My thoughts on Hawaii's Marriage Equality Act of 2013

by Rachel Murdock

Governor Neil Abercrombie has called a special legislative session on October 28, 2013 in an effort to legalize “gay marriage” in Hawaii. While I personally oppose gay marriage due to religious reasons, I hold no animosity to my gay brothers and sisters and am against discrimination directed towards them. I support the rights granted by same-sex civil unions. I do not support changing the meaning and purpose of the word “marriage” to include members of the same sex simply to grant federal tax benefits and make everyone feel like they are being “fair” and “inclusive.” I do not believe citizens of the state of Hawaii (as well as the country) are fully informed of the contents in various pieces of “gay marriage” legislation and the long term consequences they hold.

If I had just relied on news reports, I would have believed that the religious exemptions that Gov. Abercrombie included in this legislation truly allowed personal religious liberty when it comes to gay marriage. However, after reading the bill (which few people actually will,) I’ve found that the so-called “religious exemptions” in this bill are very narrow, limited and do not come anywhere close to covering individuals or religious organizations in their right to religious liberty.

First of all, it must be understood that the majority of people of faith do not oppose “gay marriage” because they are bigoted or homophobic. It is because they sincerely believe that religious scripture (i.e. God) prohibits homosexuality and that to participate in it is a sin. At the same time we recognize that we are all sinners and we all have the free agency to live our lives the way we chose. Still, people of faith have the right to stand for truth and righteousness at all times, and in all things, and in all places. As backward as some of these sentiments may seem to more secular minded groups and individuals, a certain amount of tolerance on their part is also needed. In my view, religious liberty takes precedence over “gay marriage.” While the founders of our country generally stated that we have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," they found it important enough to specifically guarantee that no law should prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Keeping in mind that individuals and religious organizations have the right to NOT be coerced into doing something that goes against their religious principles, please read carefully, section 572-G of the proposed bill which you can download here.  The language of the bill grants priests and bishops of any denomination the right to refuse or solemnize any marriage and frees them from being subject to fines, penalties or other civil actions.

However, there are three conditions that must be met by religious organizations in order to exempt them from legal harassment should they refuse to make their facilities available to same-sex weddings.

1. The religious facility is regularly used by the religious organization for its religious purposes.

2. The religious organization restricts use of the religious facility exclusively to its members.

3. The religious organization does not operate the religious facility as a for-profit business.

If ANY of these three conditions are not met, then the protection of the section does not cover that religious facility. Condition (2) is the most head scratching line because almost all houses of worship that I know of, DO NOT restrict their facility (i.e. chapel) exclusively to its members. Most churches welcome visitors not of their faith and therefore this condition voids the entire so called “religious exemption.” This could force churches to become exclusive or stop solemnizing marriage all together. This is completely unacceptable.

Another huge flaw in the religious exemption is that it does not cover religious affiliates of churches such as Catholic Charities and other church owned adoption agencies. Schools owned by a church are not protected such as the Mormon owned Brigham Young University in Laie or the adjacent Polynesian Cultural Center. These affiliates and their employees should also be covered under the religious exemption because constitutionally, they also have the right to the free exercise of religion and should not be forced to go against their religious beliefs.

One of my biggest complaints about this bill is that it is selective in who it grants religious liberty to. This was summed up by Pakela A. who wrote a thoughtful analysis of the bill and stated:

"By limiting exemption from recognition of same-sex marraiges to “religions, their houses of worship or their ministers’ lawmakers are ignoring the fact that these religious entities and organizations are built upon individuals. Just as the gay communities are built upon individuals seeking rights to be protected from discrimination, the religious communities are built upon individuals and their rights to be protected from suppression of living their beliefs.” 

The word EQUALITY is a comforting word that makes us feel good, safe and that all the world is fair.  However The Wall Street Journal recently published an article by Mollie Ziegler Hemingway titled “Gay Marriage Collides With Religious Liberty.”  The author points out that "When the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act in June, President Obama said: "How religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions. Nothing about this decision—which applies only to civil marriages—changes that."

Note that only "religious institutions" are guaranteed religious liberty and not individuals. The article goes on to show that regarding gay marriage and religious liberty, "tolerance is not a two-way street." Specific examples are cited of individuals and businesses who have been legally harassed or forced to close their businesses because of their religious objections to catering same-sex union celebrations.

"It's not just religious-minded business owners who need to worry. County recorders, magistrates and judges in Iowa as well as justices of the peace in Massachusetts and town clerks in New York have been told that refusing to perform services for same-sex couples will result in criminal prosecutions for misdemeanors or other sanctions. Faced with choosing between their jobs and their religious beliefs, many have resigned, including a dozen Massachusetts justices of the peace." -Mollie Ziegler Hemingway

In the LGBT community’s march towards equality, people of faith have been trampled upon. Many people think this is okay because they view religion as intolerant and bigoted. But labeling people of faith as such, is in of itself, intolerant and bigoted. You cannot grant rights to one party at the expense of stripping rights from another. The gay community could very well make the same argument. Therefore a compromise is the best solution and that has already happened here in Hawaii in the shape of same-sex civil unions. I would support altering that law to allow same-sex couples to receive federal benefits. However, changing the definition of marriage--which was first an institute of God before it was ever an institute of the state--is wrong.

I believe that the majority of the almost completely democratic Hawaii legislature, is wanting to be as “forward thinking” as possible, wants to stand “on the right side of history” and most likely feels that changing the meaning of marriage is “the right thing to do.”

As a religious conservative (and I'll leave out the words, radical, right-wing and extremist because I am none of those,) I completely disagree. Unfortunately because there is almost no Republican representation in Hawaii, I am resigned to the fact that this bill will most likely pass-- unless citizens inform themselves of what is actually in this bill and speak up in large numbers. We should not be as foolish as our federal government leaders and pass the bill in order to find out what is in it. Any careful reading of the bill would show that this would be devastating to religious organizations and religious individuals. 

I plead with Hawaii senators and representatives for a compromise. (and I have reached out to them.)

This is such a controversial issue with heavy consequences. People have very strong and passionate feelings on both sides. I do not believe it should be decided by the legislature or the court. 

The issue of “gay marriage” should be put to a VOTE by the people. 

If the legislative body refuses to let the people decide and is determined to pass a "gay marriage" bill on their own, then I would ask them to create a religious exemption that actually works:

1. The religious exemption in the bill must be rewritten to include individuals and business owners. 
2. The exemption must be worded in such a way that there is iron-clad protection for religious organizations, their members, their affiliates and their facilities. 
3. The condition that houses of worship be exclusive to members is preposterous, unconstitutional and must be changed. 

I urge all citizens of the State of Hawaii to participate in YOUR government. Contact your senator and representative and let them know where you stand on the issue. They keep track of how many people are for and against the bill and would vote according to the majority of responses. You don't have to write a lengthy email or letter. Just a simple statement of where you stand would suffice. The special session begins on Oct. 28, 2013. Please contact them as soon as possible!

To find out who your state senator is and their contact information, click here. 
To find out who your state representative is and their contact information, click here.
To read the proposed Hawaii Marriage Equality Act of 2013, click here. 

The United Stated Government murdered 297 Sioux Indians After 1stDisarming Them

Found on a Facebook post by By Jeffrey E.

A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY TO THINK ABOUT.......December 29, 2012 marks the 122nd Anniversary of the murder of 297 Sioux Indians at Wounded Knee Creek on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. These 297 people, in their winter camp, were murdered by federal agents and members of the 7th Cavalry who had come to confiscate their firearms “for their own safety and protection”. The slaughter began after the majority of the Sioux had peacefully turned in their firearms. The Calvary began shooting, and managed to wipe out the entire camp. 200 of the 297 victims were women and children. About 40 members of the 7th Cavalry were killed, but over half of them were victims of fratricide from the Hotchkiss guns of their overzealous comrades-in-arms. Twenty members of the 7th Cavalry's death squad, were deemed “National Heroes” and were awarded the Medal of Honor for their acts of [cowardice] heroism.

We hear very little of Wounded Knee today. It is usually not mentioned in our history classes or books. What little that does exist about Wounded Knee is normally a sanitized “Official Government Explanation”. And there are several historically inaccurate depictions of the events leading up to the massacre, which appear in movie scripts and are not the least bit representative of the actual events that took place that day.

Wounded Knee was among the first federally backed gun confiscation attempts in United States history. It ended in the senseless murder of 297 people.

Before you jump on the emotionally charged bandwagon for gun-control, take a moment to reflect on the real purpose of the Second Amendment, the right of the people to take up arms in defense of themselves, their families, and property in the face of invading armies or an oppressive government. The argument that the Second Amendment only applies to hunting and target shooting is asinine. When the United States Constitution was drafted, “hunting” was an everyday chore carried out by men and women to put meat on the table each night, and “target shooting” was an unheard of concept. Musket balls were a precious commodity and were certainly not wasted on “target shooting”. The Second Amendment was written by people who fled oppressive and tyrannical regimes in Europe, and it refers to the right of American citizens to be armed for defensive purposes, should such tyranny arise in the United States.

As time goes forward, the average citizen in the United States continually loses little chunks of personal freedom or “liberty”. Far too many times, unjust gun control bills were passed and signed into law under the guise of “for your safety” or “for protection”. The Patriot Act signed into law by G.W. Bush, was expanded and continues under Barack Obama. It is just one of many examples of American citizens being stripped of their rights and privacy for “safety”. Now, the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is on the table, and will, most likely be attacked to facilitate the path for the removal of our firearms, all in the name of “our safety”.

Before any American citizen blindly accepts whatever new firearms legislation that is about to be doled out, they should stop and think about something for just one minute-
Evil does exist in our world. It always has and always will. Throughout history evil people have committed evil acts. In the Bible one of the first stories is that of Cain killing Abel. We can not legislate “evil” into extinction. Good people will abide by the law, and the criminal element will always find a way around it.

Evil exists all around us, but looking back at the historical record of the past 200 years, across the globe, where is “evil” and “malevolence” most often found? In the hands of those with the power, the governments. That greatest human tragedies on record and the largest loss of innocent human life can be attributed to governments. Who do the governments always target? “Scapegoats” and “enemies” within their own borders…but only after they have been disarmed to the point where they are no longer a threat. Ask any Native American, and they will tell you it was inferior technology and lack of arms that contributed to their demise. Ask any Armenian why it was so easy for the Turks to exterminate millions of them, and they will answer “We were disarmed before it happened”. Ask any Jew what Hitler’s first step prior to the mass murders of the Holocaust was- confiscation of firearms from the people.

Wounded Knee is the prime example of why the Second Amendment exists, and why we should vehemently resist any attempts to infringe on our Rights to Bear Arms. Without the Second Amendment we will be totally stripped of any ability to defend ourselves and our families.

How Mitt Romney Lost the Debate and Won My Vote

By Joshua Uda

A campaign is not a solo act. Armies of advisors flank the party nominee to create a winning persona. They tell the candidate how to dress, what to say, how to say it. They even tell the candidate what to think. And they know best, because they have gathered and studied the market research and the psychological profiles of undecided voters. A candidate must be molded, shaped, and framed to energize the base, and then reshaped, and reframed to win the moderates.

While this process requires a degree of misrepresentation, it is necessary to win. And so… candidates soldier on for the greater good, conforming to the demands of their handlers, knowing that once they are in office, they will be free to follow their own moral compass. Until then, they must make sacrifices, even compromise and misrepresent who they really are if necessary. The end justifies the means.

I watched with great regret as this process played out in 2008. For many years, I had followed the public service of Senator John McCain, and admired him for his independence. He was never afraid to cross the aisle and oppose his own party to do what was right for America. He was one of my heroes, and I always hoped he might someday run for president. When that day came, the man I had come to respect seemed ready to stand his ground in his trademark maverick way, discouraging extreme and inflammatory discourse from his base and holding true to the noblest aspects of his conservative values.

Sadly, as Election Day neared and it became apparent that his opponent was taking the country by storm, John McCain suddenly began to change. His words and positions drifted and began to echo the party line, even those parts that he had previously rejected. Little by little, the man before me began to vanish, and all I could see was a puppet being manipulated by campaign managers and public image consultants. No matter how they tweaked him to appeal to the masses, all I saw was someone who had compromised the one thing I admired most for a shot at the presidency. He had abandoned his true self. He lost my respect, and he lost my vote.

McCain, however, was not the only presidential hopeful to catch my attention. During the primaries, another candidate gave me even greater hope for a better America, when he stood before the nation to speak on the issue of religious freedom. The speech was so moving that even Chris Mathews commented, “We have just witnessed greatness for the first time in this campaign.” And Governor Mitt Romney deserved that praise. He had stood before the nation to speak from his heart, giving a speech that he personally wrote and that expressed who he truly is, a man of great faith, compassion, tolerance, and goodness.

As a public servant, he had a solid public record of independent thinking, sound policy, and bipartisan cooperation – much like Senator McCain. However, unlike any presidential candidate in history, Mitt Romney also had a secret and deeply personal record of sincere compassion, astounding generosity, and humble service to all those around him. I had great hopes for Romney, but it seemed that before his campaign could even begin, he was closing the book and bowing out for the sake of the party.

It’s been a long time since then, and much has changed… but a few days ago, that man went before the nation as the Republican nominee to debate the President of the United States. For over a year, I have watched him campaign across America, but not as the candidate that caught my interest four years ago.

As in 2008, the nominee had been subjected to an extreme Washington makeover. Every aspect of the man, from his clothes to his words, was being carefully selected for him. But most notably absent were his personal values of Christian kindness, respect and compassion, his historic moderation, and his critical thinking. I witnessed a man that many characterized as a heartless bully, an arrogant and reckless war monger, a greedy and condescending aristocrat. In debates one and two, he was visually aggravated as he acquiesced to the demands of his campaign advisors to contend aggressively against the president, and at the end of the second debate, he could not even bring himself to look at his opponent, much less shake his hand. His entire countenance was full of darkness.

Like everyone else, I expected more of the same in the final debate, but something had changed since the week before. This time, Romney was pleasant, polite, and respectful from his first words to his last. He avoided contention throughout the debate, refusing to attack or even counter when attacked, and backed off meekly when confronted with misrepresentations of fact. He gave the president praise for the things he had done right, and honestly expressed agreement with policies that had worked well. Most notably, he deviated from his talking points, abandoning the saber rattling party line expressed so aggressively on his own campaign website, instead speaking of his hopes and aspirations for peace.

And so ended the final debate… with conservatives gawking at their champion for going like a lamb to the slaughter, and liberals mocking yet another astounding flip-flop by a candidate who has struggled to find his political identity.
But that is not what I saw.

In an obscure moment of post-debate punditry, one commentator mentioned that he had called a Romney campaign strategist during the debate to inquire as to the sudden and unexpected change of strategy. The strategist answered with frustration, “It was all Romney’s idea. He insisted that he do it his own way.”
His own way…

In that moment, I saw in Romney a man who had been besieged by stakeholders, each demanding that he represent their interests and ideals, each demanding that he play the game right, the way he had been coached, railing against railing, contending with pride and anger, refusing to give ground or to find common ground. I saw a man who had caved to the demands of the world around him, and a man who deeply regretted it because, despite his success and notable gains… their advice went contrary to everything he stood for and against everything he aspired to be.

I saw a man who, at some point after that second debate, recognized the spirit of contention, looked deep into his heart, and reflected on his own way, on the one and only way he had ever known and had always strived to follow.

"I am the way, the truth, and the light. I say unto you, that ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.

For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? Do not even the publicans the same? And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? Do not even the publicans so? Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."

According to the polls, Romney lost the debate. Republicans were quick to criticize him for not going for the jugular, for not attacking and counterattacking, for not proudly boasting of American strength… but they will still vote for Romney, no matter how flawed his performance.
As for me… a staunch and vocal Obama supporter… his performance was perfect.

And despite his earlier failings… his repentance and his courageous rejection of contention, not while on the ropes, but with incredible forward momentum and the goal in sight, risking everything… this example of Christian meekness… brought me to shame, and made me reflect on my own failure to walk in the path of Christ in all things… even in politics.

I want a president who will seek peace in the world. Both candidates claimed that night to want peace. But no argument, no matter how perfectly framed, no matter how eloquently delivered, or how loudly proclaimed could ever say more than the humble and heroic choice of a true Christian to stand as a witness of Christ at all times, in all things, and in all places, even if it be unto death.

Some may say that Romney threw the election that night and committed political suicide by failing to contend and by performing such an obvious about face… but I am convinced that he faced that prospect knowingly, determined to no longer be led by anyone but the King of Kings.

As he stayed after the debate to warmly converse with the President and First Lady, I saw a different look on Governor Romney’s face than I had seen a week earlier, not the personal disappointment and shame of compromise nor the lingering fire of contention, but the deepest and most serene peace that comes only from the Spirit of Truth as it witnesses to your soul that the path you have chosen is the path of Christ, the Son of God. It was the smile I have seen on the faces of Bishops and Stake Presidents as they warmly greet those in their congregations with unconditional love.

I could see then that Brother Romney had the peace of knowing that whether he would win or lose the presidential election, he had taken one step closer to making his calling and election sure. In that moment, he may have lost the debate, but he won my vote. He is the best of us, and I would be honored to have him as my president.

He that seeketh his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Second Debate Advantage: Romney or Obama?

by Nate Mauch


1. This is a town hall format and from the start people have said Mitt is going to be at his weakest in this setting, and thus lowered expectations slightly. I believe that plays into our favor because when you tell Mitt he can't do something very well he tends to surprise. He's practiced town halls since selecting Paul Ryan and he's held press conferences, both of which Obama has NOT done at all during this campaign. Advantage: Tie

2. Libya, Libya, Libya - I'm hoping that once again the first question is about Libya because if so Mitt will pretty much put Obama on the defensive from the very start. He needs to look him in the eye and demand he tell the people in that town hall the truth about Libya, and tell all those watching the truth. He needs to attack on this hard, but his attack can't be about him, it must be that the American people deserve nothing less than the absolute truth. Paul Ryan obviously had a strategy not to be aggressive and let Biden be Biden and kill himself, but Mitt won't make that mistake and will attack and not let him or the moderator off the hook. Advantage: Mitt

3. Obama has said he's not going to be polite and to me that means he intends to come out similar to Biden. It also means he plans on going after Mitt personally on the "47%" and the silly tax returns that only they care about. Mitt has struggled thus far with answers to both of those issues and that's the only reason they worked at all, so I hope they have finally found an answer to respond with. What would I do? I'd use these new personal stories he's started using since the convention to counter the false narrative that he doesn't care about people, and state clearly looking into the camera "the truth is I care about 100% of the people and that's why I'm running." As far as the tax returns, I'd say "why is it people are supposed to care more about my personal finances than they are about how you're spending and wasting their money and bankrupting their kids and grand kids futures?" Advantage: Obama (unless Mitt has answers for them finally)

4. Economy should be easy. Just repeat that this nonsense of a 5 trillion tax cut is just that, nonsense. I'm fully convinced there is absolutely no way Obama has a chance on any economic questions because he's immediately at a disadvantage. He's the one with the abysmal record to defend and quite honestly its indefensible. If Mitt does exactly the same as last time and prosecutes that record while highlighting his experience we should see. Huge key to Mitt's success here is highlighting his bi-partisan experience in MA, the Indies LOVE that. Advantage: Mitt

5. Wild card. Both sides are extremely concerned with the moderator and how she's going to conduct herself, or whether she will follow the preset rules, unlike Martha Raddatz. Hey, I'm not a huge conspiracy theorist but its not a secret the media and Candy Crowley are Obama supporters, and the voters in attendance are selected by Gallup. Yes, the same gallup that Axelrod threatened and suddenly all of their polls swing to Obama and they kept using RV's instead of LV's later than they ever have before. If she tries interrupting Mitt like Raddatz did to Paul (to the tune of 34 times) Mitt must channel his inner Newt Gingrich and call her out. No need to debate 2 Democrats again like Paul Ryan had to do. Advantage: Tie

I think Mitt is in the drivers seat but must win decisively again to keep up the momentum and enthusiasm. I think Obama is on the ropes and close to being defeated but we can't leave it up to the judges, we must knock him out. A few reasons I think he's nearly done include the fact that in the battleground states there's only 1 where he's over 50% (WI). He's reduced ads and ad buys in Florida over the weekend signaling he thinks his chances are slim there and in VA we are out ahead performing way better in early voting and Obama is way down in the same regard. That means our 3-2-1 victory strategy is in play! We needed to win FL, VA, and OH (3), take back NC and IN (2), and win one other state from CO, NV, IA, NH, WI, MI, PA. At this point, I see us winning Ohio, CO, NV, and possibly NH. That's why I say Mitt needs to go for the knockout because we're on the cusp of victory. I'm a big MMA fan and you learn early on NEVER LEAVE THE FIGHT IN THE HANDS OF THE JUDGES, WACKY THINGS ALMOST ALWAYS HAPPEN.


It's my belief that if Obama isn't at 50% or above in a battleground going into the Election Day he will almost inevitably lose each one of those states. There's a reason undecided voters typically break hard for the challenger... They've had 4 years to decide to vote Obama again and if after 4 years they still haven't decided to vote for him, they will almost always decide to give someone else a chance. If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, then its no wonder they choose to break that cycle.

I'd also add that it all comes down to Ohio. I'm not convinced Mitt can win WI or MI although I obviously hope I'm wrong. In Ohio, there's a definite trend already playing itself out and it's on our side. In early voting Dem requests for ballots are significantly down, and I'm talking down around 30% in Cuyahoga County, the Dem stronghold housing Cleveland. In 2008 I believe Obama had around a 250,000 vote advantage in early voting, but this year Dems have about 160,000 less reg voters and Republicans have about 35,000 more. That pretty much undercuts that advantage now doesn't it? Oh, purely anecdotal but you should see these crowds he's getting in Ohio! I'm talking a town of 20,000 having 10,000 show up when they only expected 1,000! Obama only gets crowds like that at universities like stupid liberal Wisconsin-Madison. "There's a growing crescendo of enthusiasm here in Ohio and across the country for this campaign." - Mitt

Heck, I'm no fortune teller nor can I see into the future whatsoever, but I see something taking hold. When a Republican is only down 47-43 in MINNESOTA we could see a major landslide in our favor, but it completely depends on these final debates, especially on Tuesday. Lose this debate and Obama regains much of those losses, win this debate we continue that momentum and extend leads forcing him to make tough spending decisions in states he did not expect he'd have to defend.

I'm optimistic, cautiously optimistic.

Understanding Obama & Romney "by their fruits"

In response to the previous post- Mitt Romeny: Stake President of the United States, my dad, Carl Uda wrote the following response: 

 I, too, know what Mitt Romney went through while serving as a bishop (I have served as a bishop for the past three and a half years). Knowing what he went through as a bishop, I can say that I know what manner of man he is. Mitt Romney is a good and caring man.

I have always taught my children, "You can always know what type a person a man is by the fruit he bares, for 'by their fruits you shall know them.' "

That has always been the standard by which I have determined what kind of person a man is - not by his good looks or his great wealth or by his good words alone, but by his good works - and it has never failed me. Even when men bash someone and ridicule him and disparage him, they don't denigrate or lessen his good fruits or good works, which are done in secret. Instead, they starken the contrast between themselves and that man of good fruits.

I have never personally met Mitt Romney, but I can say that I already know him and feel a certain kinship for him because of our common experiences as bishops, which, by the way, are not very common. We share a common bond as bishops, even though I have never removed a hornet's nest from my neighbor's swamp cooler like Mitt did. 

It is my belief that Mitt Romney isn't trying to be POTUS because he wants power and recognition or fame. His motives are as pure as the desire to bless people's lives as only a bishop, struggling with the challenges of his ward family, can experience and understand. There are no polls that will tell a bishop how well he is truly doing. But when the 47% start to attend church, do their home and visit teaching, pay their full tithing, fulfill their callings, treat their families and neighbors kindly as they would want to be treated, stop abusing drugs and alcohol, repent of their sins and make life altering changes, then a bishop can feel good about strengthening the ninety and nine (or the other 53%) before leaving them to find the one (or before returning to the 47%) to minister to them for the purpose of blessing their lives and bringing them to Jesus Christ.

Not a moment do I believe that Mitt Romney meant that he doesn't care about the 47% who wouldn't vote for him. That isn't in his DNA. As a bishop, sometimes one must focus time and resources where it can do the most good. It doesn't mean the sinner can't be saved. It just means that, at that certain point in time, the sinner is not ready to be saved. You focus resources where it won't be trampled under foot by the ungrateful. 

Of course Mitt cares about the 47%, but he knows if he can go out and hire more willing laborers from among the remaining 53% pool, he will surely get the fields harvested faster and more efficiently, and then, all will be blessed.

Please don't be too quick to believe the harsh and venomous judgments tossed upon Mitt Romney. If you must compare Mitt Romney to Obama, put those two men's fruits of the totality of their lives, side-by-side, point-by-point, and you judge what manner of men they are, remembering to judge righteouss judgement, for that judgement with which you judge, so shall you be judged. Let the words of the Holy Book guide you and let the Holy Spirit fill your hearts with inspiration to choose the doctrine of Christ and not the doctrine of the world, for the world hated Christ and crucified him. Please do not crucify him again, my friends. I tell you, you know the truth, for the light of truth is within all men, and it is within you, but when you choose against that light and you kick against the pricks, you only bring sorrow and pain to yourselves and to this great nation.

Farewell and good bye and let us pray for God's wisdom to be upon us all, that we may come away victorious, for we are in a war, and we fight not against men, but against powers and dominions and principalities. Our cause is just. This November 6th, vote your conscience. Remember this always, what manner of men ought ye be?

Mitt Romney: Stake President of the United States

I received this as an email forward and have no idea who wrote it, but it provides good insight into the qualifications Mitt Romney has based on the work he did in his church as a bishop and stake president:

Stake President of the United States

A few years back, a hive of hornets decided to make its nest on top of a second-story swamp cooler outside my cousin’s Boston-area home.  My cousin made an ill-fated attempt to remove the hornets, which resulted in a two-story fall and a broken arm.

This looks like a job for your home teacher, said my cousin’s home teacher.

The home teacher brought over his own ladder and clothed himself in homemade beekeeping gear.  He then made his way to the hornet’s nest and gathered the whole thing up in a garbage bag, avoiding any stings or the more severe injuries that had beset my cousin.  He did this with no public fanfare, no accolades, and no thought of collecting payment for his efforts.  And, who was this noble home teacher?  A man by the name of Mitt Romney.

Now, unless you’re familiar with Mormon lingo, you probably got lost when I introduced the phrase, home teacher, or you may have conjured up images of some kind of private educational tutor who was taking care of my cousin’s kids.  That would have left you wondering why a tutor thought it was their responsibility to wrangle hornets.

But if you're a Mormon, the phrase made perfect sense, as did the rest of the story. You would know that every month, every member of a Mormon congregation receives a visit from two home teachers, who share an inspirational message but, more importantly, are charged with the responsibility of looking out for the family’s welfare.  So, if a family is struggling, the home teachers are the spiritual first responders, and a good home teacher jumps at any opportunity to be of service.

Among other things, Mitt Romney is a good home teacher.

People who look to Mitt’s faith for clues about how he’d govern as president usually miss the target by a wide margin.  They rip the more obscure elements of Mormon doctrine out of their theological and historical contexts, polygamy or underwear or planetary real estate and think they’ve discovered or explained something.  They haven’t.  The world at large, as it focuses on unusual theoretical elements of Mormon doctrine, all but ignores the eminently practical aspects of Mormonism as it is manifest in each Mormon's daily life.

Consider the fact that, home teachers receive no compensation for what they do.  In fact, neither does anyone else in a Mormon congregation.  The whole enterprise is supervised by a lay clergy that will often work over forty hours a week in their unpaid positions in addition to their real jobs, you know, the ones that actually earn them money.  Mitt Romney has spent his entire adult life in these kinds of high-responsibility, time-intensive positions.  He has been both a bishop, a leader of a ward that consists of a congregation of about 500 people,  and a stake president, who oversees a stake, which consist of about six or so wards, giving him ecclesiastical responsibility for thousands of people.

So what does this mean?  What, precisely, does a bishop or a stake president do that eats up so much of their time?

Go to a Mormon meeting on any given Sunday, and you’ll see three dudes sitting up by the pulpit.  The guy in the middle is the bishop, and he’s already spent most of the day in meetings where he reviewed the ward's staffing needs and organizing relief efforts for families who may be struggling with health, financial, or spiritual issues.  He’s also been meeting one-on-one with members of the church who look to him for counsel and support for personal problems that would turn your hair white.  Usually, he's been doing all this since before the sun came up, so don’t be surprised if he nods off while the meeting progresses.

Please keep in mind, too, that there are no elections for bishops and stake presidents, nor are there reelections.  Each leader is called to serve, and they accept the responsibility dutifully, no questions asked.  They then serve for a period of time, usually between five and ten years, after which they are released, meaning they rejoin their congregations as lay members and have no more responsibility than anyone else.

The call to serve can come to any priesthood holder in good standing, but it usually comes to a certain personality type.  Remember, bishops and stake presidents are confronted with massive organizational challenges accompanied by the most intimate, personal, spiritual struggles imaginable.  So, they must lead without being authoritarian; they must judge without being judgmental, and they must minister without offending.  That means the people who get this assignment are often more even-tempered than exciting, more reassuring than revolutionary, and more competent than colorful.  Sound like any particular presidential candidate you might know?

Those who remain baffled by Romney's cool public persona have not spent a whole lot of time with an LDS stake president, a role for which Romney provides the quintessential example.  If one truly understands his background, one shouldn’t expect a President Romney to dazzle the masses with rhetorical virtuosity.

One should instead expect him to remove practically and quietly the hornet’s nest from the nation’s second-story swamp cooler.

2016: Obama's America -Not the anti movie I was expecting
by R. Murdock

I recently saw Dinesh D'souza’s documentary, “2016: Obama’s America.”  I’m no movie critic and will not try to write a review about this film. But I wanted to share some of my thoughts about this very well made and researched documentary and encourage everyone to see it for themselves. Only after seeing it can you decide if you agree with the film’s arguments or not.

To be up front, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and was one of the most passionate of supporters. When he won the election I was jumping up and down in my living room, crying tears of joy. I was proud of America for choosing the first black president and was filled with so much hope for the future. I literally thought my chest would explode with happiness. 

I saw his election as a pivotal moment. Being of mixed race myself and dealing with insecurities of who I was, I felt a kinship to Obama, especially after reading his book, “Dreams From My Father.”

Over the next 3 years after his election, I experienced a change. I had been socially a moderate conservative but fiscally liberal. I began to study books about the founding fathers, the vision they had of America and the whole philosophy about responsibility, liberty and independence that conservatives hold.  Over time my views changed. While I still like Obama as a person (most of the time,) I no longer agree with his policies, methods and ideology.  He has not united us as I once hoped. Sadly, we are more divided than ever while our economy teeters on the brink of a fiscal cliff while Obama happily leads with the strange slogan of “Forward.”

“2016” relies heavily on Obama’s own words from his book, “Dreams From My Father.” It delves into Obama’s past, the places he’s lived, the experiences he’s had, the people who mentored him, and the lack of a relationship he had with his estranged father. It also discusses anti-colonialist views held by Barack Obama Sr. and how the younger Obama was influenced by those views despite his father being absent for most of his life.

While watching this film, I didn’t find myself hating Obama. In fact it solidified some of the kinship I had felt before. I felt compassion for him because of the journey and life he’s had. I don’t blame him for his views. I understand perfectly why he has them. The question is: Is it good for America to have a president who doesn’t believe in the greatness of America to the same degree most of us do? Is it good to have a president who believes America practices colonialism and feels he should apologize to the world for past grievances and bring America down a notch?

Obama’s world view isn’t radically different from how many liberals see the world. But it is radically different from how America, as a whole, views the world. Obama has taken definitive action affecting US policy with the world, which has a direct impact on our countries status in every way possible.

There is no way I could possibly sum up or explain the fascinating story and conclusions made in this film. I think everyone, liberals and conservatives, should see this and decide for themselves.

It’s important for Obama supporters to understand that this isn’t an ugly, hateful Obama bashing movie. Nor is it a far right, radical conservative, racist movie. It is Barack Obama’s story. It is told by a man who himself grew up in a third world country and has his own unique experiences and feelings about and towards the United States of America. D'souza contrasts Obama’s world view with the vision the founding father’s had for our country. The two are different. It’s up to the viewer to decide if that matters to them or not. If I had seen this movie four years ago, I simply would have decided that some of the conclusions were wrong but believe everything else about the movie. I then would have chosen Obama’s vision over the founding fathers. But of course, that’s before I had educated myself on what the founding father’s actually established and hoped for our great nation-- and how the unique experiment of America changed the world.

Please go see “2016: Obama’s America.”