Lord Romney?

[robrecht]

"Also" bring it up? AFAICT y'all are the only ones bringing it up. Some conservatives have called Mormonism a cult but I haven't heard any bring up polygamy.

One of the first to raise it as an issue was Brian Schweitzer, the Democrat gov of Montana. And who brought it up here? JimL. Unless you're saying he's one of those agent provocateurs

I don't think the history of polygamy is the main issue or even much of an issue for the fundamentalist Republican base, but rather whether or not Mormons are truly Christian. In the end, it won't be that decisive of an issue, 'though, because they all hate Obama much more. I never heard of Brian Schweitzer--is he related to Albert Schweitzer?

[OtherCheek]

I went back and found the article:

That encounter with Mr. Clark provides a rare glimpse into the way Mr. Romney — now a Republican candidate for president — expresses his faith and exercised authority as a religious leader. From 1981 through 1994, he was a powerful figure in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is run almost entirely by volunteers beyond its headquarters in Salt Lake City.

First as bishop of his own congregation, and later as Boston “stake president,” overseeing a region akin to a Roman Catholic diocese, he operated as clergyman, organization man and defender of the faith, guiding the church through a tumultuous period of rapid growth. ...

“Mitt is the type who liked to be called Bishop Romney or President Romney,” said Judy Dushku, a professor of government at Suffolk University in Boston and a Mormon feminist leader. “He is very conscious of his place in the hierarchy, but not yours.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us...pagewanted=all

So is "Boston 'stake president'" not aking to being a bishop?

Throughout the Church, we are taught to address our bishops as "Bishop (insert last name)", or as "President (insert last name)" in the case of a Stake President. This feminist woman must not like that policy. Nevertheless, a bishop is a leader of a body of members between 200-400 called a "ward". Usually 2-3 wards attend different time slots in the same building for Sunday worship services. The Bishop has 2 counselors. Between 7-10 wards are organized in to a Stake, with a Stake President and 2 counselors. The callings of "Bishop" or "Stake President" last roughly 5 years, and then the person is released from that calling, and given another calling. Sometimes when Bishops or Stake Presidents are released, their next calling might be to teach in the Primary (children 18 months-11 years old) for a year or two.

But there is no title in our Church called "Lord so and so". So the title of this thread is misleading, as I think 99% of TWebbers already know.

[RumTumTugger]

Are you kidding??? We liberals also bring it up because we are entertained by the fundamentalist Republican base, but not because its an issue for us, just entertaining.

excuse me it isn't the "fundamentalist Republicans bringing it up at all it is you liberals. Gee I wonder why?

[JimL]

excuse me it isn't the "fundamentalist Republicans bringing it up at all it is you liberals. Gee I wonder why?

Excuse me, but this is how Republicans campaign. You know, swift boat style, Rev. Jerimiah wright, Birthers, communist, take your guns, Black panthers, Monica lewinsky, the nanny state, etc etc.. They know that they can't win on the issues, so they don't talk about the issues, what they do is try and dig up, or rather create, something stupid that will rile up its moronic base. It works for them every time, there just was not quite enough morons to get them over the top last time so plan B is to suppress the democratic vote by creating the fallacy of voter fraud and disenfranchising what could turn out to be 5 million voters. If that doesn't work they will try and rig the corporate owned voting machines or have the corrupt Supreme court come in and annoint them winner a la G.W. Bush in Florida. If and when they take over then you will have the Daddy state that you so desire. Idiots!

[rogue06]

But there is no title in our Church called "Lord so and so". So the title of this thread is misleading, as I think 99% of TWebbers already know.

I think the "Lord" part comes from JimL's disdain and envy for anyone with more wealth than he has. He was calling Ann Romney "Lady Romney" in another thread.

I have to wonder if he was displaying the same caustic attitude when John Kerry was running for president. Kerry's accumulated wealth is comparable to Romney's but comes from inheritance and marrying very wealthy widows in contrast to Romney who gave his entire inheritance to charity and acquired his wealth by actually working for it. Then, of course, Kerry is a liberal Democrat which probably earns him an exemption from JimL's bile.

[Cow Poke]

It's only an issue with Romney because of the fundamentalist Republican base.

Romney is running for President of the US --- not for Pope, or for the President of the Southern Baptist Convention. I remember the rumors and fears when Kennedy ran for President, and people were scared to death that he'd taking marching orders from the Pope.

[Cow Poke]

Throughout the Church, we are taught to address our bishops as "Bishop (insert last name)", or as "President (insert last name)" in the case of a Stake President. This feminist woman must not like that policy. Nevertheless, a bishop is a leader of a body of members between 200-400 called a "ward". Usually 2-3 wards attend different time slots in the same building for Sunday worship services. The Bishop has 2 counselors. Between 7-10 wards are organized in to a Stake, with a Stake President and 2 counselors. The callings of "Bishop" or "Stake President" last roughly 5 years, and then the person is released from that calling, and given another calling. Sometimes when Bishops or Stake Presidents are released, their next calling might be to teach in the Primary (children 18 months-11 years old) for a year or two.

But there is no title in our Church called "Lord so and so". So the title of this thread is misleading, as I think 99% of TWebbers already know.

I was just trying to look this up ---the "ward" and "stake" thing... thanks for the info, OC. More light and less heat!

[JimL]

I think the "Lord" part comes from JimL's disdain and envy for anyone with more wealth than he has. He was calling Ann Romney "Lady Romney" in another thread.

I have to wonder if he was displaying the same caustic attitude when John Kerry was running for president. Kerry's accumulated wealth is comparable to Romney's but comes from inheritance and marrying very wealthy widows in contrast to Romney who gave his entire inheritance to charity and acquired his wealth by actually working for it. Then, of course, Kerry is a liberal Democrat which probably earns him an exemption from JimL's bile.

Rogue, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no problem with wealthy people, my problem is with a system that is rigged towards the wealthy, with a government that is bought and paid for by the wealthy and the policies of the Republican party to whom Romney belongs and supports wants to continue down that same path. All you need do is look at the data to understand what is happening and what has been happening for thirty or more years now. The productivity of the American worker as well as the corporate profits have skyrocketed and yet the wages of the average worker hasn't budged in that time. The congress has given banks the leeway to rob the American people blind with outlandish fees with no reason other than to increase their own bottom lines. Wall street is unregulated to the point of being able to crash the entire world economy costing people their homes, their jobs while they themselves get rich in the process with no penalty for doing so. Wall street regulates congress by lobbying and paying off those that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people and the overall economy off the country. So it is not the wealthy that I have a problem with, its the system. And as far as I know, I never called Ann Romney "Lady Romney", not that that would have anything to do with anything.

[rogue06]

Rogue, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no problem with wealthy people, my problem is with a system that is rigged towards the wealthy, with a government that is bought and paid for by the wealthy and the policies of the Republican party to whom Romney belongs and supports wants to continue down that same path. All you need do is look at the data to understand what is happening and what has been happening for thirty or more years now. The productivity of the American worker as well as the corporate profits have skyrocketed and yet the wages of the average worker hasn't budged in that time. The congress has given banks the leeway to rob the American people blind with outlandish fees with no reason other than to increase their own bottom lines. Wall street is unregulated to the point of being able to crash the entire world economy costing people their homes, their jobs while they themselves get rich in the process with no penalty for doing so. Wall street regulates congress by lobbying and paying off those that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people and the overall economy off the country. And as far as I know, I never called Ann Romney "Lady Romney", not that that would have anything to do with anything.

IOW, I'm correct that you have no problem with someone who inherits and marries his way into wealth as long as he's a Democrat but you despise those who actually work for it (disparagingly referring to them as "Lord" and the like) if they're a Republican.

[JimL]

IOW, I'm correct that you have no problem with someone who inherits and marries his way into wealth as long as he's a Democrat but you despise those who actually work for it (disparagingly referring to them as "Lord" and the like) if they're a Republican.

No, apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I can't help you with that.

[OtherCheek]

Rogue, you have no idea what you are talking about. I have no problem with wealthy people, my problem is with a system that is rigged towards the wealthy, with a government that is bought and paid for by the wealthy and the policies of the Republican party to whom Romney belongs and supports wants to continue down that same path. All you need do is look at the data to understand what is happening and what has been happening for thirty or more years now. The productivity of the American worker as well as the corporate profits have skyrocketed and yet the wages of the average worker hasn't budged in that time. The congress has given banks the leeway to rob the American people blind with outlandish fees with no reason other than to increase their own bottom lines. Wall street is unregulated to the point of being able to crash the entire world economy costing people their homes, their jobs while they themselves get rich in the process with no penalty for doing so. Wall street regulates congress by lobbying and paying off those that are supposed to be representing the interests of the people and the overall economy off the country. So it is not the wealthy that I have a problem with, its the system. And as far as I know, I never called Ann Romney "Lady Romney", not that that would have anything to do with anything.

The liberal Democrats protect wealth too. It's just that the basis for earning that protection is based upon the ideology of the person, instead of the hard work of the person who is to be protected.

[Cow Poke]

No, apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. I can't help you with that.

Yeah, cause it would be like Pee Wee Herman trying to help Chuck Norris with his workouts.

[JimL]

The liberal Democrats protect wealth too. It's just that the basis for earning that protection is based upon the ideology of the person, instead of the hard work of the person who is to be protected.

The liberal democrats passed the Dodd/Frank legislation in order to curb Wall Street abuses. The Liberal democrats created the consumer protection agency in order to protect consumers. The liberal democrats passed the lilly ledbetter act protecting women from wage discrimination. The liberal democrats support the minimum wage act. The Liberal democrats support unions and workers abilities to collectivly bargain, which btw gave you a 5 day, 40 hr. work week, vacation pay, workmens comp. ins. and fair wages. The Liberal democrats support the unemployemet ins. The liberal democrats support a progressive tax which is in the interests of the majority of Americans. The liberal democrats created and support social security which gave rise to the middle class in this country. The liberal democrats support a single payor health care system which would cut out the middle man and put the majority of the revenue that people pay into the health system back into their actual health care rather than into the pockets of wealthy CEO's. Republicans are against all of these things, so please don't tell me there is no difference between the two political party's.

[Darth Executor]

The liberal democrats passed the Dodd/Frank legislation in order to curb Wall Street abuses.

Putting Dodd and Frank in charge of curbing Wall Street abuses is like having Adolf Hitler replace your shower head.

[JimL]

Putting Dodd and Frank in charge of curbing Wall Street abuses is like having Adolf Hitler replace your shower head.

Right, it is such a boon to Wall Street that they are fighting tooth and nail, or should I say paying of congressmen to curtail its implementation.