I’m trying to determine if anyone has felt/experienced any difference in the Church’s willingness to tolerate political diversity among insiders since (or as a possible result of) Romney’s candidacy.

I have not personally experienced any difference, but I have never felt that the Church itself (as opposed to some members) had any (recent) problem tolerating diverse political views. It does have a problem with those holding diverse political views calling the Church leaders into disrepute, but that is a different matter.

What sort of environment do you think Romney’s rhetoric about obedience + official Church statements (lds.org) about political neutrality and diversity among church members might have had on those who worked *against* Prop 8?

I don’t know that Romney’s rhetoric made a difference, but I’m sure the Church’s statements were taken at face value by some members and led to more faithful members being willing to voice opposition to prop 8 than might otherwise have been apparent.

This seems fairly obvious.

I hope you don’t mind me joining the conversation and ask a couple of questions.

I’m trying to determine if anyone has felt/experienced any difference in the Church’s willingness to tolerate political diversity among insiders since (or as a possible result of) Romney’s candidacy.

What sort of environment do you think Romney’s rhetoric about obedience + official Church statements (lds.org) about political neutrality and diversity among church members might have had on those who worked *against* Prop 8?

Put another way, what connection do you see (if any) between presidential campaign rhetoric (from the Church and Romney) and the statements made by church leaders during the Prop 8 campaign that members could dissent against Prop 8 without fearing church discipline? (I do realize that that official rhetoric has been tempered a bit, but it remains that church leaders did make such statements.)

There was also a nice shout-out from Chuck Colson on his radio broadcast that was very supportive.

Hopefully you guys will prove me wrong here.

Rob, if the bloggernacle is getting boring, you are more than welcome to shove off. It’s not like comments like that are making it any more interesting.

Oh, no, wait, that’s what Mormons said about Gays. My mistake.

And mormons wonder why people might be angry.

You Rock Dude!

I say we start our own blog, where we can tell the truth, stand up hard for what we believe and do as Captain Moroni did.

The Blogernacle is getting boring, with too many Pharisees and Sadducees playing ping pong with their version of the gospel, prop 8 and the adversary’s true agenda.

Sorry guys, I made a covenant to obey,support and sustain with ALL of my abilities. There is no gray areas in the gospel. It is either true or it isn’t.

Mitt would and will make a great president. If the Lord wants it to happen, it will.

All of this talk is just that. Come on out to California from whereever you are and see for yourselves what is really happening, and then DO something about it.

Sheep and Goats, which one are you. . . .

I stuck up for you, and even cussed at them a little bit for you. /flex

They want Validation for their Behavior.

And you know this how? Have you actually asked a gay couple why they want to get married?

Cheryl, my point is that it is, at the very least, extremely presumptuous for anyone to tell a gay couple why they want to get married. I would guess that they want to get married for many different reasons, and that at least some of them want to get married for the same reasons heterosexual couples do. Their motivation, however, is totally irrelevant to the question of whether they should be allowed to get married by law, so trying to ascribe nefarious motives to all gay couples is just silly and really pretty offensive. Let’s not do it.

As a primary candidate he had to give a speech in which he tried to convince Americans that he would not allow his church to influence him, because there were many that thought that he would be bound to do as the prophet told him to. Since the church was heavily involved in the Proposition 8 effort, it would be harder for him to argue that.

Gibberish. There’s absolutely nothing about prop 8 that would have led to any such conclusion about Romney.

So I steal a car and give it to my friend, who then enjoys this car and counts on it for a few months as part of their daily life. Then when it turns out that the car was stolen, and the car is taken away from my friend, do they have the right to be mad at anyone but they whole stole the car in the first place?

Worse than gibberish. The rights acquired by homosexuals before prop 8 were not “stolen” (if that is what you are trying to say), they were identified by the Supreme Court of California as being part of the State Constitution. Prop 8 has now amended the constitution to exclude such rights. This does not mean they never existed in the first place or that the Supreme Court was necessarily wrong. No stolen car here. Bad analogy.

Jeremiah, What could possibly make you believe Romney would have chosen Palin as a running mate? My guess is that he would have been much more conservative in his choice and, in any case, would never have chosen an evangelical, partly because one would be very unlikely to have accepted. Chances that a Romney/Palin ticket would have happened? Not in a million years.

All this leads me to believe that the push for SSM is not about rights, it’s about gaining approval of society for their behavior.

Bookslinger, this conclusion does not follow from the facts you cite, and is offensive to boot. You should dial down the rhetoric on this topic. It’s embarrassing.