Sunday, September 02, 2012

Exciting time for Mormons. But should they be concerned?

It's an exciting time for Mormons, with the candidacy of Mitt Romney for President.

There are some Mormons who see the candidacy of Mitt Romney as a great opportunity for publicity, to show people that the Mormons are not, as the used to boast, a 'peculiar people' but are just as normal as everybody else.

But then Mitt Romney does something stupid like thinking that it is entirely appropriate to put a dog in a box on top of a car and scare the poor creature so much that it developed stress diarrhoea and fouled itself.

Now, there's an interesting question. If there is someone who, as an adult with a wife and children   is so mindbogglingly stupid as to believe it  is appropriate and proper to maltreat a dog in that manner, is that person a fit and proper person to be in the election for president, let alone the president?

After all, one would expect anyone who is the candidate for president to have intelligence, fellow-feel, knowledge and wisdom. All, one might surmise, singularly lacking in someone who could so badly mistreat a family pet.

So, is Mormon Mitt Romney a good candidate for president? I have very severe  doubts about this.

There are other things that are questionable about Mitt Romney, such as his ability to change his views with more rapidity and less thought than some people change their socks.

And the ability of Mitt Romney and his wife to reinvent themselves is questionable.Their claims of poverty in their early married lives have a hollow ring to them. As a wise man once said: "Poverty to some people is having less that a £1,000 in their bank account. To others poverty is about not having enough food for your family to eat." Some observers believe that he should not be call Mitt Romney but rather Myth Romney, such is his desire and ability to spin myths about his early life and alleged poverty.

Other Mormons are darkly muttering about: "the Constitution hanging like a thread" as they hark back to one of the prophecies that date back to the early days of the Mormon Church, which foretold of the time when the  Constitution of the USA would be "hanging by a thread" and the Mormon Church would have to step in and take over the governance of the USA. They believe that Mitt Romney is the man, the Mormon man, who can do this. Is it a coincidence that there have been reports that some Mormons are  reportedly hoarding food, water, ammunition and firearms? Perhaps not.

The Mormons were dangerous in 19th century America. With their block voting tricks and their raids on non-Mormons and the theft of their property  and the murders they committed, they became a source of fear and a hiss word throughout the land of America.

With a Mormon, Mitt Romney, as president, is it likely that similar circumstances will arise again? No. This is highly unlikely. However, this is not to say that should Mitt Romney become president, that some Mormons (those types doing all the hoarding) might not decide to help things along.

Also, it is possible that the US Secret Service might have to provide protection for Mitt Romney against potential attacks from disaffected Mormons on the margins of Mormonism, especially those in the more extreme parts of fundamentalist Mormonism.


AlexisAR said...

The Willard Romney candidacy brings up so many quandaries.

The issue of putting his dog in the carrier atop the roof of a car is huge. There are two ways of looking at this: 1. Willard is so clueless that it didn't occur to him that it wasn't an acceptable way to treat a dog. 2. Willard knew it was wrong, but didn't care because it was JUST a dog. Either way, this by itself, in my opinion, disqualifies him for our nation's highest office. My dad would no sooner transport our family dog on the roof of our car than do the same to me or my brother. This is not to say that he would ever transport my brother or me on the roof o a car; rather, he'd consider either possibility unthinkable.

I'm equally concerned about one of Willard's adolescent "pranks" --
the one during which Willard had his friends restrain a socially awkward boy who was not part of Willard's social circle so that Willard could cut the boy's hair, which was, in Willard's estimation, too long. This perplexes me on many levels, beginning with the very definition of the word "prank." While clear consensus does not exist, most sources define a prank as something along the lines of a silly or mischievous trick. This act led by Willard was not a lighthearted joke; certainly not in the perception of the victim. The fact that Willard claims not to remember his role in this misdeed is bothersome to me. I've done things of which I'm not proud. I'd love to erase these things from my consciousness, but I have a conscience, which keeps those less proud moments of mine firmly intact in in my memory. Does Willard not have a functioning conscience? Or did he commit so many acts of unkindness toward those less socially prominent among his peers that it would take the memory of a savant to keep them all straight? Did he never consider the mistreatment of a peer sufficiently significant to merit space in his memory? None of the possibilities presented bodes well for Sunday School teacher or for the leader of a troop of boy scouts, much less for the potential future president of one of the Earth's most prominent nations.

Regarding youthful indiscretions
. . . I would be deluding myself to think that, at the age of seventeen, I am already the person I will be after I've faced the harsh realities of adulthood. Still, what I am is at least a well-defined shell of the person I will someday become. Most of the mistakes I've made up to this point will not bar me from accomplishing anything I choose to do in the future. This is in part because my past misdeeds have been foolish but not harmful, either physically or psychologically, to another living being. Furthermore, I remember my past indiscretions. I admit to them and am willing to learn from the consequences of owning up to them.

As a near-adult, it is insulting to me that Willard Romney considers misdeeds he committed at my age to be unimportant because of his age.
Furthermore, his disinclination to remember misdeeds from those times of his life causes me to wonder what he could possibly have learned from the consequences of his actions.

Ending on a slightly non sequitur note, I'd much rather have as president of my nation a man who at my age admittedly smoked a few joints, which would have harmed absolutely no one other than himself, than a man who, at the same age, bullied a "lesser" peer and who holds no memory of the incident.

A man is in many ways defined by the sum of his memories, perhaps even more tellingly by those he cannot or chooses not to recall.


Matt said...

Thank you, Alexis.

A wise and thoughtful comment.

Anonymous said...

Could you shed some light on something I've been wondering about as a non-Mormon? Most politicians torture the truth but Mitt Romney has been lying so much and on so many things it causes me to wonder if lying is not such a big deal for Mormons? Is this a Romney thing or a Mormon thing?

Matt said...

Thank you, Annon. Mormons do lie. They use it as a tool in order to accomplish a greater truth. As they would see it.

But they do lie. It is drummed into them to be "economical with the truth" as it was once put.

AlexisAR said...

Matt, this election is going to be a little too close for my comfort.

AlexisAR said...

Hi, Matt. I hope all is well with you and your wife.

AlexisAR said...

Hi, Matt. I hope all is well with you and your wife.