Skip to content

An Open Letter to Latter-day Saints Who Support or Have Questions About Mitt Romney’s Presidential Bid

September 28, 2011

September 27, 2011


Dear fellow Latter-day Saints and those friendly to our faith:

As a life-long member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, one might be quick to assume, that like so many others of our faith, I too, swear my undying allegiance to Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination.  (I leave out Jon Huntsman purposefully as he appears to be the GOP’s red-headed step-child for now.)  One might assume that I and others of our faith are in lock-step with Mr. Romney’s views on foreign policy, taxes, social security, social programs, the size of government and restoring the “hope of America” to the world, as his new catch phrase appears to be following the Fox News/Google GOP debate Thursday, September 22, 2011.  One might assume that as Latter-day Saints we all need to stick together and support “one of our own” in the run for the highest political office in the land.

Where this Latter-day Saint is concerned, every one of those assumptions would be incorrect.

With Mitt Romney now polling at 41% in the State of New Hampshire among “likely GOP primary voters” (that’s code for establishment party activists who have a land-line telephone) it is time to take Mr. Romney to task for what this Latter-day Saint believes are a host of political philosophies in direct conflict with more than 150 years of LDS doctrine and beliefs concerning this great nation and the founding documents used to guide and direct it.  I have questions that I would ask “Brother Romney” if I were to pass him in the hall of one of our chapels and since I don’t see any CNN/LDS debate planned by the networks to provide the more than six-million Latter-day Saint members in the United States a forum in which to query Mr. Romney (and Mr. Huntsman), I shall ask them here.

I challenge Mr. Romney to explain himself regarding the following five key points of LDS doctrine and political philosophy.  These questions reflect not just my own personal beliefs and convictions, but those of respected leaders of his own faith who have fearlessly and unapologetically stated their views and prophetic wisdom regarding the fragility of the American way of life our nation’s founders fought to create and prayed with their might we would preserve.

The following words, for example, were spoken by former Secretary of Agriculture under Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson in 1962, “No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a SOCIALIST … OR SUPPORT PROGRAMS leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Americanism and the true gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Mr. Romney, please explain how your decision to force the residents of Massachusetts to purchase health insurance through a government mandate is in keeping with the fundamental doctrine of the agency of man, the freedom from government control over the individual’s right to choose and the warnings LDS leaders have given against the worldwide socialist movement which seeks to enslave the hearts and minds of men everywhere under the flag of “equity”, “fairness” and “public welfare”.

The skyrocketing cost of health care is less about the bills of the uninsured being laid at the feet of the insured and more about government intervention and the insurance companies themselves.  History has adequately proven that health care costs have risen in direct (actually exponential) proportion to the level of insurance entanglement and control of the health industry.  Your Massachusetts plan did nothing to establish a competitive environment in which the market would drive the costs of services to a sensible level, but in fact accomplished the opposite and provided the model upon which Mr. Obama’s unquestioningly socialistic and crushingly oppressive health care plan was built.

Mr. Romney, please enlighten this Latter-day Saint on how your close alliance with and near complete reliance upon members of the Council on Foreign Relations is in harmony with the question you are required to answer in order to enter into one of our sacred temples.  Do you, Mr. Romney, “affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?”  Their organization’s own website clearly outlines one of its fundamental purposes, to bring about a one-world government and to promote the socialistic agenda throughout the world.  Its worldwide membership includes heads of State, leaders of media and entertainment enterprises and the wealthiest and most powerful financial leaders in the world.  Is your purpose in aligning yourself with this organization to bring about fundamental change within the hearts and minds of its membership?  Or do you in fact, support their objectives?  Judging by the political decisions you have already made and your statements along the campaign trail regarding “saving Social Security” and “increasing defense spending”, it would appear that we already have the answer to that question.

Why are the likes of Peter Flaherty, Ellen Bork, Glenn Hubbard and Vin Weber advisors to your campaign?  It would seem that not only have you aligned yourself with this organization, but you have invited some of its members into your inner campaign circle as “trusted advisors”.   I invite you to recall your Book of Mormon history and note that, for a time, Lehonti once held Amalickiah to be one of his “trusted advisors” and if you recall, that didn’t turn out so well for Lehonti.

Mr. Romney, please explain why the GOP establishment so vigorously supports your candidacy?   This, the party which has allowed government growth and spending over the past 70 years to run unchecked, which has done nothing to reign in the Federal Reserve’s reckless destruction of our currency, which has, since World War II, either actively or passively thrust our nation and its sons and daughters into wars which were never declared by the voice of the people, which has allowed the failed United Nations to continue to subject us to abuse and ridicule on the world stage, and which has moved so far toward the middle of the political spectrum that they are virtually indistinguishable from the left?

What we need, is not a candidate the GOP establishment gets behind with such blind vigor to protect the status quo, or worse yet, continue our nation’s creeping movement toward socialism and the ultimate destruction of what the Founders worked so hard and tirelessly and at risk of their very lives to create.  We need a candidate who will guide our nation toward its rightful home.  The home maintained by the message of Ronald Reagan, the home maintained by Barry Goldwater, the home maintained by Robert Taft and the home built by Thomas Jefferson.

Mr. Romney, please explain why you ask us to place another politician in the White House instead of a statesman?  You might be fooling some with your claim of not being a “career politician” because you were only the Governor of Massachusetts for four years and you “didn’t inhale” (some might find this issue-dodging quip amusing, but I certainly don’t).  As a businessman myself, having worked and consulted for several large, corporate enterprises over a span of more than 15 years and associating with all executive levels, I know all too well just how much of a politician one must be to climb the ladder, reach the top and then stay there.  In actual fact, Mr. Romney, you are no less a politician with all your media sound bites, party-line platitudes and quippy one-liners than that of Franklin Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama.

And finally Mr. Romney, please explain why you appear unable to stand consistently behind critically relevant constitutional issues such as abortion, guarantees afforded citizens by the second amendment to the Constitution or the abuses of government mandates against the citizens of a free nation?  Your inconsistencies lead us to ask, “Who is the real Mitt Romney?”  If you don’t know yourself, then how can you expect any of us to know?

No one, Mr. Romney, least of all me expects perfection from our President.  We do, however, expect honesty, consistency and conviction to certain principles.  Not knowing whether you are for or against abortion, for or against gun rights, for or against government mandates are areas where we cannot afford to have leaders who are weak-minded, lacking in conviction or bold enough to defend their position – controversial or otherwise.  We need leaders whose ideologies stand the test of time, whose beliefs are clear, whose wisdom is evidenced by what they have said 20 or even 30 years ago and which time has proven to be accurate and even prescient.

Our nation stands at the edge of collapse along an economic and ideological scale not seen since the fall of the Roman Empire.  Ezra Taft Benson, J. Reuben Clark, J. Edgar Hoover and many other great leaders and statesmen of their time proclaimed the danger of the loss of freedom; as with Abraham Lincoln they warned us, “If it ever reaches us [the forfeit of our freedom], it must spring up amongst us.  It cannot come from abroad.  If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher.  As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.”

What we need to lead this nation away from the cliff Mr. Romney, is not a politician; not a neo-conservative shape-shifter with fancy rhetoric and hollow platitudes which sound good to the GOP lemmings dazzled by smooth and flattering words.  What we need is a statesman, a true leader who not only sees and understands the precipice upon which our nation now stands, but one who is willing to tell the truth, do what needs to be done, avoiding what is politically expedient and tackling what is critical to the survival of our liberty, our peace, our families and our example to the world.  Indeed we [America and Americans] are the “light of the world”.  But is the light emanating from our nation one of the shining example of freedom, liberty and the un-restrained pursuit of happiness; or is it from the glow of our rockets and weaponry on the horizon of nations who neither invite nor appreciate our involvement in their political and cultural affairs?

That great statesman, Ezra Taft Benson chillingly foresaw our day and stated with absolute conviction that there would be many in high political places that would either knowingly, or under deception, further our nation’s advance toward socialism.  He knew that well-intentioned men would become participants in the erosion of our liberties and the centralization of power in the federal government thus paving the way to American enslavement and bondage to an elite few.  He knew too, that other, less visible figures would be working purposefully, calculatingly toward these ends.

Mr. Romney, are you one of the deceived or one of the purposeful?  Either answer in my mind, disqualifies you for the highest office in the land and I cannot lend you my support, even if you and I happen to share a common faith-based foundation.

As we draw ever closer to the day when our beloved Constitution will hang, as it were, by a thread, some members of the LDS faith will recall the prophecies of the “Elders of Israel” who will step forth to rescue it.  But, as then Elder Benson queried, “…how can the elders be expected to save it if they have not studied it and are not sure if it is being destroyed or what is destroying it?”

I mean not to levy an attack on you personally, Mitt Romney my brother and fellow citizen with the saints.  It is Mitt Romney the politician I have issue with and I am afraid for those members who lend their support for your candidacy simply because you are a Latter-day Saint.  I am afraid for those who do not even perceive the illness that is destroying the very foundation of our nation, our society, our liberty and our freedom and who look to you as the physician with the cure.  I am afraid for you and your family; for Mr. Huntsman and his.  As modern day Latter-day Saint Apostle, Russell M. Nelson said recently in a worldwide general conference, “Rarely in the future will it be easy or popular to be a faithful Latter-day Saint.”  Is this the time to rally together as a faith and support those who will help to save this great nation?  Absolutely.  Are there true statesmen already on the front lines behind whom Latter-day Saints may unite who are nearly as prescient as our ancient and modern prophets have been?  Yes, yes there are Mr. Romney and I hope you and others of our common faith will unite behind them and their message of liberty to take back what is rightfully ours.

Most Respectfully,

Aaron B. Walker

Latter-day Saint, American

Merrimack, New Hampshire

From → Politics

  1. Jim Turner permalink

    Thank you for your articulation of the problems with Mitt Romney. I am with you Brother Walker.

  2. Freedom Warrior permalink

    So having someone in the Whitehouse that can answer all the other recommend questions worthily is somehow not better than another 4 years of BHO? Ron Paul cannot win folks… all he is going to do is split the vote, Ross Peroe style, guaranteeing BHO a victory and the final demise of our country… We will never be able to reverse the damage of another four years of his socialist policies! Every time I start to like Paul, he opens his mouth and spews something ridiculous that just makes me cringe… call it the spirit warning me or whatever, but he just comes of a little to “wingnut” for me… maybe next time we can come up with the perfect candidate, but for this time, we better unite behind a candidate that can beat Obama… that is the forest folks… don’t get blinded by the trees.

    • Thank you for reading my post and for your comment. I, along with you agree that we must reverse the tide of socialist policies drawing our nation further away from the principles upon which it was founded. I struggle, however with your assessments on two fundamental grounds. The first is your repeating of the “Ron Paul cannot win” argument. This unfortunate way of playing the political game is what has allowed both parties (but especially the Republican Party) to move steadily toward the socialistic policies we have today. This, “let’s back a winner” mentality, makes sense if we compare the presidential election process to a season of American Idol, but when we have principle, honesty, integrity, statemanship, moral conviction and adherence to constitutional principles to consider, then I believe we need more people willing to stand up and show their support of candidates like Mr. Paul. My assumption with your post is that you would put your support behind one of the candidates who supposedly has a better shot at beating Obama? By whose measure do we determine the viability of a given candidate versus Obama in a simulated election held 14+ months from now? Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner and all the worldwide media outlets under their watchful eye?

      Secondarily, who else in the Republican field would actually work to reverse the tide of socialistic and liberty destroying policies enacted over the past 70 years? An honest assessment of the political changes made since Ronald Reagan reveal a constantly moving trend toward policies more restrictive of freedom, more destructive of the economy and more diminishing to our example to the world. George H.W. Bush, The Clinton’s, George W. Bush, Barack Obama… what is the difference between any of these presidents? If one looks back at the policies enacted under their terms, we have continually moved leftward and the runway toward full-blown socialism in this country has been built. Out on the horizon, the lights of the approaching 747 are just coming into view. Romney, Perry, Christie, Palin, Huntsman, Santorum and others of their ilk are ready to take their position in the control tower and guide that jet on in for landing. We need, instead, to turn off the lights to the runway and redirect the flight path of that plane to London where it rightfully belongs.

      For me, it’s not just about Ron Paul; (although, for a guy who has won at least 16 elections to the US House of Representatives over the course of his career, he appears quite electable to me.), it’s about the message of freedom and liberty. It’s about dealing with that 747 and the runway which has been constructed. Show me another option out there other than Paul who is intelligent, well versed on the issues related to freedom and liberty, who has been just as prescient in their forewarning’s of what would come to pass, and who has demonstrated electability, then I’d be willing to dig into them. You know freedomwarrior, when I first started reading and studying Paul and his ideas, I was used to listening for what I had been taught all my life to listen for — rhetoric, platitudes, fancy speeches, focus group tested statements which resonated with my beliefs about what I knew of the system in which I had been trained to live. Paul doesn’t use much of that kind of language. He talks about ideas that can’t be taught in a 30 second sound-byte. He’s referring to a sinister movement which is highly organized, well funded and which has been in operation for a very, very long time. In a world filled with and moved by 30 second emotional appeals, Paul’s message certainly can sound “out there” or “wingnut”, but dig deeper, look at why he’s saying what he’s saying and you might just discover that he’s speaking true principles of anti-socialism, true republican ideals, sound money and the philosophies the Founding Fathers had for our republic.

  3. I am with you 100%. I would also state allegiance to a foreign policy that is both morally and economically bankrupt.

  4. Dear Mr. Walker:
    Have you ever heard of the grandfather clock that strikes 13, thereby casting doubt on all prior strokes?
    Such is the essence of your “onemansrants.”
    Mitt Romney is not a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. You might have ascertained the fallacy of your allegation by going to this webpage:

    but you chose to believe the lies of others. If you were so careless with one allegation, it casts doubts on the rest of your “rants” as well.

    Most of the other allegations that you make are also false and misleading.

    Try to leave the Church out of these arguments. No one I know is supporting Romney because he is a member of the Church. It is totally irrelevant except for the fact that, having been a bishop and stake president, he may have the same values as members, meaning the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, and the value of self-less service — thus his donating of his governor’s salary and his Olympics salary to charity.

    1. You may think it’s more of a conservative principal to let people be freeloaders, obtaining medical services that you and I pay for, while not providing for their own needs. But I say that is not the Lord’s way. Pres. Benson would have said, “That man who transfers his own responsibilities to someone else is not of God.” Perhaps you have not heard of EMTALA (Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act) which REQUIRES a hospital to treat anyone, regardless of whether or not they have insurance. This is the law that should have been challenged as unconstitutional. What EMTALA has done is to take away the consequences of the exercise of agency. I object to that, and so should you. Neither Congress nor the populace are likely to require the repeal of EMTALA, but it justifies the imposition of a requirement for everyone else to either purchase insurance, or pay a penalty. The failure to make people responsible for their own obligations is NOT a conservative philosophy.

    Health care costs have gone up in part because of the many mandates (mandates that were not supported by Romney) that are required of insurance companies, and because there is not competitiveness –state to state– in the market place. Romney has said he would stop Obamacare. He has pointed out the numerous differences. His plan is only remotely similar to Obamacare. A bill of 80 pages compared to 2400+ pages, a state plan which could be nullified by the state very quickly, (except that 60% of the people of Massachusetts like the plan), versus a federal plan that will be close to impossible to repeal without significant Republican majorities and a Republican president.

    2. Council on Foreign Relations. (see above). My roommate at BYU, a very conservative professor at BYU is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I know him to be a good man and also to have a temple recommend. In fact, BYU trusted him to head up the intern program in Washington, DC. How judgmental of you! You assume your concept of the Council’s agenda is reality, which it is not.

    3. Your suggestion that the Republican establishment is supportive of Romney is hardly credible. Who are you talking about when you talk about the establishment? Why has everyone been looking for someone else if he is the establishment candidate? Why were the big donors waiting for Christie, or anyone else besides Romney? There are many good people who support Romney, and some are politicians, and many are not. The only reason the label would be applicable is because he has gotten to know in the last four years a number of people. But he remains a Washington outsider, never having lived or served in Washington, DC. Romney has never been about protecting the status quo. The reason other Republican presidents have failed to hold the line on spending is because none of them had the experience to handle the complexity of the federal government. They didn’t know how and where to cut spending.

    Romney has made a career of cutting expenses and effectively managing organizations. For example, he took over Massachusetts when it was $3 billion in the red, and without raising taxes left it with a $2 billion surplus. He took over the Olympics when it was $350 million out of budget, with sponsors backing out and people being indicted, and turned it into one of the most successful Olympics in history, with a $60 million profit. He was brought into Bain & Company, a thousand person consulting company, when it was facing bankruptcy, and saved the organization within one year by cutting and smart management. This is hardly characteristic of any previous Republican or Democrat presidents.

    4. Why do you expect us to accept your allegation that Mr. Romney would not be a statesman, but rather a politician? There are two issues here: First, one must be a politician to be elected. If you think anyone but a politician can be elected in today’s world, you are mistaken. If you think anyone can be elected by promising to do away with social security, you are in error. And how can someone lead the country if he is not elected? But second, once someone is elected, he may be a statesman, provided he does what is necessary to bring prosperity back, to reign in government spending and the size of government, to reduce regulatory burdens, and to advance freedom and liberty.

    You allege that because Gov. Romney has reached the pinnacle of success in the business world, he must be a politician. Well, there may be merit in that allegation. I would say a person does not reach the pinnacle of success in business without the ability to negotiate, to on occasion be diplomatic and tactful, but also to make hard decisions and exercise sound judgement, and on occasion offend people. You attempt to castigate Mr. Romney because of his success, when it is his very success that qualifies him to lead the country, to negotiate the difficult deals with the Chinese or the Russians or the Congress.

    5. Finally, you say, “Who is the real Mitt Romney?” But I say, he has written a book, NO APOLOGY, which clearly and succinctly outlines his positions on more issues than any other candidate has addressed. It may be true that his positions on abortion and gay rights have evolved over the last two decades. As someone who serves in the legislature, I understand that. There is more gray to most issues than black and white. With regard to the gays, as he has said, he has not changed over the years, but the agenda of the gays has changed over the years. Whereas before they were asking for toleration and equal opportunity for employment, today they are asking for a celebration of their lifestyle, and the imposition of their propaganda into our schools. One can be for the former without being for the latter.

    Mitt Romney has recently published his “Plan for Jobs and Economic Growth” in a new book, BELIEVE IN AMERICA. This book details 59 things that a President Romney will do. No other candidate has been so detailed and specific. The truth is that no other candidate has thought so deeply about these things, partly because no other candidate has the depth of experience that Romney has. Most of the points in the book are very conservative. It may be that one or two principals, such as supporting social security, are not accepted by all conservatives. But that has been previously decided by the Supreme Court, making it in effect the law of the land. A learned judge once said, “The only practical question is what to do next.” The country is not going to accept the abolition of social security without a commensurate program to substitute in its place. But none of this matters if the country goes bankrupt. The first order of the day is to stop the bleeding. Romney has the ability to do that, and no other presidential candidate has that ability.

    Underpinning all of your allegations and statements is the undisclosed, but clearly apparent support of Congressman Ron Paul. I don’t mean to entirely disparage Ron Paul. Much of what he says is right on track. But these facts exist: he has been a doctor, and a congressman, and little else. Do you think he would allow a person untrained and inexperienced to deliver a baby? Hardly. Well, the business of our nation is business. Mr. Paul has no demonstrable experience leading a large international organization, governing, dealing with trade agreements, or even negotiating. Don’t get me wrong. I like Ron Paul. He knows a great deal about the FED and the gold standard and the Constitution. But it is no shame to say that he is unelectable. He doesn’t even have the age or voice to be president. Can you imagine him negotiating with the Chinese. He is not a compromiser. Nothing would get done. Nothing would move forward. And he would alienate most of the population. Besides, some of his positions are ridiculous. His comment that the certification of marriage should not be up to the states shows a lack of understanding of the laws of intestate succession, divorce, and adoption. His comment that we should worry about building a fence because it would keep people in rather than keep people out is so ridiculous that he cannot be taken seriously.

    Let me conclude with this observation. There are two kinds of voters: those who support Mitt Romney, and those who don’t know enough about him. Before you dismiss him, consider the paucity of experience of the other contenders. Romney started out receiving a paycheck like everyone else. He ended up after 25 years with a net worth of somewhere between $190 and $250 million, not counting a $100 million trust fund for his kids. Few of us could accomplish that. He did this relatively free of allegations of wrongdoing. He gave the inheritance that he received from his father to charity. This does not happen by happenstance or luck. It is the result of an incisive, organized mind that has the capacity to analyze data and make the right decisions.

    If you were starting a new business and received the various resumés of the present contenders for the presidency to help you, would there be any doubt about which candidate you would choose? If you would choose anyone other than Romney, you would be courting disaster. That’s what the nation is doing if it rejects such a qualified man for the presidency.

    Cecil Ash
    Mesa, AZ

    • Dave Osborn permalink

      “You assume your concept of the Council’s agenda is reality, which it is not.”

      I suggest you read church scholar W. Cleon Skousen’s book “The Naked Capitalist” to discover why Brother Walker’s assessment of the CFR is on target. “The Naked Capitalist” is the sequel to “The Naked Communist” which Brother Skousen wrote upon President David O. McKays request.

      The Council is a spin off of the “Round Table Groups” created by Cecil Rhodes at Oxford. Rhodes was a student of John Ruskin. According to Dr. Carroll Quigley’s “Tragedy and Hope” of which “The Naked Capitalist” is a commentary about, “Ruskin’s message had a sensational impact [on Rhodes]. His inaugural lecture was copied out in longhand by… Cecil Rhodes, who kept it with him for 30 years.” From Skousen’s book, “John Ruskin derived most of his ideas and inspiration ‘directly from the source book of all dictatorships, Plato’s Republic. He read Plato almost every day…’ Skousen goes on to explain that “The upper dimensions of Plato’s ‘ideal’ society included the elimination of marriage and the family so that all the women would belong to all the men and all the men would belong to all the women. Children resulting from these promiscuous unions would be taken over by the government as soon as they were weaned and raised anonymously by the state.”

      You see the “hierarchy” is all compartmentalized. The round table groups know about the CFR, but the CFR doesn’t know about the round table groups. The Committee of 300 knows about the round table groups, but the round table groups don’t know about the committee of 300.

      Things are even compartmentalized within these groups. It is possible for Mitt Romney and your roommate to be members of the CFR without knowing there true goals. The devil’s tool is deception: “philosophies of men mingled with scripture (truth)”.

      I do agree with you that the Republican establishment is not supportive of Romney, which gives me hope for him; that his is for “the people’s rule” and not for “the ruling class.”

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. An Open Letter To AZ Representative Cecil P. Ash « onemansrants
  2. 354,700 Reasons To Run From Mitt Romney « onemansrants

Make your voice heard! Leave a comment.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 111 other followers

%d bloggers like this: