Comments on: A Really Long Post about Mitt Romney, Damon Linker, and Pope Pius V

By: fertighaus

fertighaus — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 09:51:54 +0000

The lyrics are still funny :-)
Greetings from Germany,
Mike

By: Bryce Clark

Bryce Clark — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:35:33 +0000

Just a little clarification – when my dad left HBS to go to BYU Idaho it was not an ‘out of the blue’ thing. My dad had commited 10 years to HBS and that time was up. He was wondering what the next step in life would be and hoped it might be Church related. He had even been approached by a friend just throwing out the BYUI post months earlier and my dad said he’d be interested while not knowing if that offer would ever come. During the first call from President Hinckley, President Hinckley asked if he’d be interersted and said “this is not a calling” my dad said he was interested and they agreed he would talk it over with his family and then during subsequent calls the job offer was accepted. Now, all that being said, in the press my dad made a big shift from being the head of a secular institution to heading a Church institution. He made a decision to speak openly about his faith and acknowledged that on its face the decision didn’t make career sense, but then he explained his faith and how it made it an appealing offer. He also highlighted his personal belief in the divinity of President Hinckley’s calling and the impact from a call (meaning a phone call) from him. I hope this helps clarify.

Thanks and Best regards,

Bryce Clark

By: Justin @ RSR

Justin @ RSR — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 16:51:44 +0000

“We have sinned against you\” – who said that?

The Mormon issue? Silly and irrelevant for Mitt.

And more and more the issue is less and less of an issue.
http://www.mymanmitt.com/2007/01/mittcast-big-thaw-evangelicals-and.asp

Time to come up to speed on the issues my friend.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:12:26 +0000

Nate: Nonetheless, a bit of a cheap shot

By: Just dropping by

Just dropping by — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 18:29:54 +0000

Re post #30: Republicans who are uncomfortable with Mitt\’s religious affiliation wouldn\’t have to choose between Mitt and Hillary, even if they were the two nominees. They could vote for a third party candidate, or just stay home. It might not take many doing so in key states to swing the outcome of an election to the Dems.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 14:05:21 +0000

mark: The jab at CES was meant to be flippant and derogatory ;-> but it also had an real point, namely that CES (as a stand in for devotional stories that Mormons tell about themselves to themselves) does not provide a complete or nuanced account of Mormon political history. I hardly think that this is a controversial claim to make.

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:34:32 +0000

Well, I get slapped around so much for preferring to believe the best about my friends that I should possibly change my name to Pollyanna …

By: mark

mark — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:28:48 +0000

Ardis, that is possibly what Nate meant. The comment was ambiguous enough to include both sides.

By: Ardis Parshall

Ardis Parshall — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:22:07 +0000

Hey, mark, I didn’t read Nate’s reference to CES as a barb, and certainly not as condemning any CES material for false doctrine. Just as apostles have taught lately why they must teach and counsel the mainstream and not continuously deal with the exceptions in public forums, it’s CES’s job to organize materials that encourage unity, obedience to commandments, accepting counsel, and otherwise toeing the line. It would be out of character for CES to create a unit that said, in effect, “Brethren, follow the prophet if you feel like it, but if you occasionally have other allegiances, that’s okay too.” That would open the door to too many rationalizations. Highlighting the times, as perhaps when it might (I say *might*) be required that an elected official violate his personal desires in order to represent his constituency, would be dealing with the exceptions, not the rule. It’s not a jab at CES for noting that.

By: mark

mark — Sun, 07 Jan 2007 23:01:29 +0000

I don\’t have the article in hand, but my memory serves me that Kim Clark commented in the Church News about his appointment at BYU-I. He commented to the effect that his friends at Harvard asked why BYU-I. He said the decision made little sense to them, but receiving a call from the prophet makes sense to anyone who understands who president Hinckley is and what he represents. That said, accepting an appointed position does not equate with a political figure receiving \”marching orders\” from a Church president.

As for Nate\’s unnecessary barb directed at CES curriculum, might I say that CES curriculum is no different from any other Church curriculum. All Church curriculum is subject to Priesthood Correlation Committee review. If there is some influence or doctrine that he thinks is inaccurate yet contained in CES curriculum he ought to consult with correlation. If the comment was intended as a joke, it really wasn\’t very funny. It placed CES in a category equally as idiotic as Damon\’s thinking. As such Nate, the comment seemed flippant and derogatory.