fun is describing how it is NOT the actual blood and flesh of Christ once a righteous believer consumes... that did not bother me too much to explain, course I often had to as a member of the high church all my life save the past 3 years.

Also- it is common knowledge that abortion can be considered in extreme cases- though I would bet even so, a woman's bishop would still counsel her to pray about it. We dont need to debate that, inspired men have already given us direction and I trust them fully with this and other matters.

Mitt has gone back and forth and back again on many an issue- particularly on what is commonly called "family values." The record is clear and the "mind change" recent... think how recently gay marriage was enacted, then look up the formal letter Mitt sent to log cabin (GAY) republicans saying "I will get your gay marriage" because it happened. He enacted SUBSIDIES for Planned Parenthood abortions, he did not veto "gay marriage" indoctrination to the poor children who attended public school in his state.

Also- there is much misinformation above- plenty of mormons have run for president, Romney's mother was not in politics and he IS dishonest... "I watched my father march with MLK, Jr..." really? You were in France on a mission AND your father NEVER joined him. How can someone expect people will trust him after all that!? (is this another thing that will be defended and excused?)

I don't think he is a good representative of the conservative values I espouse and I think he would give (and does give) a way more liberal view of the church than is actual.

It is like this- if you have a stance, back it up with facts, then I will respect you. If you go emotional and that is your reaction (versus response) then I don't respect that at all. What is worse is making up stuff or trying to recall things that are in fact, completely false.

I did give him a break, I was all about Mitt when he announced his candidacy, then when I made the effort to become informed about my "candidiate" I dropped him like a hot potato. For good reason.

I have never been a "Yes woman" and accept what authority around me has impressed on me to be "right" without investigating it myself and that is why I feel so passionate about this (and many, many others!) issues. That is the way that I am, but I will tell you what, it has made me well-informed on many, many matters. I am not saying I am right, I am saying I made up my mind after putting in lots of time and effort.

CharityAngel said...

It can be really hard to post about this issue being LDS myself, but I was invited here, so here I am.

I started out as a MAJOR Mitt supporter. I was really involved. I was in his top 24 on Myspace, and I had about 500 of my fans sign up to be volunteers for his campaign. I was regularly communicating by email with Mitt's son Tagg.

A few years ago I watched "America:Freedom to Fascism" (you can watch it for free at google video)THAT really opened my eyes.

That move started to give me a clearer perspective on the Secret Combinations in the BOM. And that they really were had among ALL nations, just as Moroni says. I then had to study about how, what, and when even more.

As I did, I started asking Tagg questions about his father's positions on things, and I started to dig deeper. I did not like the responses that I got.

If you do not know who the CFR (council on foreign relations) are, and what they do to our nation, along with other "entities", then you need to research it.

A great LDS book about this is "Awakening to our Awful Situation: Warnings from the Nephite Prophets"

I found Mitt is connected to them. His advisors are connected to them. 880 of the cabinet members in THIS administration ARE from CFR.

In fact, the ONLY candidate that is running that is NOT connected is Ron Paul. And I cannot tell you how much what I found broke my heart. I am going to share some links, and leave you to continue your own searches for truth.




Now, to try to move America "globally" is the CFR's agenda. And the elite bankers that want to have a one world currency.

We are looking for a President that will RESTORE the REPUBLIC, and return us to the principles of the Founding Fathers. We are told that we are to befriend the Constitution. D&C 98. We are to save it from the brink of destruction.

President Bush signed Directive 51, and if you do not know what that is, I suggest that you go to youtube.com and in the search look for "what we have ignored".


The Constitution is hanging by a thread, and it is time for "Free Men" to rise up and through the "voice of the people" silence the "king men". Alma 46 through Helaman 6 I believe covers what I am talking about.

There is a lot of info here, and so I will leave it at that.

Charity Angel