Did Mitt Romney Have Leader's Permission To Go Pro-Choice?

[_Emma Smith]

I don't believe it for a minute. Sue Emmett is a liar and has such an axe to grind against the Church her evaluation can't be trusted.

Strong accusation. What has Emmett lied about? Your examples were not of lies but about her choice of words in describing true-believing Mormons and the LDS church. I have only met Sue once, and have not had a lot of interaction with her. I'm just curious.

Subscribe to the ex-Mormon yahoo list for a while. Not sure if she still participates.

Sue puts on a pretty face in public but when she think there is no one other than ex-Mormons paying attention she loses it. If any of you have family members (whom you happen to like) that are LDS, I'm sure you would enjoy reading what Sue has to say about their intelligence.

Frankly, I love my family and friends who are LDS and don't appreciate them being accused of being mindless, stupid, morgbots, etc... Sue says these things and then puts on a facade in public talking about building community and bridges. She's a two-faced hypocrite and just like Packham, deserves about as much respect as Ed Decker.

[Guest]

Kish,

For me this is a similar claim that that made my Richard Packham -- that somehow Mitt's temple oaths will make him beholden to Salt Lake City.

I look to past/current LDS leaders. George Romney and Harry Reid being great examples. In the first instance, George told Salt Lake City to piss off. In the second, if Salt Lake City is trying to get Reid to toe the party line he certainly isn't listening. Hatch and others have all taken moderate stances on issues like stem cells etc...

For Dushku I have no frame of reference but Emmett has no credibility. Her evaluation of Romney carries about as much weight as DCPs in convincing me that the Book of Mormon is historical. It may sound plausible but it just isn't.

I know Utah is a special case because the Church wields far too much power in the legislature but I would love to see just one example of where the LDS Church has given a directive to a political leader -- especially when that leader had previously held a contrary view. Sure, many LDS pols hold views on social issues that are already in line with the LDS Church -- as do many conservative non-LDS pols.

Just as you dismissed Packham because in theory this his argument is possible but not plausible, I dismiss Emmett. It just doesn't happen that way and we have no examples (that I am aware of) to suggest that it may in the future.

Emma

OK, but here's the thing. If the claim is that he was stake president at the time these things were happening, then it could very well be that he would ask whether taking such a position might get him into trouble as a stake president. The people telling the story want to twist the story to make it seem like the Brethren are setting policy for Mormon politicians, whereas I think this could be Mitt Romney, stake president, alerting the Brethren that he would have to take a political position for the campaign that might otherwise get him in trouble, if he were to advocate it publicly in the position of stake president.

I think this is an important distinction. That is why I think the story could be true, but that the way it is being used is problematic and inaccurate.

It could be, however, that I have it wrong. I just think that a careful guy like Romney would discuss this with LDS leadership to give them a heads up.

[_Equality]

[ I would love to see just one example of where the LDS Church has given a directive to a political leader -- especially when that leader had previously held a contrary view. Sure, many LDS pols hold views on social issues that are already in line with the LDS Church -- as do many conservative non-LDS pols.

Ask, and ye shall receive:
http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24996&

[_Doctor Scratch]

I've always been creeped out by the Judy Dushku story. Kishkumen is right: you can view it as either (a) Romney is actually "taking orders" from SLC in terms of what position to take, or (b) he merely consulted with them so that he wouldn't "get into trouble." Either scenario shows that SLC is weilding significant power over his political decisions, and I find that troubling.

[_Equality]

Subscribe to the ex-Mormon yahoo list for a while. Not sure if she still participates.

Sue puts on a pretty face in public but when she think there is no one other than ex-Mormons paying attention she loses it. If any of you have family members (whom you happen to like) that are LDS, I'm sure you would enjoy reading what Sue has to say about their intelligence.

Frankly, I love my family and friends who are LDS and don't appreciate them being accused of being mindless, stupid, morgbots, etc... Sue says these things and then puts on a facade in public talking about building community and bridges. She's a two-faced hypocrite and just like Packham, deserves about as much respect as Ed Decker.

Ok, I still don't see any lies here. It sounds like she has a low opinion of Latter-day Saints and says insulting things about them, which itself may make her a legitimate target of criticism. It may make her uncivil. I don't see how it makes her a liar.

[_Kishkumen]

I've always been creeped out by the Judy Dushku story. Kishkumen is right: you can view it as either (a) Romney is actually "taking orders" from Salt Lake City in terms of what position to take, or (b) he merely consulted with them so that he wouldn't "get into trouble." Either scenario shows that Salt Lake City is weilding significant power over his political decisions, and I find that troubling.

The thing is, I can see the possibility that Dushku, like many, many other people, just really dislikes Romney because he has the charisma of a serpent.

[_Emma Smith]

Kish,

For me this is a similar claim that that made my Richard Packham -- that somehow Mitt's temple oaths will make him beholden to Salt Lake City.

I look to past/current LDS leaders. George Romney and Harry Reid being great examples. In the first instance, George told Salt Lake City to piss off. In the second, if Salt Lake City is trying to get Reid to toe the party line he certainly isn't listening. Hatch and others have all taken moderate stances on issues like stem cells etc...

For Dushku I have no frame of reference but Emmett has no credibility. Her evaluation of Romney carries about as much weight as DCPs in convincing me that the Book of Mormon is historical. It may sound plausible but it just isn't.

I know Utah is a special case because the Church wields far too much power in the legislature but I would love to see just one example of where the LDS Church has given a directive to a political leader -- especially when that leader had previously held a contrary view. Sure, many LDS pols hold views on social issues that are already in line with the LDS Church -- as do many conservative non-LDS pols.

Just as you dismissed Packham because in theory this his argument is possible but not plausible, I dismiss Emmett. It just doesn't happen that way and we have no examples (that I am aware of) to suggest that it may in the future.

Emma

OK, but here's the thing. If the claim is that he was stake president at the time these things were happening, then it could very well be that he would ask whether taking such a position might get him into trouble as a stake president. The people telling the story want to twist the story to make it seem like the Brethren are setting policy for Mormon politicians, whereas I think this could be Mitt Romney, stake president, alerting the Brethren that he would have to take a political position for the campaign that might otherwise get him in trouble, if he were to advocate it publicly in the position of stake president.

I think this is an important distinction. That is why I think the story could be true, but that the way it is being used is problematic and inaccurate.

Fair point, Kish.

I know that Mitt is personal friends with members of the 12 and has been for many years -- long before these apostles were called.

I can certainly imagine a situation where Mitt would ask his apostle friends for their views but, like you, I don't buy that SLC is attempting to drive policy through Romney.

Let's face it, Mitt is a committed Mormon. As a politician he doesn't want to do anything to harm the Church and he wants to win elections.

Anyway, I'll put my personal distaste for Emmett aside and simply say that I find your view compelling.

[_Emma Smith]

Subscribe to the ex-Mormon yahoo list for a while. Not sure if she still participates.

Sue puts on a pretty face in public but when she think there is no one other than ex-Mormons paying attention she loses it. If any of you have family members (whom you happen to like) that are LDS, I'm sure you would enjoy reading what Sue has to say about their intelligence.

Frankly, I love my family and friends who are LDS and don't appreciate them being accused of being mindless, stupid, morgbots, etc... Sue says these things and then puts on a facade in public talking about building community and bridges. She's a two-faced hypocrite and just like Packham, deserves about as much respect as Ed Decker.

Ok, I still don't see any lies here. It sounds like she has a low opinion of Latter-day Saints and says insulting things about them, which itself may make her a legitimate target of criticism. It may make her uncivil. I don't see how it makes her a liar.

Because what I know of Sue personally impacted me I am reluctant to share details. Therefore, I officially retract my accusation that she is a liar.

[_Madison54]

I don't believe it for a minute. Sue Emmett is a liar and has such an axe to grind against the Church her evaluation can't be trusted.

I know what she wrote was 2nd hand information but it is backed up by someone's first hand account (Dushku's). I find it doubtful that both would lie.

A better example to look to is Romney's father, George. When asked by Church leadership to alter his position on civil rights he pretty much told them to piss off.

Sorry, but that has absolutely no relevance, in my opinion. What George would do is what George would do and that has nothing to do with what Mitt would choose to do.

[_Cicero]

My evidence is purely hearsay and should be treated as such, but I was living in MA and attending church in his stake when he was running for governor in 2002. I was friendly with folks that had lived there a long time, and with people working on his campaign. It was openly disucssed and believed at Church that he had discussed his pro-choice views with members of the FP and Q12 and received some form of tacit approval just as Orrin Hatch had done regarding his position on stem cell research.