LDS Church and Mitt Romney: No Meddling in Politics?

[_TAK]

Quote:

He (Mitt) said – Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.

Is this common knowlege that he had an "aunt who died of a botched abortion" ? it would seem to add cred to the story if not.

[_Jason Bourne]

One item and of course since it is negative it is all the substantiation you need. How predictable

Jason, my boy: this, coupled with the Church's rather unpleasant history of meddling in politics is plenty of "substantiation."

First Scratch I am not your boy. Next, you prove my point. One account and you concluded that it is true and thus smear Romney and Church leaders.

And, moreover, you yourself pointed out that the Brethren have a history of meddling in politics.

I pointed out a history many years ago.

The ERA is hardly "many years ago." Nor is the Church even-more-recent messing with the politics of gay rights.

As noted, the Church will get involved when they perceive it as a moral issue. I said as much. And you seem to want o limit their right in this arena.

The more recent history were not necessarily political issues. Nor were they what you term meddling. Are you for restricting the LDS Church's right to speak out and work against moral issues?

No, I'm not, but that's obviously not what we're talking about here. It is one thing to say, "We, as the leaders of this Church, oppose abortion." It is quite another for them to order the rank-and-file out to do lobbying work

.

Why is that? Why can't they promote a moral cause? Other religions do it as much or more.

And it is REALLY quite another thing for them to totally flip-flop for political expediency.

Examples please.

Finally, it is not a "smear" if it is true, now is it?

Please show me where you have confirmed it is true?

Where have you confirmed it is a lie?

Ah but you see I never said it was a lie. I said I initially found it dubious and I still do after reading it all.

Unlike you, I prefer to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Oh come now Scratch my boy. This is true only when it fits your agenda. Are you giving Romney the benefit of the doubt here?

Sis. Dushku's remarks, coupled with the Church's rather well-known history of meddling in politics, is a whole heck of a lot more evidence in favor of my view than yours. Honestly, Jason, what evidence do you have, other than your apparent "intuiting" that there is something "suspicious" about her story?

None. But I am not the one salivating over as are you.

It is not just the "one interview." It is the Church's whole history of finagling in politics. I'm not sure what "worst motives" you are imagining. And: no smear here; just the facts.


Really. Facts?

How would you prefer to characterize Pres. Hinckley's behavior, Jason? I'm all ears. Please enlighten me.

Why do you think it was sneaky?

Further, we know full well that Mormon leaders have flip-flopped on politics, or endorsed positions and people which ran contrary to doctrine.

Show me three example in the past 60 years.

1. ETB's support of John Birch stuff.
2. Various of the Brethren's sympathy with the Civil Rights Movement
3. Mark E. Petersen's continued support of the "Mark of Cain" doctrine post-ban-lifting

I see. Church leaders are not entitled to personal opinions or to disagree amongst themselves. None of those were involvement in pressuring political outcomes. What they were is disagreement among people that held various opinions.

So, once more: it is not a "smear" if it is true.

Sorry. It is is smear when you put your own spin on it and make it look bad.

What "spin" have I put on it, Jason? I've said that I find the Church's meddling in this instance to be disturbing. You've said yourself that you think the Church ought not to be engaging in this kind of stuff, right?

You spin it to immediately assume the worst. And yes I do not think the Church pullling political strings is a good thing. If Romney is tugged by Church leaders I would not want to support him.

Do you think Harry Reid gets pressure from Church leaders?

In all seriousness, why do you think she would lie? Really, what is the likelihood of that? Not very much, in my view. The bottom line is that there is really nothing to support your position other than the highly uncharitable stance of labeling Prof. Dushku a liar. My position has the advantage of many historical examples of the Church behaving badly in the realm of politics. If you have any real evidence on your side, Jason, I'd love to see it

I did not call her a liar. I do not know if she is lying. I just am not jumping on the band wagon. I said the story initally sounded dubious. You gloated that I proved your point that TBMs, which I am not sure I fit, would smear her. I noted that if anyone was doing the smearing it was you. I stand by that. Your glee in this and immediate assumption of the worst on Romney and the Church's part is a smear.

[_Mister Scratch]

Jason---

Let me ask you this. How does this story reflect well on the Church? Can you figure out a way to spin this so that it makes it seem like the Brethren aren't engaged in hypocrisy or shady politics? If you can, then hey, let me know and I'll confess to "smearing." Otherwise, this whole thing looks bad because it is.

[_Trevor]

Jason---

Let me ask you this. How does this story reflect well on the Church? Can you figure out a way to spin this so that it makes it seem like the Brethren aren't engaged in hypocrisy or shady politics? If you can, then hey, let me know and I'll confess to "smearing." Otherwise, this whole thing looks bad because it is.

What I take from this is that where there is power, there is bound to be some shadiness. I suppose it is kind of disappointing that I have discovered, time and again, that the leaders of the LDS Church have not really been the exception. But, it is nice to know that they are human too, and not the demigods LDS people think they are, and the leaders allow them to think they are.

[_Coggins7]

I lived in the DC area at the time. Sonia Johnson was in my branch. This was the last unit she attended before she moved to the ward where she was excommunicated by an overzealous bishop who badly wanted to be a GA, imho. You are right. The whole thing was ugly. I remember the ridiculous anti-ERA rhetoric. It was sheer nonsense. The way Hatch treated Johnson was also shameful. How that doofus remains a US senator amazes me. The man can barely tie his shoes in the morning. He is incompetent.

Your credibility has just vanished. You may now join the ranks of the glassy eyed exmos recovering from Mormonism, thirty meetings in thirty days.

I know someone personally who knew Sonja Johnson too, and Sonja Johnson was a terribly unstable, intellectually weak, psychologically fragile, and tirelessly self promoting ideologue and attention seeker who could not, or would not conform her life to the requirements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The idea that a bishop "wanted to be a GA" is something akin to knee slapping hilarious. You don't angle to be a GA, especially by excommunicating people. It comes to you or it doesn't come, but you can't angle for it, and if you do, you have likely just proven that you are not the person for the position.

The ERA was a classic Gramscian counter Hegemonic block play for the forced transformation of society's core assumptions and mores through the force of the state by a tiny cadre of intellectual fanatics and activists (the radical feminist movement) that was, fortunately for the continuance of a civil, morally coherent society (thus far),sent packing.

You should also perhaps consider a course in creative writing to improve the impact of your deep and penetrating cognitions Trevor. Anyone who can actually make an attempt to rehabilitate a bouncing marble like Sonja Johnson deserves all the bandwidth he can get.

[_Coggins7]

Then in 1994, when Romney was running for the Senate, he came out in favor of choice for women -- which was surprising to me. I was pleased and called, asking to see him. I told him I suspected that we had our differences, but that maybe I could work with him if he’d come to a really good position on women and childbirth.

And he said – Yes, come to my office.

I went to his office and I congratulated him on taking a pro-choice position. And his response was – Well they told me in Salt Lake City I could take this position, and in fact I probably had to in order to win in a liberal state like Massachusetts.

Suzan Mazur: Who’s “THEY”?

Judy Dushku: I asked him the same question. And he said “the Brethren” in Salt Lake City.

And I said, Mitt, it doesn’t make me happy to hear that. What you’re suggesting is that you’re not genuinely pro-choice. It’s a position of convenience.

He said – Oh no, I actually had an aunt who died of a botched abortion. So I have some positive feelings about choice, but basically I know that I have to take that position.

So I said – How do you feel about choice for poor women and state funding of abortion for poor women?

He said, I’m against that. The state has no right or responsibility to fund abortions for poor women.

And I said – Well Mitt, I thought there was possibly some kind of room for mutual agreement on this issue but it appears there’s really not. I think we’re quite far apart on the issue of choice. It’s nice meeting with you here and talking with you. Good luck with your campaign, however, I can’t support you.

1. There is the distinct possibility that this entire thing is a complete fabrication, about as phony as Anita Hill's anecdotes regarding Clarence Thomas and concocted for similar reasons.

2. If Scratch accepts it, it must be both intellectually and morally suspect.

3. When the person in the article says "choice" what she actually means is "convenience abortion on demand from the moment of conception to the the end of the third trimester".

We need to be clear about things like that. Ideas have consequences.

[_harmony]

How that doofus remains a US senator amazes me. The man can barely tie his shoes in the morning. He is incompetent.

ummm... because he's represents Utah?

[_Trevor]

Your credibility has just vanished. You may now join the ranks of the glassy eyed exmos recovering from Mormonism, thirty meetings in thirty days.

I know someone personally who knew Sonja Johnson too, and Sonja Johnson was a terribly unstable, intellectually weak, psychologically fragile, and tirelessly self promoting ideologue and attention seeker who could not, or would not conform her life to the requirements of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The idea that a bishop "wanted to be a GA" is something akin to knee slapping hilarious. You don't angle to be a GA, especially by excommunicating people. It comes to you or it doesn't come, but you can't angle for it, and if you do, you have likely just proven that you are not the person for the position.

LOL! This is rich. You declare unilateral judgment on my credibility, when I was there, and then you proceed to tell me that you had a friend who knew Sonja? OMG! How dense can you be? I am sitting here, having lived through the events in question, using my own name, and you have the gall to speak anonymously of unnamed friends whose characterization of all of this we should trust? You need to have your head examined.

And, what is more, I never claimed anything about Sonja Johnson and her mental state, you intellectual ant. You are ranting about things peripheral to the subject at hand. I know Sonja was a deeply troubled person, but if you think that excuses that puss-bucket of a senator Orrin Hatch for his behavior, you are horribly mistaken

The ERA was a classic Gramscian counter Hegemonic block play for the forced transformation of society's core assumptions and mores through the force of the state by a tiny cadre of intellectual fanatics and activists (the radical feminist movement) that was, fortunately for the continuance of a civil, morally coherent society (thus far),sent packing.

You should also perhaps consider a course in creative writing to improve the impact of your deep and penetrating cognitions Trevor. Anyone who can actually make an attempt to rehabilitate a bouncing marble like Sonja Johnson deserves all the bandwidth he can get.

You can engage in all of the pseudo-intellectual, jargonistic, wacko-conservative fear-mongering you like. That doesn't change the facts as I reported them. There were plenty of decent, honest women who were excited by the prospect of the ERA amendment, whether they were falling in line behind the new leftists or not. It was these women that decent LDS women ran into when they were opposing ERA, and it was this interaction between decent, hopeful women that changed hearts. Some LDS women came to regret having opposed ERA, when they saw that it wasn't simply a matter of the horrifying unisex bathroom.

You should consider a remedial course in reading, and try responding to what people say as opposed to the conversation you are carrying on with your split personality in your thick skull. I never defended Johnson. I identified Hatch for the bungling twerp that he is.

[_Coggins7]

LOL! This is rich. You declare unilateral judgment on my credibility, when I was there, and then you proceed to tell me that you had a friend who knew Sonja? OMG! How dense can you be? I am sitting here, having lived through the events in question, using my own name, and you have the gall to speak anonymously of unnamed friends whose characterization of all of this we should trust? You need to have your head examined.

And, what is more, I never claimed anything about Sonja Johnson and her mental state, you intellectual ant. You are ranting about things peripheral to the subject at hand. I know Sonja was a deeply troubled person, but if you think that excuses that puss-bucket of a senator Orrin Hatch for his behavior, you are horribly mistaken

I see the Democratic Party base is out in force here today. Well, that's fine. Forget my friend then. I read Sonja Johnson's book (From Housewife to Heretic) from cover to cover, and followed her antics at the time. I hold to everything I said about her and the pathetic philosophy she represented.

Coggins7 wrote:

The ERA was a classic Gramscian counter Hegemonic block play for the forced transformation of society's core assumptions and mores through the force of the state by a tiny cadre of intellectual fanatics and activists (the radical feminist movement) that was, fortunately for the continuance of a civil, morally coherent society (thus far),sent packing.

You should also perhaps consider a course in creative writing to improve the impact of your deep and penetrating cognitions Trevor. Anyone who can actually make an attempt to rehabilitate a bouncing marble like Sonja Johnson deserves all the bandwidth he can get.

You can engage in all of the pseudo-intellectual, jargonistic, wacko-conservative fear-mongering you like.

This is DailyKos or MoveOn.org level invective, and in a long string too. Nice.

That doesn't change the facts as I reported them. There were plenty of decent, honest women who were excited by the prospect of the ERA amendment, whether they were falling in line behind the new leftists or not.

So what? Some very decent people supported Communism and the October Revolution too. And?

It was these women that decent LDS women ran into when they were opposing ERA, and it was this interaction between decent, hopeful women that changed hearts. Some LDS women came to regret having opposed ERA, when they saw that it wasn't simply a matter of the horrifying unisex bathroom.

This is nothing but fluffy rhetoric. What are you attempting to say here?

You should consider a remedial course in reading, and try responding to what people say as opposed to the conversation you are carrying on with your split personality in your thick skull. I never defended Johnson. I identified Hatch for the bungling twerp that he is.

As to reading comprehension, go back and you will see that I never claimed that you had defended Johnson. Your credibility with me has vanished because of your obvious anti-intellectualism and educational deficits regarding that of which you attempt to speak, not because you defended Sonja Johnson (although you have defended the dreary philosophy of radical feminism that she supported and its attempt to destroy normative gender relations and sexual dynamics that were at the heart of the ERA and remain at the heart of the feminist movement today-including convenience abortion on demand-the holy sacrament of the church of boomer materialism).

[_guy sajer]

I find this highly dubious. Who is this person and why should I trust her?

Chalk up another point for me! Boy, you TBMs sure are predictable!

TBM?


And you rabid critics are just as irrationally predictable.

I gotta agree. Jason is clearly not a TBM. He has shown this over and over. I find Jason on the whole thoughtful, reasonable, and anything but a fanatic. I think you're off base here Scratch.

Oh, and the LDS Church did more than "meddle" in the ERA issue. It was up to its sexist eyeballs fighting against the ERA and mobilizing members as foot soldiers in the fight, similar to what it recently did in California for DOMA.