Tag: Mitt Romney

Posted on

who should lead?

a570af34Over the course of recent weeks, current events observers have had the pleasure of watching the elect jockey for presidential positions. “He’s in… he’s out… she’s in… she’s out… he formed a PAC… she gave a great speech… he had dinner with donors… she’s watching what he will do…” Persons are actively maneuvering — however (only) currently quietly — to be the next President of the United States of America. They are raising money and refining image, in order to have the best chance — and look the best at it.

Late this week, after publicly testing his toe in political waters, the most recent Republican Party nominee, Mitt Romney, announced he would not seek the White House in 2016. This semi-humble observer was thankful. It’s the same reason the Intramuralist remains un-thrilled with the prospect of a candidacy of someone named Clinton or Bush. I realize neither Hillary or Jeb have held the position before, but we already know who they are, and each has previously influenced policy to an ambiguous degree via their spouses and/or families. I, for one, desire someone new… someone fresher… someone who isn’t spending this time currently re-crafting a more popular public image. That doesn’t feel pure to me, and yet it’s an existent component of image deception that too many of all parties accept and embrace.

My mother insightfully shared with me years ago that once a person gets it in their blood to run for the Presidency, it never disappears. “They look in the mirror and see the President of the United States. Once they think that, they will always think that.” There is too much emphasis on self… on “me” being President… on “me” leading.

One of my honest, sincere disappointments in Pres. Obama — truly with all due respect — is that I hear “too much me” in him. There have been too many times during his tenure that his selection of personal pronouns has made me uncomfortable. I’m not attempting to be critical; I’m attempting to be transparent. It’s the same discomfort I would feel in my professor or pastor. This isn’t about them. It’s about leading well… You don’t have to be my President. You don’t have to be my professor. You don’t have to be my pastor. You have to be called. You have to be humble. And only in humility will you lead well. Only in humility will you realize that what’s in the mirror is less important than whom you shepherd and serve.

Great leaders are a rarity. Great leaders are not defined by oratorical skills nor re-crafted public images. Great leaders have a heart attitude that is above reproach. To be above reproach means self-emphasis and importance is never in question. A great leader never looks in the mirror and thinks about how good or wise he is. A great leader is a servant leader. As well articulated years ago by longtime leadership guru, Ken Blanchard:

“The servant leader is constantly trying to find out what his or her people need to be successful. Rather than wanting them to please him or her, they are interested in making a difference in the lives of their people and, in the process, impacting the organization… What do managers need to become servant leaders? The biggest thing they need is to get their ego out of the way… Servant leadership is something that people need. We need to support and help individuals in the organization to win. The days of the manager being judge, jury and critic rather than cheerleader, facilitator and listener are over.”

Exactly. The days of leaders who think they need to be judge and jury are over. We need cheerleaders, facilitators, and humble listeners… not people who look in the mirror and think, “That’s me.”

Respectfully…

AR

Posted on

wrestling with the facts

Thank God the election is over.  Allow me to say that again…  thank God the election is over.  Also over, therefore, is the onslaught of political advertising, negative campaigning, and adults acting more like children.  Sorry.  That should not be inferred as criticism of any one person or any one party.  There is just something utterly unattractive about grown men and women desiring to lead and unite us who intentionally distort truth and employ rhetoric that is seemingly, purposely divisive.  Personally, I find that one of the most disturbing developments of the American political system.  What is good and true and right is often sacrificed for “what will get me elected.”

 

Multiple other developments were made manifest via the completion of the most recent election cycle.  For example, we witnessed arguably increased significance of both gender and race.  Also, as a nation, we began to discuss the fragility of a fiscal pattern that continuously spends more than it takes in.  And in an additional, unique development, for the first time, we witnessed a national normalization of Mormonism.

 

Whether given or denied your vote, the placement of Mitt Romney on the Republican presidential ticket prompted more positive publicity of Mormonism than ever generated by “Idol’s” Archuleta, talk’s Glenn Beck, Sen. Harry Reid, or by any of the singing Osmonds.  Many accepted Mormonism as a religion which is good and true and right.  And admittedly, Mormonism — also known as the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) — is marked by people who stereotypically lead an ethical, moral life.  Yet as is true with the Intramuralist, in order to discern goodness, truth, etc., it’s essential to wrestle with the facts.  Hence, we ask:  what exactly is Mormonism?

 

Let me initially suggest that no singular post could define all that the LDS Church believes, so allow me to briefly summarize what is significant but may remain less explored…

 

Mormonism was founded by Joseph Smith in 1830.  Several years beforehand, Smith said he was in the woods as a teenager praying one day when he saw a vision in which God and Jesus came to him and told him his sins were forgiven, that contemporary churches “were all wrong,” and all creeds of Christianity “were an abomination” in God’s sight.  Smith was 14 at the time.

 

When Smith was 18, he said he was visited by the angel named “Moroni.”  Moroni would reveal the secret location of the “golden plates,” which contained divine truth that only Smith had the skill to translate.  The angel warned Smith not to show the tablets to anyone.  When Smith was finished with the translation, he says he returned the plates to the angel.  The completed translation was published in 1830 as the Book of Mormon.

 

Mormonism thus utilizes 4 primary sources:  the Bible, the sacred texts of Mormonism (which includes the Book of Mormon), additional writings by Smith, and the writings of church leaders, especially the church presidents who are now considered to be inspired prophets of God.  These create the foundation of their faith.  What’s in that foundation?

 

As with all faiths, it is significant to examine their perspective of God, a tenet from which all disciplines and doctrine flow.  Unlike Christianity and Islam, though, Mormonism teaches the existence of multiple (and many) gods.  They believe an infinite number of planets exist, each with their own god(s) who were once human and have since evolved into god status.  Smith once wrote, “In the beginning, the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and (the) people in it.”  Mormons will often suggest that they are monotheists — believers in one true god — for since they live on Earth, Earth’s own god is the focus of their current human worship.

 

Consistent with that teaching — and perhaps what’s most notable yet least known — is that the Mormon Church teaches that individuals have to learn how to become gods themselves.  In fact, if a couple marries according to a Mormon ceremony (which only Mormons are invited to), and each lives an obedient life, the couple may then themselves attain god status.  This is central to the Mormon faith:  obedient humans are able to become gods based on their behavior here on Earth.

 

By all accounts, even before the Romney candidacy, Mormonism has become America’s most successful home-grown religion; started by Smith, they now boast a membership of approximately 15 million persons worldwide.  It’s contagious.  With the prioritizing of missionary work and moral lives — consistent with the persona portrayed by Gov. Romney — it is an attractive religion to many.

 

But let’s be certain to ask the tougher questions… is it good?  Is it true?  Is it right?

 

As always, no matter how attractive, wrestling with the facts is essential.

 

Respectfully,

AR

 

 

[Significant sources utilized for this analysis include:  The History of Joseph Smith, Mormonnewsroom.org, Newsweek, Pearl of Great Price, Probe. org, and Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. ]

Posted on

definitions

Tonight all eyes will be on Gov. Mitt Romney.  Ok, perhaps not all eyes… I read rumors and rants from people who say something along the lines of “I just can’t stand the sight of him” — a reaction many politicians elicit regardless of affiliation.  Truthfully, that reaction bothers me a bit.  How can we know who someone is, what they believe, what they stand for, if we only listen to critical analysis via partisan filters?

 

But lest we digress…

 

Just as then Sen. Barack Obama did 4 years ago, tonight Mitt Romney will attempt to “define” himself to the American people.  As the incumbent, Pres. Obama is already “defined” in regard to what kind of president he would be.

 

And so sometime shortly after 10 p.m. EST, the former Governor of Massachusetts will share with the viewing public who he is and how he intends to govern.

 

Friends, this post is not about Mitt Romney.  It’s not about Barack Obama.  It’s not an endorsement nor favoring of either candidate; in fact, next week at the Democrats’ convention at Bank of America Stadium in Charlotte, NC, we could reprint much of this post’s same points, simply by changing the order of the names.  Today’s main point, no less, speaks directly to the attempt by the candidates to “define” themselves…  and the game that is played to obstruct the truthfulness of the process…

 

“Oh, the games people play now 

Every night and every day now 

Never meaning what they say now 

Never saying what they mean…”

 

Note the impurity of the American political process, acknowledged by Democrat strategist, Joe Trippi, yesterday morn, saying, “We’re fighting over the definition of Mitt Romney right now.”  The fight?

 

Best this current events observer can discern — noting descriptions actually articulated by Romney and his campaign — Mitt Romney will attempt to “define” himself Thursday night as the following:

 

  • A Cub Scout
  • Family man
  • A husband of “unwavering care and devotion”
  • “Not a career politician”
  • Comprehender of the private sector
  • An economic expert
  • “Outstanding public servant”
  • Salvager of the Olympic games
  • Friend of small & new business
  • “A superb manager”
  • “An exceptional man with unique qualifications to lead our country through perilous times”

 

Simultaneously, best this current events observer can discern — noting descriptions actually articulated by Obama and his campaign — Obama will attempt to “define” Romney as the following:

 

  • “Extreme”
  • A candidate who has a “lack of willingness to take responsibility for what this job entails”
  • “Not ready for primetime”
  • A person having a “penchant for secrecy”
  • Possessing a business record that is “not a qualification for president”
  • An “extreme candidate”  (… did I say ‘extreme’ yet?)

 

In other words, Romney will attempt to “define” himself in the best possible light; Obama will attempt to “define” Romney in the worst possible light.  Next week the roles will be reversed, and Obama will remind us of his “definition” as the family man, while Romney’s camp will find some description undoubtedly synonymous with “extreme.”

 

So here’s the zillion dollar question:  what is true?  … what is accurate?  … and wiser yet… does it matter?

 

“… Talkin’ ‘bout you and me 

And the games people play…”

 

Respectfully,

AR