Hindsight: A Reason to Be Thankful Romney Wasn’t a Candidate

Seth - November 5, 2008

With the Presidential campaign over, Obama victorious, and McCain graciously bowing out of the public spotlight, I find myself looking back on what has been a very long, very tiring, but very interesting election cycle. For Mormons, it’s been quite a ride for two reasons: Mitt Romney, and Proposition 8. Both topics have been talked about ad nauseum on the bloggernacle. But linking the two topics together, I think we Mormons can thank our lucky stars that Romney DIDN’T make it out of the GOP primaries.

If the Google alerts I’ve got on Mormon key words is any indicator, the press the LDS Church has received over Proposition 8 is downright ugly. Not a day goes by without several bloggers writing up angry posts about the Mormons – some of them verging on outright hate speech. We all know about calls from some liberal quarters for LDS donors to Prop 8 to be identified so that dirt can be dug up on them. Calls of bigotry, homophobia, and hate ring out endlessly. California newspaper coverage has not been kind to us, as far as I can see. And the LDS Church has received precious little defense from its Christian and conservative allies.

However, this coverage has been largely confined to California. It has not been headline news nationwide. The rest of the nation has been preoccupied with a dramatic Presidential race that has served up a whole slew of firsts. In all the bustle around Obama and McCain, Prop 8 – which would otherwise be the top news story nationwide – has taken a back seat. It’s been mostly a California issue and a Salt Lake Tribune issue. But that’s about it.

As a result, the damage to the Church’s image has been fairly contained. As much as we could hope it to be anyway.

This would not have been the case if it had been Romney running against Obama and not McCain.

If Romney had been the nominee, I guarantee you this battle over Prop 8 would have become a central issue in the national campaign. How would Romney have dealt with the LDS Church’s direct involvement in a key moral political issue? Would he endorse it, or distance himself from it? Remember all those reporters in the primary season talking about how Romney would take political marching orders from the Church Office Building? Oh yeah, that probably would have come up and taken center stage. Romney would have to give his whole spiel about “not running for pastor-in-chief” all over again. And just like before, people would be very, very skeptical.

It would have been an absolute fiasco for us. “LDS bigotry” (as our enlightened critics term it) would have been a national issue rather than a California issue.

I, for one, am rather happy we dodged the bullet on this one.


  1. Very astute observation, Seth. I didn’t think of it that way, but you made a believer out of me. Thanks for submitting this.

    Comment by David T. — November 5, 2008 @ 10:15 am

  2. Wow. Good point, Seth. That thought had not even crossed my mind, but I can see now how horrible it would have been. Not just for Mormons, but for Mitt Romney (personally!).

    Comment by cheryl — November 5, 2008 @ 10:25 am

  3. Right on.

    Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2008 @ 10:33 am

  4. Well written and excellent point.

    Comment by matt w. — November 5, 2008 @ 10:37 am

  5. Good points Seth. I didn’t think prop-8 would pass. It’ll be interesting how that will affect Romney if he makes an other run in 2012.

    Comment by Clark — November 5, 2008 @ 10:38 am

  6. I should also add that I find Romney oddly a far more compelling candidate now than I did during the primaries. But I’m also very glad he didn’t win the nomination.

    Comment by Clark — November 5, 2008 @ 10:46 am

  7. I wouldn’t have believed anyone could write anything more on Prop 8 that could possibly be worth reading. You did, though. Wow. Thank you.

    Comment by Ardis Parshall — November 5, 2008 @ 10:49 am

  8. Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful post, Seth.

    Comment by Christopher — November 5, 2008 @ 11:10 am

  9. You know, I’ve got mixed feelings on this. It’s a simple fact of life that we really need to get into our heads, but we will never be a 100% accepted faith. It is written into our history, and into the history of the Book of Mormon. No matter what we do, there will always be those that do exist, or will exist, that rise up to oppose the church. Those that are in opposition aren’t even always a minority either. Laminate armies routinely outnumbered the armies of the Nephities.

    We will always face opposition, so I’m not sure how I feel about this, because honestly, I don’t think we as a people, have undergone the kind of focusing and purging opposition that we need for a very long time. Does this mean I want it all to come apart now? Not really, but I think that when such opposition comes, we should be ready, and willing, to face it, regardless of the face it wears. And we must face it as disciples of Christ, graciously and meekly.

    Comment by Arlin Fehr — November 5, 2008 @ 11:52 am

  10. Not everyone emerged unscathed. Gay Mormons got hit from both sides. And there were definite casualties.

    Comment by Clint — November 5, 2008 @ 12:05 pm

  11. I have come to realize that any issue can become a stumbling block if I let it.

    I am a little ashamed of how relieved I was when Romney bowed out of the race for GOP nomination. For one thing, the news stories here across the pond treated Mormons with even less respect than in the States, because we are an even smaller minority here. Although few Europeans know Harry Reid is a practicing Mormon, too, Romney’s religion trumped almost everything else about him.

    Then there was the fact that I got the wrong kind of “vibe” from him. I don’t know why, and I have asked myself some questions about it. When I read about him or things he said, I was okay. But seeing him in action left me cold. McCain, with his temper, came across as a more sincere guy. (And I’m not saying that someone should necessarily support a candidate just because of his/her religion – after all I voted for my son-in-law in our local election because of nepotism, not religion. ;) )

    Politics can be divisive. But rational, good people can, based on their experience, have different ideas of how to take care of ideas like zoning, school vouchers – and, yes, whether or not State law should have anything to do with marriage. I seem to remember that to Catholics marriage is one of the Sacraments, which makes it apolitical.

    I pray that we as “citizens” of the Kingdom would not let man-made institutions divide us. “Offenses must come…” But we don’t have to be offended.

    Comment by Velska — November 5, 2008 @ 1:22 pm

  12. I wonder if the church might not have become so actively involved in the Prop 8 campaign if Romney had been the GOP nominee.

    Comment by CE — November 5, 2008 @ 1:31 pm

  13. [...] others view us due to the recent political campaign. (Take this post by Ronan at BCC for example or this one by Seth at Nine Moons) Part of the worry is the ever present worry that someone who has gotten too emotionally invested [...]

    Pingback by Mormons and the Election : Mormon Metaphysics — November 5, 2008 @ 2:20 pm

  14. Seth, I agree with your assessment that with a Romney-led GOP ticket, the Church’s support of Prop 8 in California would have been in the limelight as well. I disagree that it would have been a fiasco.

    First, there is more than a majority of national support to define marriage as an relationship only between a man and a woman, as evidenced by the passage of Prop 8 this year. The attempts by the radical progressives to personally attack supporters of the Proposition would be seen on a national scale as nasty attacks by most of the country and would likely gain more sympathy for the Church than animosity.

    Second, those who used Romney’s Mormon-ness against him in the primaries by claiming he would do the bidding of the Prophet, )namely evangelical Christians, many of the Southern variety), would not bring up the same in the general election were he our candidate, if it meant jeopardizing the passage of Prop 8. and similar measures across the country like Florida.

    And lastly, I agree with Arlin Fehr: “if the billowing surge conspire against thee; … and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my [child], that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.” Have we, as Saints, grown soft and weak without the adversity of the early restored Church?

    Comment by Bull Moose — November 5, 2008 @ 3:02 pm

  15. Second, those who used Romney’s Mormon-ness against him in the primaries by claiming he would do the bidding of the Prophet, )namely evangelical Christians, many of the Southern variety), would not bring up the same in the general election were he our candidate, if it meant jeopardizing the passage of Prop 8. and similar measures across the country like Florida.

    Actually, that’s a legitimate counter-thought. Well done, Mr. Moose.

    Comment by David T. — November 5, 2008 @ 3:35 pm

  16. I don’t know Bull,

    I’ve seen precious little of our Evangelical friends sticking up for us in the fight in California.

    It raises the question of whether they are having a bit of schadenfreude at our expense, while still reaping the benefits of Mormon efforts on a moral issue. I’m not entirely convinced they would ride to the rescue – even at nationals.

    As for Arlin’s siege-mentality comment… I can take or leave that kind of thinking. I don’t generally have much use for it. But I won’t argue with it, if that’s how you want to frame it.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 5, 2008 @ 4:08 pm

  17. RE 10:

    Yep. It’s been a crappy couple of months. Not so sure I want to keep being Mormon. There was so little charity in most of that campaign. It’s hard to balance “we love our gay brothers and sisters” and “they are a threat to our families and everything we hold dear!” Very frustrating.

    As a mostly-closeted, celibate, gay LDS person, it was very difficult feeling like an enemy every time the subject came up. I’ve been thinking of getting out, but probably won’t: I know that my parents would be more grief-stricken at my leaving the church than at my death–I’ve asked them. And as I’m not even ballsy enough to bite the bullet and come out of the closet to close friends, I certainly don’t have the cojones to put the barrel in my mouth and pull the trigger. So, I’m just stuck.


    Comment by anon today — November 5, 2008 @ 4:45 pm

  18. re # 16, Seth, I agree that one aspect of this Prop. 8 campaign that has stood out to me is that Evangelical creedalists have been slow to defend the Mormons against the press coverage.

    Evangelical creedalists are despitefully using us. Jesus advises us to pray for those who despitefully use us in the New Testament but does that mean we continually have to be their doormat?

    Evangelical creedalists got a double windfall out of the Prop. 8 campaign: they got someone else to fund and achieve a key social agenda of theirs AND it generated mountains of negative press for the Mormon Church that, one could guess, will reduce the number of people joining the Church (although that is not necessarily the case, still it saved Evangelical creedalists a lot of money in preparing their own anti-Mormon discourses and messages).

    In a sense, the Evangelical creedalists despitefully used both the Mormons and the gay and lesbian lobby in California during Prop. 8. It is abundantly clear who the real winner in the Prop. 8 campaign was. Kudos to whichever Evangelical creedalist strategist worked out that course of action.

    Comment by john f. — November 6, 2008 @ 4:51 am

  19. You make a good point.

    I can see the awkwardness now: “I support Proposition 8, but not because my church told me to…”

    And not only is in fortunate he didn’t win the nomination, but perhaps this was a reason he was no picked as VP?

    Comment by Mike — November 6, 2008 @ 5:38 am

  20. Prop. 8 probably means that Romney’s (or any Mormon’s) future chance at the Presidency is nil.

    Comment by john f. — November 6, 2008 @ 5:48 am

  21. Um, prop 8 passed, john. That means a majority voted for it. And since a majority voting for you as a candidate is what you want, I think your assessment makes zero sense.

    Also, presumably there are some evangelicals and like-minded individuals who join the Mormon church each year. Wouldn’t the Church’s stand on prop 8 make it more appealing to those people, not less? Likewise, people who were against prop 8 were not likely to be interested in the Church anyway, since the Church’s stand on SSM is not new. Therefore, any anti-Mormon publicity from prop 8 will likely mean very little in terms of conversion rates and may actually win the Church more converts among conservatives who voted for prop 8.

    Comment by MCQ — November 6, 2008 @ 8:12 am

  22. As a point of interest, the California Catholic Conference did stick up for us over the TV ad with Mormon missionaries tearing up a lesbian couple’s marriage license.

    Here’s the link.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 6, 2008 @ 9:47 am

  23. I think the Church’s PR campaign is going to do wonders in the next 12 months about teaching people that Mormons believe in Christ and this should help Romney make a run in four years. For example the new project, Reflections of Christ, is incredible. A photographer from Mesa created all these amazing photographs of scenes of Christs life. They created a DVD and a cool sounding CD to go with it. Check out their slide show on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oteno81QzzQ

    Comment by Patrick M — November 6, 2008 @ 11:13 am

  24. I agree with MCQ. Nationwide these props pass overwhelmingly I think the average is plus 60%. The track record is 30-30 with AZ voting twice. On balance based on the election results I would say this is a plus for us. It will of course hurt us with the liberal leaners but there are less of them based on the election results.

    Comment by bbell — November 7, 2008 @ 12:10 pm

  25. I just wanted to add that a there where a number of churches that came out against the horrible No on Prop 8 ad that show 2 “Mormon” missionaries (see here).

    Though I haven’t seen much public condemnation from Evangelicals for the way Mormons are being targeted, I have seen and experienced it from Evangelical friends and co-workers.

    Comment by Babs — November 7, 2008 @ 3:39 pm

  26. MCQ and bbell,

    I don’t think the issue is that people wouldn’t support Romney because he opposes gay marriage. Clearly that would help him among conservatives and hurt him among liberals, which is to be expected and not a bad thing for him, as you point out.

    What hurts him is that it makes is much more difficult for him to argue that his church would not influence his decisions as President. 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.

    As I said above, he would have to argue that he opposes gay marriage, but not because his church does, even though his church is one of the most public opponents of it. Even if that is truthful, that would be hard for some who are already somewhat skeptical to believe, even those who also oppose gay marriage.

    In any case, I think we can argue about what impact Proposition 8 would have had or will have on a Romney campaign. However, I agree with Seth that had Romney been the nominee, the anti-Mormon propaganda that appeared in California would have spread nation-wide, which would not have been a good thing for the church. The propaganda was designed to target Mormons, who are already a vulnerable group, as bigots. Even those who agree with the church’s stance on gay marriage, but who also are skeptical of Mormons, would have been had their negative impressions of the church strengthened by such propaganda.

    Comment by Mike — November 7, 2008 @ 9:49 pm

  27. I wish Romney hadn’t been in the primaries at all – there wouldn’t be soo much anti-Mormon material to smear us with in the prop 8 outcome.

    Comment by Kelly Ann — November 8, 2008 @ 12:28 am

  28. Two rules about advertising:

    1. There’s no such thing as bad publicity.
    2. Free publicity is even better.

    The gay protests and temper-tantrums at the temple generated news coverage, and that was free publicity.

    Brigham Young said two things relevant to this:

    1. “Let us alone and we will send Elders to the uttermost parts of the earth, and gather out Israel, wherever they are; and if you persecute us, we will do it the quicker, because we are naturally dull when let alone, and are disposed to take a little sleep, a little slumber, and a little rest. If you let us alone, we will do it a little more leisurely; but if you persecute us, we will sit up nights to preach the gospel.”

    2. “Every time you kick ‘Mormonism,’ you kick it up stairs: you never kick it down stairs. The Lord Almighty so orders it. And let me tell you that what our Christian friends are now doing for us makes more for the kingdom of heaven than the Elders could in many years preaching.”


    So as long as no one gets hurt, and no property is damaged, I say bring it on.

    Comment by Bookslinger — November 8, 2008 @ 11:33 am

  29. johnf: “… AND it generated mountains of negative press for the Mormon Church that …”

    I disagree. In my view, all the press was for the good.

    What was bad about it? That the church is against homosexual marriage? That the church considers homosexual behavior a sin? That the church encouraged members to put their money where their mouth/beliefs are ? That the church encouraged members to get personally involved in one of the most important moral issues of our time?

    What has happened is that the mockers in the great-and-spacious building have received some news coverage of their rage.

    And some of the mockers have gotten a little angry, because people outside of the great-and-spacious building are not agreeing with how “cool” the people in that building are.

    Those on the good side of the divide, who worry too much about the mockers in the great-and-spacious building end up leaving the path and getting lost. Therefore, please, don’t worry about the mockers.

    Psalms 2:1-5 also comes to mind.

    Comment by Bookslinger — November 8, 2008 @ 11:48 am

  30. Bookslinger-

    Do you really think that the “mockers” of what the church has done feel so much hurt and anger because of our beliefs? Don’t you think homosexuals know what most religions think of their behavior? Don’t you think they have heard the speaches and the politics the beliefs before Prop 8? They are not angry with our beliefs, they are angry that we have so actively and agressively taken action to deny them rights which effect their lives so deeply. We as Mormons should understand and sympathize with this more than almost any other world religion. Do you think we really care if people think our temple practices strange? No. Would we care if a religious group or more started becoming active in the cause of closing our temples because they deemed our practices immoral? Of course we would. Thankfully the constitution protects our rights to both privacy and freedom of religion. Instead of self-righteously discounting our critics, maybe we should consider their point and how it could be used against us as well.

    I agree with all who have said that Romney would not have been hurt politically for opposing gay marriage, but he would be hurt by the way the church has influenced its members and the misleading information that the members so blindly accepted and distributed to not only express a belief, but to take away rights.

    Comment by Samara — November 9, 2008 @ 12:17 am

  31. 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?

    Comment by Sick'ntired — November 9, 2008 @ 3:59 am

  32. Actually, Seth, I think that if Romney had gotten the nomination, the rhetoric of Church leaders would have been more cautious. The Church was pretty careful, while Romney was running, to acknowledge that Mormon government leaders do not take direction from SLC, but exercise their own judgment. If Romney were still running, perhaps the Church would have made more clear in the proposition campaigns that ordinary Church members were also expected to vote their conscience (whether or not their conscience agreed with the Church’s formal position).

    Comment by DavidH — November 9, 2008 @ 4:16 pm

  33. I have nothing to add, I’m just enjoying this discussion immensely. Great comments…

    Comment by Mo Mommy — November 9, 2008 @ 7:19 pm

  34. Actually, Samara, my SIL (who fought for No on 8) told me that all her gay LDS friends were “shocked and saddened that the LDS Church would tell them gay marriage is wrong.” She and other family members of mine have expressed heartily that many gay LDS members are just waiting for the Church to figure it out and change their minds, i.e. allow gay marriage in the Gospel, not quite unlike the Priesthood thing.

    I told her that it didn’t make sense. The Church has always preached against SSM (as Bookslinger stated) and to follow the Prophet. Always. In fact, I can’t remember a time when Following the Prophets and Eternal Marriage has NOT been taught –almost weekly! And then LDS people are asked to take part, and many think it’s strange?
    I don’t get that.
    I know several members (and non) think the Church overstepped their bounds, but if that’s the case, then so did every other religion that was involved with Yes on 8. And religious institutions have always gotten involved politically when it comes to legislation: Prohibition, Abortion, etc. So what I don’t understand is how they can think this is strange, or new, or a slap in the face, especially to people who are LDS.
    Where have they been going to church for all these years?

    The hatred and protests and mockery will always be there. It doesn’t matter if it’s over Prop 8 or our garments or SLC land-buying or Temple building. We will always have to face hatred because that’s just part of it all. And for me? I think it proves (in some small part) that we have truth, because why else would Satan be trying so hard to destroy us? For the last…let’s see…when did Joseph Smith go into that grove…?

    As far as Mitt Romney is concerned, I think Seth has a good point that it would have ruined his chances, but now a 2012 bid? It might actually happen. I mean, the Catholics and Evangelicals are standing up for us now, eh? They are telling the world they appreciate us and have asked people to stop protesting against us. For me, that is the “WOW!” of the whole Prop 8 thing. To think! That for standing up for what we believe in, our former haters would kind of like us now? Not that we were going for that (I doubt we would have cared either way), but who knew?

    (Wow, I had a lot on my mind…)

    Comment by cheryl — November 9, 2008 @ 7:21 pm

  35. Oh, ignore that shaded emoticon. I tried to type an 8 with a ). Ooh! Now I know how to make a shaded emoticon!

    Comment by cheryl — November 9, 2008 @ 7:22 pm

  36. Some excellent suggestions. The prospect of Mormon leadership in the Senate, significantly disproportionate Congressional representation, the big Church effort on Prop-8, and a Mormon presidential nominee would have been well enough to support a “minority religion stages national takeover” narrative. The Mormon bloc voting for Romney would have been pretty embarrassing as well.

    But hey, perhaps it would have prevented some Mormon conservatives from calling Obama’s 3-5% improvement on the normal Democratic black vote as an example of black racism. One good thing.

    We also probably still would have had Palin as the VP candidate. Think about it. Any other pick would have been either: Huckabee; a VP candidate like McCain who fails to excite an already Romney-skepitcal base; or a very boring white guy like Romney himself. It would have been Romney-Palin. At least now, Romney can still be nominated in 2012 and prevent Palin from being one general election away from having nuclear codes.

    Comment by Jeremiah J. — November 9, 2008 @ 7:23 pm

  37. Samara,
    My understanding is that most gays don’t want to marry. It’s only a minority who do. At least for male homosexuals (I’m not speaking about female homosexuals), extreme promiscuity is still part and parcel of the gay lifestyle. The AIDS crisis did a little, but not much, to reduce the extreme promiscuity, and tremendous number of partners that the average gay male has in a lifetime. Prior to the AIDS crisis, the average number of lifetime sex partners for gay men was well over 1,000, according to the CDC. I’m not making that up. Go look up the stats yourself.

    Monogamous gay males were a very small minority of gay males prior to the AIDS epidemic, and they are a minority post-AIDS epidemic, too.

    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.

    So yes, the angry hate-filled homosexuals protesting the LDS church are in fact protesting our beliefs. And they are protesting the LDS church’s actions in promulgating those beliefs among members, and they’re protesting the LDS church’s encouragement of the members to voice those beliefs in the political process. It is very clear that they are using their freedom-of-speech in an attempt to take away _our_ freedom-of-speech.

    You also need to remember that the law only prohibits churches from endorsing particular political candidates, and the law does not prohibit churches from endorsing or taking sides on political issues.

    I think that in the short term, many Mormon-in-name-only and some fence-sitters are going to leave the church over the issue. But I also think that in the long run, all this publicity is going to help the church and help bring in more converts.

    To the honest and pure in heart, standing up for your beliefs is an admirable thing. Therefore the church’s stand, and the members’ stand on this issue will attract more honest and pure-in-heart people to investigate the restored gospel.

    Comment by Bookslinger — November 9, 2008 @ 9:31 pm

  38. 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.

    Comment by MCQ — November 9, 2008 @ 11:39 pm

  39. MCQ-
    SSM would give gay people validation and approval for their behavior, i.e. Gay Sex. Heterosexual couples who choose to live together rather than marry don’t care about lawful or religious validation –they just do what they want, morality be damned. SS couples who want to marry actually CARE that they be validated –either politically, or religiously. Of course, for many SS couples it’s about more than sex –and that’s my point. If it was just about the sex, they’d continue living together and not care about the marital laws. Thus the reason they are pushing to make the laws allow SSM; they WANT validation for their relationship. And whether or not Bookslinger’s stats are correct, he has a point –They want Validation for their Behavior.

    Comment by cheryl — November 10, 2008 @ 7:57 am

  40. 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.

    Comment by MCQ — November 10, 2008 @ 8:08 am

  41. Yes, I have asked gay couples why they want to get married (including some who were married in Canada). And they said it was so their relationship would be validated under the law. Of course, this is only about…5 or 6 couples, so it probably doesn’t represent everyone.
    Your point is well taken, MCQ.

    Comment by cheryl — November 10, 2008 @ 8:35 am

  42. #16 Seth: “I’ve seen precious little of our Evangelical friends sticking up for us in the fight in California.”

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

    Comment by Bridget Jack Meyers — November 13, 2008 @ 3:42 pm

  43. Bookslinger!

    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. . . .

    Comment by Rob — November 18, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

  44. Hate speech? You mean, claiming that Mormons are in league with Satan, and will bring about the downfall of civilization and destroy society?

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

    And mormons wonder why people might be angry.

    Comment by Goldarn — November 19, 2008 @ 10:02 am

  45. Bridget,

    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.

    Comment by Seth R. — November 19, 2008 @ 12:02 pm

  46. I’ve never posted here, but I’m an LDS scholar doing an article for publication on Romney and Prop 8. I zeroed in on this thread because of the connection some of you are making between the environment created by the Romney presidential bid and what is happening in California.

    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.)

    Comment by Doe Daughtrey — December 15, 2008 @ 9:42 pm

  47. 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.

    Comment by MCQ — December 16, 2008 @ 9:16 am

Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI