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.”