http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,654362

This thread closed before I saw it and I have some strong opinions about this, having raised children and living with people with varying mental health problems: sociopathy, psychopathy, schizophrenia, bipolar.

No. 1: There is nothing wrong with Mitt Romney's affect. His stiffness, failure to make eye contact, and whatever oddness we picked up was genuine, but if you review the hidden camera eavesdropping on people of his own kind, ZAP--it's all gone. He is engaging, present, funny, conversationally appropriate, social and maybe not very reciprocal because they are paying to hear him talk, but he doesn't display ANY of the socially awkward scenes we have seen from him on the campaign trail with the general public.

So, Romney's disorder is much more like those described in "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell, a book about people with high IQ and the very wide spread in the success of these people. Gladwell points out that the single most important factor in the successful people's lives was whether or not they had a home where there was a focus on them and their success, and IF they had a parent who could teach them to work the system to get what they needed.

You might say Romney got that. But if you think a little deeper about it, I am suggesting that he did not have to work anything. Son of a powerful Mormon Royal moneybags, the doors were always opened to him WITHOUT him having to learn how to win someone over.

You and I had to teach our children not to accept no for an answer. "They told you that the deadline had passed for you to get student insurance?" I said to my college daughter, "You march right back and tell them the cutoff date fell on a weekend and should therefore be slid back to Monday." She did that and they accepted her application.

Without knowing it, we train our children to have confidence that THEY can get what they want from adults and from the system. Gladwell gives an example of an upper class mother telling her 12 year old son, "You can ask the doctor any question you have, his job is to help you." This frames the doctor visit in a way that empowers the child in developing the confidence to negotiate the adult world.

Mitt Romney is a guy whose hot-house upper class upbringing, when coupled with cult insulation, has produced a man who has been a leader BUT never understood until now that he INHERITED the leadership presumption from the money, door-opening, and maybe most of all, the expectations of his famous rich father.

Up until now, he has never actually had to do much but lend his name and money to an enterprise. He's on their letterhead, he may even have an office, but when you dig down, you find out that he was NOT the CEO of Bain. He just had the title because it attracted respect. Other people actually did the CEO work.

Now he is on the world stage without the primal social skills of survival and he is at the mercy of some of the finest political minds of our times. Politicians are the experts at reading people and negotiating deals which involve recognizing not only the obvious needs and motives of the opposition, but their hidden aspirations.

Mitt Romney has never had to give a moment's thought to the aspirations, needs, and motives of others. He is in a very bad place to be up against a black guy. Like women, black people read you like a book instantly--they have to, for generations that's how they stayed alive. Ever try lying to a black guy? Forget it, he has your number before you finish your sentence.

You'll enjoy reading "Outliers." It tells the story of why Korean Airlines had so many crashes when using the same airplanes other airlines were using. Turns out, it was their culture. Upon learning this, the airline had to reprogram their pilot training to include UNDOING some of their Korean cultural training--- not too far from us here at RFM struggling to undo our Mormon programming.

Anagrammy

Interesting!

I'll add Outliers to my to-read list.

I'm finding this topic amazingly interesting. Thanks for pointing out the previous thread that I had missed. It's full of fascinating viewpoints too.

I can't say much about Romney as I don't do psychoanalysis well and am not familiar with "Mormon Royalty", BYU, his or his wife's lives as Mormons, or being ultra-uber-rich. Also, I don't ever feel comfortable criticizing a specific person to the max. But. As I've watched him in the campaign, something is definitely "off". I just don't know what it is. It's easy to assume it's his religion or his wealth or both and I think they both certainly must play into it. I like the bubble theory proposed in the previous thread. Nevermos (i.e., the great mass of humanity) likely can't totally "get" how a controlling, somewhat isolationist type religion like Mormonism can affect the very character and total outlook of its adherents. (Again, the previous thread explained well how big an influence it can be).

Re trying to avoid personal criticism, partly it's because I feel superficial in some of my observations, like "he walks funny" or "he smiles funny". I relate to the post on the previous thread that says that unindoctrinated or unbrainwashed people can see that something's "off" while those still steeped in the religion cannot. I'm not saying that his walk or smile is due to Mormon influence but just that during times I've watched him campaigning (on TV) he walks funny, what can I say. It's like he takes very small steps, which looks strange considering his size (which is admittedly harder to visualize from TV). Then I decided not to be so picky in uber-analyzing him and that likely he was just being careful not to trip or fall.

But the smile. I think it looks totally off. Is it that as a candidate you have to remember to smile at all times and your face gets tired? It doesn't look real. Maybe he's just got a sore jaw?

It's fascinating to think of the role that cultural programming plays in his outlook and demeanour. Again, that could be a factor that nevermos may have difficulty understanding. Often, nevermos will ask exmos "why didn't you just leave?" or "...say no" or "tell them where to go", etc. Exmos (and even questioning or even just so very tired Mormons) will know exactly why and won't have to ask that type of question. As one post on the previous thread (referenced in ana's post above) explained, when your entire life is centered around the church and focused on going on a mission (at least, for males) you don't make outside friends or decide to go off on your own path - the path has already been laid out for you, since birth and on into young adulthood and beyond.

Interesting book reference, ana. Notice how when the Koreans realized there was something off with their cultural training they changed it. I wonder if Mormonism allows for that. Not the Mormonism I knew (for admittedly only three years, and not centered in SLC or even the USA).

I think that cultural training within Mormonism and other similar religions is an under-recognized influence on a person's upbringing (for those born-in-church folks). I'll never forget one former poster saying that after leaving the Mormon Church she used to go and sit in a busy coffee shop to observe and learn how "normal" adults interacted with each other, including informal conversation.

I'm not applying any of this to Romney as I just don't know what has gone into creating the MR we see on the trail. But it's easy to see that something is off and that his advisers still, after all this time, either haven't recognized it or can't fix it to date. I like the Bubble Boy theory, of him having been in a bubble inside a bubble inside a bubble.

With Mormonism involved in one bubble, that alone could cause some of the social issues.

Fascinating observations, ana, about how all the stiffness goes away on certain occasions. I'll stay tuned to see what other wiser folks than I have to say.

I might look out that book too about Korean Airlines. Thanks for the tip.

One could argue Dubya (George W.) had all the perks of wealth and privilege, but he could still do some relating to folks, even though questionable tactics got him into office, including the chad scandal, the seemingly fake conversion to Christianity, etc.

Maybe Mitt thinks he can do the same thing. Fake it till you make it.

Mitt's social stiffness and lack of self confidence in the public eye is probably stemming from him having to do "whatever it takes" to win, even if it's questionable, dishonest etc. And from his Mormonism, which has to a degree helped him stand in front of audiences, and put forward a persona of authority - even though he may or may not have convinced people of his points.

He mostly just reminds me of the many spoiled rich kids that at BYU. Not all kids at BYU come from families with money but several do. The kids can mostly do what they want, and thus feel very entitled.

On top of all that, it seems he was told he'll one day be President directly by his Dad, and also strongly encouraged at BYU to make it such a goal (according to his Cougar Club peers)--by school mates and probably church leaders who said to him, "If your Dad doesn't get there, then you should!"

Outliers is a fascinating book. I'm glad that Anagrammy is recommending it.

Thanks for your observations, Anagrammy.

Thanks, DeeAnn,

One of the most interesting differences I noticed is that in normal society, when someone is caught in a lie--we'll call it a factual error-- they don't continue. They correct the fact in their next presentation.

Romney doesn't do that. He does exactly what the church does, just keep repeating it as if repetition makes it true. Like testimonies. Maybe if enough people say that Joseph Smith is a prophet of god and the Mormon Church is the only true church, it will become true. The old fake-it-til-you-make-it technique or "acting as if" which has been around since Catherine Marshall, the Christian writer included it in her novels as a spiritual principle.

Think of all the pictures you've seen of Joseph Smith with the gold plates in front of him "translating" the writing. No hat, no rock, no curtain--the painting is a lie. When you grow up surrounded by misrepresentation, you don't grow a conscience that pings you when you drift from the known facts.

Anagrammy



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 08:16PM by anagrammy.

The Mormon church does seem to shield many people from the real world. Add to this the Mormon love of celebrity members and you have a big part of the problem, IMO. He was famous and his parents were famous and he became a Mormon celebrity. He served as bishop and most members bow to the bishop. He was used to being catered to and deferred to. On top of that he was wealthy and had no idea what it was like to worry about the lights being shut off or the car being repossessed.If he got sick, he could afford any doctor he wanted. He had rich parents and stocks to fall back on when he was living in his uncarpeted basement apartment. Maybe it wasn't a nice place, but he knew it was secure and he knew he could pay the bills and tuition and that his parents had his back. That is a luxury that many people don't have. Then you have the Mormon sense of entitlement and superiority and it is no wonder Mitt is entitled and out of touch.

He doesn't have a mental health issue...he's a mormon.

I don't fault what he said "off camera" to a group of donors...He was playing them up. Trust me, Obama does the same. the issue is the type of STING someone ran on Romney. I fully agree that he should be able to have private conversations with people, advisers, prospective donors...

I think the difference here is that Obama's people probably sweep the room for bugs and other devices.....

I think Obama would have explained what he meant and stuck with it instead of being all over the map with what he meant and why he said it.A little consistency would go along way in Romney's case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/29/2012 09:16PM by bona dea.

He was playing a statistician...badly I would add...

I had heard Mitt's argument in the past only put in much more eloquent and politically correct words..

If he had said that and admitted it was clumsy rather than saying one thing one day and another the next, it wouldn't have been such a disaster

No argument there...but he is a politician so he will say whatever is politically expedient, as opposed to what is right...even if that means he was wrong in what he said..

...I knew that, short of some miracle, he'd lost the election.

QUOTE:

" So, Romney's disorder is much more like those described in "The Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell, a book about people with high IQ and the very wide spread in the success of these people. Gladwell points out that the single most important factor in the successful people's lives was whether or not they had a home where there was a focus on them and their success, and IF they had a parent who could teach them to work the system to get what they needed."
END QUOTE

How ironic, in my home with my MORmON stooge parents we were never entitled to have a need in our own right. My parents would let us know what our needs were. and if we dared to complain we would be given notice that we were welcome to live in the chicken coupe with the other two legged livestock on the place as opposed to the livestock of the four legged variety on the place. THAT was the due consideration that my MORmON parents extended to their children. I wonder how that compares to Romney's (pampered ass silver spoon) upbringing ?????
you know he had a hard time getting through BYU !!!!
had to sell off some stock, ya know !!!


In my MORmON family, SUCK-CESS was ONLY equated with submitting to LDS INC demands. IN fact my faithFOOL MORmON Mother's pat reaction to EVERYTHING was: "well, what good would that do?!!!!" and the only VERY NOTICEABLE areas where that totally demoralizing ideology and pat comment did not apply was A. Going to MORmON meetings, B. Making donations to LDS INC.

With my MORmON male parent, his offspring formulating any ideas or feelings that had anything to do with things beyond the context of "THE" church was not something to be proud of. It constituted opinion and opinion was always bad. ANy emerging idea or preference that a child had as they dared express it could instantly be dismissed with the snide cruel comment "well that's your opinion (something that obviously does not matter, besides the fine job of defining you as an idiot for daring to indulge in having such thoughts !!!!) or a more general put down was "well you are certainly opinionated!" as if that had to be some kind of fault. However, when my male parent wanted to cream his ideological pants by blabbering off his testimony about "THE" church, that was not opinion, it was
just "THE" truth!

If my Male parent wanted to have any credence for himself, he always couched what he wanted to say in the quote or comment of some (ass clown ) MORmON general authority. If my mom wanted to have any credibility then she would slip into the personna of her older sister. her speech patterns would noticeably change.
..... much the same way that Romney's did when Mitt thought he was speaking in private to a sympathetic audience !



the ways of my parents were a perfect recipe for raising kids who could not think for themselves, let alone get something they wanted from the system. It was a perfect recipe for raising MORmONS of the non elite non privileged variety. Because after all, is not having the MORmON GO-SPELL privilege enough!!!! Because "THE" very purpose for existing was to serve "THE" system of "THE" church, to the extent of being totally ass raped by it as the ultimate indication of ( non elite) MORmON SUCK-CESS. my parents were run into the ground by demanding ward members who knew they automatically had the upper hand when they applied the context of "THE " church to their demands. WHen my parents were suffering at their hands it was inexcusable to think of criticizing a fellow MORmON member brother or sister in "THE" MORmON GO-SPELL as an outlet. There was only one allowable out let and that was taking it out on the kids. THAT happened plenty. And then ppl wonder why I hate "THE" church so much at this stage of my life!

" Er ya ASS good, as the Romneys? "

but you know, he had to get in there and compete with all the other kids and, later, other grownups who'd had doors opened for them. Regardless of the circles he travels in, he's been out in the world as much as anybody. Given his political, business, and Olympic experience that he's always going on about, he should be A LOT more polished and culturally agile. There's no excuse that I can see for him to be so inept, other than some kind of personality-disordered expectation of being adored and getting his way.

As for your paragraph about women and black people reading others like a book, instantly, because they're black (or because they're women) ... uh, what? I'm skeptical.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2012 02:47AM by munchybotaz.

People who have lived in fear of physical violence or in subjugation without peer status develop an enhanced ability to read body language as a survival mechanism.

Dogs do it and wolves don't.

Cats don't.

Women have "women's intuition" and men don't.

Because of slavery, black people of both sexes read body language better than white people.

You can google the studies-- it's fascinating. You can try your own experiment if you have pets. Narrow your eyes and stare at your dog. He will notice immediately and become anxious. Your cat will yawn.

Anagrammy

I actually did a bit of that before replying the first time, couldn't find anything. Then again, I was looking for studies on the leadership competency of interpersonal savvy, which is about relating to all kinds of people and building rapport and relationships, which is what I thought you were talking about. It's among the more difficult skills to develop. Remember, I'm a management consultant ... or I should say I was, until a couple months ago. I also looked through my professional stuff, although I didn't expect and wasn't surprised not to find anything on racial differences.

Your latest reply focuses on body language. I don't doubt that people who've been abused can become skilled in reading body language, but a quick google didn't turn up any of those studies, either, and you're the one who made the claim.

Like I said, I don't doubt it. But I am still questioning whether present-day African Americans would have any special people-reading abilities as a result of slavery. I'm also wondering what dogs, wolves, and cats have to do with it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2012 01:35AM by munchybotaz.

What do dogs and wolves have to do about it?

It's about dependency producing greater ability/sensitivity to body language. In studies comparing wolves and dogs, a trainer looks at the animal and points to a bucket, under which there is a treat. The dog is domesticated (dependent), so it reads the human's body language instantly and goes to the bucket looking for the treat.

The same experiment repeated with a wolf dramatically demonstrates the difference. The gesture of pointing is meaningless to the wolf and you can see that the wolf is not focused on the human's face, rather is looking around the room.

Women's "intuition" is said also to be rooted in a hyper ability to read body language due to thousands of years of squatting around a campfire with bigger, stronger men capable of killing them if displeased. Psychologists note that abused children also exhibit extra sensitivity in this regard.

The information regarding the wolf and dogs came from a National Geographic documentary on the evolution of dogs. There are numerous books and studies available on the existence/origin of women's intuition. The inclusion of exploited minorities in those who would be likely to develop enhanced intuition comes from my own observations living and working in Oakland, CA and having predominantly black neighbors and co-workers.

Your opinion may differ.

Anagrammy

My understanding matches Anagrammy's: that the person with less power understands the person with more power better than the other way around.

You can look at marriages in which the two are not equal partners. The wife knows the husband very well; the husband does not know the wife much at all.

munchybotaz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> As for your paragraph about women and black people
> reading others like a book, instantly, because
> they're black (or because they're women) ... uh,
> what? I'm skeptical.


It doesn't mean every woman or non white person can instantly do this perfectly, just that since as a demographic these groups are subject to having less power than their white and male counterparts they get more practice and so are on average better at spotting certain things. the conversation turned into one about physical danger, which is a good example, but there is also the danger of losing your job or being harassed and so on. You can't really get by in the world very well without understanding the power difference between yourself and other people and acting accordingly. It is the same way that women are better at recognizing sexism and people of color are better at recognizing racism- they are actually subject to these forces and can reasonably be expected to be more perceptive of them as a result.

In Mormonism, EVERYTHING important is Conditional;

the biggest rewards top off the list:

-advancements up the ChurchCo ladder

-well-placed contacts who will mentor/favor 'the chosen',
facilitate (contacts who will bring you opportunities for) Favorable Employment / Contracts

-social recognition

Sadly, even the most basic of rewards possible, Love & aceptance by your spouse, children, other family, neighbors... 'Everyone' whose's played up to be critical-crucial in a Mormon TBMs life.

I call that narcissism, arrogance, or some other (un-named, un specific) pathology. It's the Biggest Objection/Deal-Killer for Mormonism, IMHO.

'Mormonism REQUIRES the duplicity of All its adherents'; QFT



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2012 12:00AM by guynoirprivateeye.

When you're mormon, male, and in any position of leadership you don't get criticized. It's against the religion to criticize or talk bad about your leaders. Everyone is supposed to do what you say, and keep a smile on their face. There's no feed back.

Mitt's never had to deal with criticism and opposition. He's used to having the top positions handed to him, and everyone going along with it. He didn't have to care what anyone thought.

Suddenly the whole world has him under a microscope. They're saying a lot of things about him, and his family that he's never heard before. For the first time people not only are allowed to critique him, they are expected to.

He thinks if he smiles a lot and tries to look like the average Joe that people will automatically like him. It's probably quite the shock to find out differently. Especially when its a fellow mormon who's not being all lovey and adoring. He thought he was loved just for being Mormon. He doesn't know how to act when there are people around that don't like him. He's always been surrounded by people pleasers. He probably needs a therapist to explain that its ok if everyone doesn't like you.

Welcome to the real world Mitt.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2012 01:29AM by Mia.

that bugs me.

It is a half smile with the eyebrows tweaked. I finally figured out what bothers me about it. It is the fake "I am here because I care about you all so much" fake sentimental look that the GA's sport as they go about their papal duties blessing the masses.

It's glued on.

He is never without it--check it out, you'll see. This certain look is the default, not a relaxed face with no smile.

See what you think--

Ana

Yes, the smile is difficult to look at. It is so fake and plastered on as to be a caricature of a smile.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/30/2012 02:28AM by shannon.

This is so true. He's never faced actual criticism until recently, as he's been in that Mormon bubble where it's not acceptable to criticize the leadership. He's coming to the realization that outside of Mormonism, not everyone is going to like him, and he's hearing critical things about him and his policies for the first time.

I don't think he's got undiagnosed Asperger's syndrome, but more like Special Snowflake syndrome as he was spoiled growing up, and as a Mormon bishop and SP, he was immune from criticism. One major reason why I don't think he's an Aspie is that he's willing to lie or say whatever he thinks is necessary to get elected.

In The New Yorker article, "Transaction Man," Nicholas Lemann noted:

"Like most elites, the Mormon elite is a small world where everybody knows and has close ties to everybody else ..... The heads of BYU-Idaho and Brigham Young's other sister school, in Hawaii, are former Harvard Business School professors. Three of Mitt Romney's sons have Harvard MBAs..."

And we all know about the number of mormons working at Bain.

This extension of mormonism into one's business career, into every aspect of one's life, is something the media is still failing to get.

And that is, in part, why they keep misjudging Romney based on interviews with mormons he worked with, and with mormons for whom he was Bishop, and with mormons who touted his humanity at the convention.

That's why, in part, why mormons also misjudge themselves. A lot has already been said about the protective bubbles, the closed loops, in which mormons live. I'd like to point out just one of the many effects of this insulated and insular life. Like others, the New Yorker article praises the training mormons get in public speaking, how they start early and then keep going in terms of speaking to groups. Henry Eyring and Kim Clark make this point in the New Yorker article, and Lemann repeats it without scepticism.

Have you ever heard a really great speech at General Conference? Have you heard Mitt Romney give a truly great speech, and/or one that was accurate? Ann Romney speaks like an RS bee with a 5th grade education.

"The First Lady's speech Tuesday was written at a 12th grade level - the highest in history among the wives of presidential nominees and far above Ann Romney's lowest mark of a 5th grade level.

Link for quote above: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/09/michelle_obamas_dnc_speech_wri.php

My point is that, for most of their lives, mormons are judging mormons on their speaking ability. Mormons have a limited perspective. Mormons are judging themselves based on the reactions of mormon audiences. In my experience, mormon audiences are effing weird. They will laugh heartily at the lamest of jokes. I think this is because they are so grateful for even the slightest relief from soul-killing boredom that they'll give the speaker too much credit for any symptoms of humanity.

Mormons are not good speakers for the most part. They have risen to the acceptable level of mediocrity.

To back up my comments about the overblown claim that the mormon church trains leaders and speakers, here's a quote from "Transaction Man":

"I gave my first talk to an organization when I was four or five years old. At twelve, they put you in a leadership position ..."
--Kim Clark

This is an example of the mormon-flavored speechifying from Mitt Romney. You take an already obscure or strained metaphor, and then you double down on it.

“This is kind of like the Greek chorus in the background,” he [Romney] said, in a reference to President Obama’s speech four years ago at the Democratic convention in Denver, which he delivered in front of large Greek columns.

“Everything they do reminds us of Greece and we’re not going to Greece,” Mr. Romney said. “We’re going to get America back to being America.”

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/25/romney-compares-protesters-to-a-greek-chorus/

All 7 billion humans currently living on planet earth cannot possibly consume the same amount of resources on a per capita basis as that consumed by mittens and his ilk. Impossible.

(This includes high-end food prepared in high-end restaurants by lots of people, Jet A to fuel private jets, gargantuan homes, staff to caretake each and every property, and on, and on, and on.)

But sometimes I think Mr. Romney believes if we were all as smart as he is, and handsome, and hard working, and good, we'd all have just as many resources at our disposal as does he. He believes that the amount of resources a person has at his disposal is directly attributable to the laziness of said person. He believes there's a direct correlation betweeen the two.

Impossible for him to fathom what it would be like to be a 7 year old child rummaging through trash heaps in Mumbai to eke out a survival. He has no idea what life would be like living that close to the edge - of death. To face the harshest of nature's brutality on daily basis. No clue.

Pampered and feted and coddled and benefacted.

Opines I.

...sends me these two links for my consideration:

The first one is about MR as a home teacher:

(sorry, I couldn't find a link to this story, so here it is in full length)

Stake President of the United States
Posted on February 22, 2012 by stallioncornell
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 that 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 practically and quietly remove the hornet’s nest from the nation’s second-story swamp cooler.

*******


The second one is about the folks who bought the Romney's Park City home:

www.prewitt.net/MittRomneyInsite2012-08-16.pdf

In view of the discussion in this thread, I'm wondering what you all think about these two accounts.