How would it affect the Church? As we move through the early stages of the Presidential campaign, barring any real problems, it appears that Mitt Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee for the Presidency next year.
The Republican Party, being very hierarchical, generally nominates the “next person in line” to be their nominee. And for the 2012 race, that would be Romney. Ignoring the fact that we’ve seen the “anyone other than Romney flavor of the month” candidate; Bachman, Perry and now Cain, Mitt is still the front runner. He is generally performing well in the countless debates as each of the “flavors” has each faded. We’re currently waiting for Mr. “999” to do the same.
Recently polling seems to indicate that Americans have “gotten over” their objections to a Mormon candidate. A recent CNN /ORC International poll said that “80% said a candidate’s Mormonism wouldn’t make a difference in their selection process.” Also part of the poll stated that 51% of those polled thought that Mormonism was a Christian religion while 36% said it was not. (CNN)
Robert Jeffress, the pastor that started the recent firestorm over Mormonism did attempt to defend himself a bit in a recent Washington Post opinion piece. I’ll leave it to you to decide how far he really backtracked or not. I say not.
Anyway, the main point of my post today was to discuss what might happen in the Church should Mitt get elected President.
First, the easy stuff. President Monson and a number of church Leaders will be invited to the Inauguration. Not much difference there. That has happened a number of times including the last one. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir might be invited to participate in an event or the parade. Again, nothing new there, as they have also participated before, particularly in the parade of President Ronald Reagan. (See the video here).
Where we are apt to see a huge and somewhat controversial difference will be in Fast and Testimony Meetings, especially right after the election.
Members in the United States will stand up and bear testimony of the “miracle” of the election, that God caused the citizens of the US to elect a Mormon as President. That this is somehow some kind of “sign” to be marveled over.
In some ways, it will be. Just like it did not seem possible that a Black American could become President, it might be considered unlikely that a Mormon would be elected. But a miracle, brought about by God?
Given the state of the economy and the world at large, the miracle might be that President Obama gets re-elected.
Certainly, it will also be viewed as a tremendous missionary opportunity as Americans might become more curious about our faith. Clearly, the Chevy Chase Ward, which according to the Church website is the congregation closest to the White House, will not be the same.
How do you think the members in the US would react if Romney were to be elected President?
Wheat & Tares 
I’ve wondered about the Romney’s attending the temple. Would they just not go? Would they get secret service agents who were recommend holders – what happens if the secret service agent starts out recommend worthy, but somehow let’s it expire or becomes not worthy? Would they go during normal times or when it was closed to other patrons? Would the temple be a target for terrorism/Romney fans/detractors? Technically, I suppose they wouldn’t need to attend a ward, so would they hold their own family sacrament in the White House or would they go to a ward? Would they stay the whole block? Would they be home/visiting teaching? Who would be their home/visiting teachers (can you imagine? “is there anything we can do for you this month Bro. Romney?” “Yeah, Brother Reid, could you get the Democrats to…”) Youth Conference at the White House this year, lol!
Mitt Romney president? What a dreadful thought, of course, he couldn’t be much worse than Obama (although I would “hope” for the best).
What members think? Depends on their political persuasions, some would hate it, some would think it a fulfilling of the prophecy that the “elders of Israel” would reconstitute the constitution (although Romney has shown no interest in doing such a thin), others wouldn’t think much of it. I would be in the first group.
#2 – Mr. Huntsman, I didn’t know you read Wheat and Tares, but it’s good to see you comment.
HeidiAnn,
The FBI and Secret Service recruit heavily from the ranks of LDS. So I am sure there are plenty to go around.
Would they carry a gun in the endownment room?
Yes, we could definitely find recommend holding Secret Service. I thought of the lapsed recommend because we knew someone applying to the secret service who cheated on his wife – therefore, current recommend one day, gone the next. I guess I was more wondering what the Church policy would be on Secret Service in the temple. Has this come up before? I’m sure if not, they’re formulating a policy now. Do the agents stand around in the ordinance rooms? Just outside? Do they go as “patrons” incognito? All of the above? And yes, would there be guns? Do they do a “sweep” of the temple beforehand?
@ha,
I think your thinking of someone else, there’s a lot of Jons out there. For that matter, there’s a lot of Johns too 🙂
I think that the LDS will quickly tire of being known as the “President’s Church”. Their persecution complex will hit all-time highs as the same partisan forces that tried to make strong associations between Obama and Rev. Wright will now attempt (on the other side of the right-left divide) to link Romney with negative comments leaders of the Church have previously made. Obama’s preacher was denounced for his anti-patriotic rhetoric (a major sin for the right), and Romney’s “preachers” will be denounced for their anti-gay and anti-feminist rhetoric (a major sin for the left). The validity of such claims will be secondary to their use in shoring up the base. General Conference addresses will probably become even more guarded, and the Church will issue more and more notices to members called to PR positions in local stakes, wards, and branches to be cautious in avoiding partisan issues in talking to the media. Some members will be disappointed in Romney’s attempts to dissuade discussion of his faith when there are more important things to talk about (there are).
Apart from the initial “feather in their cap” sort of pride in their tribe, I really see little to be excited about for members of the Church when it comes to a Romney presidency. As has already been brought up it will lead to thousands of small organizational nightmares for DC Mormon congregations if Romney wishes to participate as a normal Mormon, and most of those will probably end up being resolved by Romney eventually resorting to functional inactivity during his term.
I know I just sound really negative, but that’s how I see it. I hope others can think of more positive things that would result.
I think the four following things will occur if Mitt Romney becomes President (with a hat tip to the Ghostbusters…)
1. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
2. Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes…
3. The dead rising from the grave!
4. Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together… mass hysteria!
How did Harry Reid becoming Senate Majority leader change the church?
If Romney gets the primary, the left will find all the secrets in Mormonism and plaster them all over the media. Polygamy, Black’s and Priesthood, Adam-God, Temple ceremony, gays, John the Beloved being alive, people seeing Christ in the temple, Satan as Christ’s brother, Satan in the ocean, the Pearl of Great Price, JS’s many heavenly visitors, Mountain Meadows, etc….
I am OK with it, basically. I’d love to have real intelligent discussion on these things and put the weirdness tpu rest. But if unseating Obama is the goal, well …
I think it’s unfair to compare Reid and Romney. Reid is a Mormon anomaly in his political views.
“Reid is a Mormon anomaly in his political views.”
Not as much as you think.
I’m afraid a Romney presidency will do nothing other than disappoint a lot of Mormons. He can’t possibly do anything about anything unless Republicans gain a veto-proof majority in both houses. And that’s assuming his ideas are good ideas. Since he used to be a liberal Republican who converted to conservatism only when he saw which way the wind was blowing, I’m not optimistic about anything.
Reid was safe because there are far fewer anti-religionists in the Republican party to use Mormonism against him. OTOH, there are plenty of heathen democrats who just hope Romney is the Republican favorite so they can sock it to the media that Obama is the only choice Bo matter how ineffective he his because Romney is a religious freak-show. But they will keep their mouths shut until the primary is over, of course.
He’ll call counselors instead of a VP.
“Reid was safe because there are far fewer anti-religionists in the Republican party to use Mormonism against him.”
Seriously? We are seeing the fruits of some Anti-Mormon Evangelicals. There are plenty more where that came from. Reid’s politics are so abhorrent to most conservative Republicans, his Mormon roots are the least of his problem.
#11 I think it’s unfair to compare Reid and Romney. Reid is a Mormon anomaly in his political views
Regardless of his political views- how has a faithful LDS member of the church holding one of the highest offices in the country affected the church? or the country?
It’s frustrating when the media ignores Harry Reid’s Mormonism and it’s total lack of influence on his political career and influence on the church. It’s even more ridiculous if members don’t speak up and make the comparison.
Just because Reid is a democrat- it doesn’t make his temple recommend any less valid than Romney’s or his ‘allegiance’ to the LDS faith any less questionable.
Jeff ,
Actually, you may be right about that.
The temple attendance question is an interesting one. I agree that finding secret service agents to attend is really a non-issue. I’m certain that if they need to, they could even recruit some addition temple-worthy agents if necessary. Can’t be that hard in a job-starved economy.
Dang, accidental button push 😦
But actual attendance would be interesting, as I expect a private session would be necessary–similar to special ward temple night session. What about temple workers? Who deals directly with the president? Do we have secret service temple workers as well?
The gun matter could be resolved. I imagine some concessions could be made (perhaps non-lethal weapons; do they come in white ?;)), not to mention that the secret service get some pretty hardcore hand-to-hand combat training which I hear is often as useful as a sidearm.
He would always have the choice to simply not attend, although I’m not sure about the example of that and whether it would be appropriate, all things considered. The media may certainly have a field day with the “secret ceremonies” the president participates in on a regular basis.
I could certainly see counsel coming directly from the First Presidency, though.
I have no idea what will actually happen, but the safest bet would honestly be private sacrament meetings and no temple attendance.
I suspect that Mitt’s nomination would bring some national attention to lopsided LDS loyalty to the GOP. And if Mitt were to somehow win the presidency, one silver lining might be that we’d finally see significant numbers of Mormons asking themselves what they’re doing aligning with the Republican party.
@prometheus,
A new White House Branch, with the Romneys and a smattering of other LDS White House employees? Of course, the leadership issue could be pretty weird. Imagine doing a temple recommend interview with the US President.
…and Jon Huntsman will be Vice President.
A false proposition implies any proposition.
All I am saying is, there is no logically consistent alternate universe in which Mitt Romney is sworn in as POTUS in January 2013.
Jeff,
Do you really think it is a given that President Monson and a number of church leaders would go to the inaug? Too many church leaders would likely send the message that LDS leadership would try to dominate. Did the Pope go to JFK’s inaug?
I would think that as President, one would want to attend a number of different churches and spend a lot of Sundays in the White House. I wouldn’t be surprised if going to the temple didn’t happen during a 4 year term either. Have you ever been in a facility when a US President visits? The facility is basically locked down and nobody can enter or leave. It’s chaos.
I think it would be more acceptable for a non-Mormon president like Reagan to invite the MTC to the inauguration than it would be for a Mormon president to do so. A Mormon president should reach out widely and be very inclusive as to who is invited.
If Romney becomes president the public will continually poke away at the weirdness of Mormonism until they largely get exhausted and/or bored with the topic. At the same time the church will make a few concessions with its image and become more and more mainstream. (Primarily because as a church, we’d have more success becoming more mainstream that we would emphasizing our uniqueness.) Net result: a less eccentric church in the U.S. at least.
As a non american I would be concerned that it would be difficult to disconnect what the president does (say continue to kill people with drones,in the guise of fighting terrorism) with church policy. I was very uncomfortable seeing Obama involved in, and celebrating, the killing of Bin Ladin and can’t imagine how missionaries would explain it, if a mormon pres did it.
If as David 26 sugguests the church might moderate its views on women and P’hood or gays, then perhaps it would be worth it.
From memory in debates we saw before the last election Romney was one of the most conservative/militaristic, which if it were carried out could confirm the church as ultra conservative- and not to be consddered by sensible people.
You realise that in most other developed countries, religion, marital status, or even whether a person is gay or not, or their views on abortion, is not important during an election, it’s how they will do the job and their policies that are.
In Australia for example our Prime Minister is a woman who lives with a long term partner who she chooses not to marry, she is also an athiest i believe. She has ministers who are gay, and the leader of the greens part is a man called brown who is openly gay. No parties want to remove abortion as an option, and we are likely to legalise gay marriage with very little opposition. The area presidency did try to get something going but it just fizzed, i’m pleased to say.
I say this to give an indication of how USA is seen as backward (conservative) in so many ways. A mormon republican president would I think greatly confirm how backward/conservative the church is, which would not add to it’s appeal.
And if he were a one term do little president what then?
This is the best possible outcome for the GOP, finally busting wide open the social conservativist stranglehold and giving the party a more moderate, northern Republican tone. The party has continued to become more and more extreme in response to the Dems being in power. It’s time we all simmered down to a more centrist tone.
Romney, IMO, would not be a strongly principled ethical leader, which is a shame because many Mormons find better balance than he has and are more authentic. There is speculation he will be a big government Republican which makes me nervous in general, but frankly might be what we need for the next 4 years, provided that big government is run with regulation and fiscal responsibility that is sorely lacking today.
I have to think he would pick Chris Christie as veep.
As to temple and church attendance, I see no way he’s going to the temple while in office. Likewise, I would think most church attendance would be private vs. attending a local ward. Linger longers are right out. At best, you might see some ice blocking during the White House Easter Egg Roll.
Will Mormons become more sought after in the business world? I think that Romney’s business skills will be evident in the White House.
There will probably be a few wards that Romney will occasionally attend, but mostly he will have a private sacrament meeting. Romney will probably be allowed to attend a semi-private temple session, (Mondays in DC or maybe weekdays in a small temple) where the workers and patrons can be screened.
Rigel,
I am surprised that you think the Church President and MTC should not be invited. They have a number of times over the years. And certainly not to the exclusion of others. I think we’d see a broad range of those participating, as we always have.
We have seen President attend Churches in the Washington area, so I am not sure why so many think the Romneys would not. Actually Reagan was the least religious of the recent Presidents. He seldom if ever, attended a Church while President.
OTOH, The President must also work and travel on Sundays as well. I guess we should also figure out the Ward near Camp David.
Would Mitt have a calling?
For the sake of practicality, I would imagine any calling he would get would have to be something that could accommodate a busy schedule that takes him all around the country/world. Sunday school teacher is probably out.
Mitt will not likely get a calling, but he will almost certainly be asked to speak in Sacrament meeting from time to time. Actually, I think that what he does during general conference may get some serious press coverage. He will almost certainly attend the Priesthood session somewhere next October as a candidate in the middle of the biggest campaign of his life. He will likely attend at a small ward in the midwest (Michigan?) or maybe at home in New Hampshire.
I don’t, unfortunately, see him being able to attend the temple now. Can you imagine how much the National Enquirer would pay for a photo of a US Presidential candidate dressed in full temple clothing? With cameras as small and ubiquitous as they are now, the opportunity to catch and embarrass someone would be too great for an unscroupulous person to pass on. That would be political suicide. Remember the photo of Michael Dukakis in the tank? Analysts say it ‘tanked’ his candidacy. It was like the Howard Dean scream of photo ops.
I don’t see how Mitt could risk it as a candidate. Even as a president, can you imagine the press catching a picture of him heading in to the temple, then cut in the sequence of the temple session from Big Love or images from a sketch artist to describe what the Presient of the US did for the day. The book The Lost Symbol, by Dan Brown even had a similar plot line of career- ruining hidden cam of high ranking political leaders attending masonic lodge rites being exposed.
Jeff,
well, I’m glad my comments surprise you. The advantage of blogs is to try out ideas through comments and come away with a greater perception after having read others reactions. There has been so much ramble about whether a Mormon president would be influence by his church leader. I don’t buy it, but it has been a distraction. If, somehow, a Mormon candidate is favored for his leadership abilities and wins over the popular vote, those who have rambled would use the appearance of the President of the church at the inauguration to fan those flames. The press would surely try to capture a shot during the live broadcast and advise viewers of his participation. This would be most US citizen’s first experience of seeing who the President of the church is. For someone who had no idea what the President of the Church looks like and see him for the first time at inauguration coverage, they might gravitate toward naysayers who say he is ‘already there’ trying to ‘take over’. I would think that the way the church represented the church at Obama’s inauguration (Uchtdorf and Cook, wasn’t it?) would go over better.
As to the MTC, yes, they have been at inaugurations in the past, but most non-Mormons probably don’t remember that. They are so iconically Mormon, that it would possibly engender the same type of criticism.
But I would love to have your counter that none of these scenarios would cause the reactions that I have postulated!
How do you think the members in the US would react if Romney were to be elected President?
Well, history repeats itself, does it not? So how did the ancient church react to Amalickiah, who was also a member of the church seeking to be elected (seeking for power)?
“As to the MTC, yes, they have been at inaugurations in the past, but most non-Mormons probably don’t remember that. They are so iconically Mormon, that it would possibly engender the same type of criticism. ”
What? America’s Choir? I think most would expect, even demand they be there….. :D.
But seriously, there is a risk either way. If Pres. Monson were there, there will be some who say he is lurking in the background waiting to take control of Mitt’s mind. If not, then there will be crys of political correctness and the safety that Romney is already accused of.
My bet, he’ll be there.
Anyone is better than Obama. Anyone. The worst president our nation has ever seen by a long ways. By the time he is done, he will make Carter look good. A complete failure.
I agree with Don in that the republicans would need complete control of the house and senate to make any meaningful change. Even then, they would need to be hold to conservative economic principles for meaningful change.
As I said in previous posts, Romney will get the GOP nod as he will win the northeast, Midwest and west in the primaries. The real question is will the evangelicals in the southeast choose a Mormon over a Socialist? I think they will choose neither and it will be enough for Obama to win key southeast states in the general election.
Finally, you are hearing a lot of buzz in the Mormon community Romney is the “priesthood that will save the constitution having by a thread” what nonsense. It will be the stakes of Zion that will be the only refuge from the economic storm that is YET to come. Unfortunately, this is only the beginning of our economic woes.
The logistics of keeping POTUS Romney active in the Church can be reasonably handled for himself, his family and necessary active LDS entourage. Certainly there’s enough downtime in the Washington DC temple to run the POTUS crew through a session or two once a month. Same with activity, a special branch in the Washington DC Stake could be set up that balances the Romneys’ needs with the demands of his office.
There’s always going to be pot-shots from bigoted “Yeah-hoos” that want to make hay about the POTUS’ ‘Non-Christian’ religion, or how many ‘wives’ the President sleeps with, or how he ‘hates’ gays and so on…Mitt’s a seasoned enough pro in both business and political spheres to just politely ignore the dumb asses and get on with his work.
After the initial break-in period, folks, including most LDS, will forget about his religion and focus on his actual job performance. At this point, though his persistent smile sets off the hackles in my “inner Klingon” (never trust men that smile too much), I’ll still choose him over the current POTUS any day. Still, my vote as a recently-registered Republican (after 20 years as a Libertarian) will go to Ron Paul if he’s still going by the CA primary, and also to Mr. Paul if either he gets the RP nomination (which I strongly doubt) or he runs as an independent.
I’ll give this for the Republicans. Twice a serious lady candidate for VP or President has come up who is down right attractive. Not that it’s a serious criteria for picking a candidate, of course, but it shows that at least the Republicans lean more towards achievement and self-worth. It’s been my experience that the party of the jackass tends to field lady politicians whom impress me as being patently unattractive and humorless. Just an observation.
Will,
Andrew Johnson was the worst president in US history. Bush and Obama are tied for second.
#40 – not that I disagree with your disdains for our current occupant of the “White” House (LoL) or his predecessor, BUT…I’d have to nominate LBJ as (ala the fat ‘Comic Book Guy’ from the Simpsons)…”Worst President…EVER!”…the Great Society…utterly, almost criminal mismanagement of the Vietnam conflict..never mind his poor dogs’ ears and showing his surgery scars. As a good lady friend of mind told me (actually reiterating what her mother told her, since she was born in ’67, and her family knew the Johnsons personally), the only good thing about LBJ being VP and then President was that it got him out of Texas! They were sad that LBJ would not run for re-election in ’68 (at least he had the decency to spare the Democrats the embarrassment) because it meant that he was returning!
I don’t know why Andrew Johnson is thought of so badly. He was fairly much a “dark horse” selectee, a US Senator almost literally w/o a state (he still represented Tennessee and was disliked by many for that reason alone), and succeeded “dis-Honest Abe” who at the time was avidly disliked by many as well, but in a situation not uncommon to our own time, his detractors could not unite to defeat him at the polls. AFAIC, Andrew Johnson was a glutton for punishment to want to continue as President under the circumstances. Do keep in mind who succeeded him as well. Ulysses Grant had great qualities (mainly being focused to the point of bullheadedness) as a General, but it was practically his undoing as President. That and being too naively trusting of his cronies, who took advantage of him. Those were indeed dark days for the Executive branch.
My quick predictions about the impact on the Church of a Romney Presidency. The biggest impacts will be in the first couple of years as the US and the world get introduced to pecularities of our beliefs and practices.
1.It will raise name recognition and name recognition of the church. Probably more so abroad–where we and our beliefs/practices are less well known. The no alcohol thing will get a lot of attention at the beginning of his travels.
2. He will most likely try and go to church and to the temple.(I personally hope he makes it to the temple frequently –the US President,IMHO, will always need a lot of divine help. And any endowed member who willingly takes a four year hiatus from temple attendance is really hurting his own spiritual well being) These practices will naturally pique the curiosity of the press at first, but the biggest impact will be on the neighborhoods where the temples are. Securing the temple is relatively easy but the people living in the neighborhood around the temple will likely experience great inconvenience when the POTUS comes–streets closed, etc. So locally the Church will get a bit of a bad name…
3. The Church will face some increased scrutinity during the first part of a Romney administration but that will fade when the country and the world see that we really are political neutral as an organization and frankly as an organization we are perhaps politically “less interested” — we have more pressing tasks than one nation’s politics.
4. Will the church get blamed for failures of a Romney administration? Perhaps? Every administration has it’s successes and it’s failures or “lack of successes”. Economically the US is in a bad way right now and its problems are probably not going to be solved in the next 4 years regardless of who is President and who controls Congress.
So distance, IMHO, between the White House and the CHurch is a very good thing. Besides, evenif things go well in a Romney administration there will be many that would be offended, if not downright angry, at any outside organization being seen as the “power behind the throne”…
The real question is will the evangelicals in the southeast choose a socialist over a socialist?
The White House falls within the boundaries of the Washington D.C. Third Ward. Until last summer that ward had been sharing a repurposed building at 3423 Holmead Pl NW with the Mount Pleasant (Spanish) Branch. The Third Ward grew too big for that building, and meets for now in the Chevy Chase meetinghouse. For the last four years, the stake has worked to gain approval to construct a new meetinghouse for this ward on 16th Avenue, but the process has been difficult. (See “Full Up, Fed Up On God’s Avenue” from the Washington Post.) At the last stake conference there was hope expressed by the stake president for a ground breaking real soon now, but I haven’t heard that it happenned yet. If construction doesn’t start before Romney sews up the Republican nomination next spring, well, it may never happen.
Here’s a Google street view of the Mount Pleasant Branch building on Holmead: link.
John,
Thanks for the correction. I put the wrong address in for the White House. Same building, wrong Ward.
You were close, Jeff. 17th Street, one block west of the White House is a boundary between the D.C. 3rd Ward and the Chevy Chase Ward, and as you note, they share the same building. A couple corrections to what I wrote above: 16th Street, not Avenue, and by last summer, I meant summer 2010.
It used to be that missionaries didn’t go to the temple even if they were serving near one because they were on a mission, exiles from Zion, laboring out in the world. Romney has had four decades to do temple work, so putting off a visit for four years doesn’t seem like a big deal. Eight years, though, sounds like too long, assuming he participates in ordinances at least annually now. Weddings of close relatives (grandchildren?) would be another thing. It would be better not to distract from the lucky couple’s special moment by having the President of the United States sitting in the sealing room; such would be the sacrifices that the call to public service charges.
Glass Ceiling:
I would agree Andrew Johnson was near the bottom. He too played the class envy card like Obama. I am not a big advocate of Bush either. I would still put Obama at the bottom with both Johnson’s (LBJ and Andrew) and Wilson. Can’t overlook FDR with the Big Deal that created the entitlement mess either.
Douglas,
Andrew Johnson basically took the hard won victories of the Civil War, and reversed them. He put the planter class back in charge of the South. (The planter class started the war and had been responsible for slavery. ) This brought in Jim Crow and the hundred-year apartheid for Blacks in the South.
Just think of all the damage control from racism since 1865. We are still paying the price…for unstance,the sub-prime mortgage market originated as a means to get Black families out of the hood.
Will,
I do not criminalize FDR like many do. Truth is, the nation was crumbling. (Read “The Grapes of Wrath. “) And many people today, perhaps you or I, would not have even been born had those measures not been taken.
I am of the opinion that we could still afford those benefits if we had not turned so fascist over the last 30 years. Corruption will kill anything and then point its knarled finger elsewhere. Social Security was not made to fail, nor Medicare and Medicaid. The sound logic didn’t change, but ways and means did. In FDR’s day ourtsourcing was unheard of, as was deregulation on Wall Street, and a host of other problems. And, yes, unions had not yet lost their soul either.
All that has changed. So I guess we are all gonna have to live like Spartans for a few hundred years. After a while, all will clearly see what others of us already know : The blame lies with secret combinations (yet not so damn secret anymore, for those who can resist party politics and just see the painfully obvious . )
John,
LAinCT makes a good point that any kind of divine inspiration our president can get is certainly sorely needed. Maybe in the case of an LDS POTUS it should be considered a unique case, but I still think that even if he could get to the temple only a few times a year (or even once) it would be far better than never in four or possibly eight years. Forty years of presumably active temple service don’t make up for four years off during what may be the most stressful period of one’s life. Someone’s faith can be shaken in much less time, even a presidential candidate’s.
As for whether it would be better to go or not, in terms of the public image, I still think that it’s better to go. Either way the public will surely become aware of our “weird” and “secret” ceremonies if his candidacy makes it past primaries. But for him to profess to be a committed member of the church (and I think any less would make him seem flaky and hurt his image), and then not participate in a form of worship that’s considered such an important element of the church, would add “insincere” to all the other religion-related labels that would be thrown at him.
“The blame lies with secret combinations”
Amen to that!
#50 – Andrew Johnson, himself being from Tennessee but staunch Pro-Union (many like him from what had once been the furtive state of Franklin felt likewise), had while Senator and VP (briefly) railed against the Confederate leadership, calling for trials and severe punishment, including hanging Jefferson Davis and most of the Confederate Congress. Once he became President, he co-opted Lincoln’s conciliatory policies. What funky politically correct revised history book were you reading on Reconstruction? Be assured that there was very little if any concern about Negro civil rights on the part of carpetbaggers. Their main concern was the ability to hold political control and keep them in line with Northern banking, manufacturing and railroad interests that had back the invasion and subjugation of the Confederacy in the first place. Negro voting (and election to state offices) served carpetbagger interests well. Be assured that the same “enlightened” attitude did NOT exist north of the Mason-Dixon line! Black emigration from the South was universally discouraged.
Andrew Johnson was a pragmatic man. He knew that conciliation would stave off years of guerilla warfare in the former Confederacy. You might be forgetting that the last Confederate armies did not lay down their arms until some two months after Appromattox. If I’d been President at the time, I too would be wary of inciting the recently pacified Southerners to further rebellion.
Douglas ,
The book is “Andrew Johnson” by Annette Gordon-Reed, as well as a Civil War class in college and its respective textbook.
Johnson was a Southern boy with Union leanings who was placed as VP with Lincoln on the Republican ticket to attract Southerners during the election. When he became president, he insured that his cronies down South and their ilk got what they wanted.
This is a quote from Gordon-Reed in her book, page 5:
Lincoln tops almost every list of great American presidents, admired by conservatives and liberals alike. Johnson, in the other hand, is almost always found among the worst …the man who botched Reconstruction, who energized and gave aid and comfort to the recently defeated enemies of the United States, the first president to be impeached by the House of Representatives, escaping conviction by a hairsbreadth, one vote, in the Senate. America went from the best to the worst in one presidential term.”
And I will add what my professor said, “In many real ways the South won the war. Reconstruction was a failure, the planter class resumed power, the South now received a great deal of mileage on capital hill in terms of empathy and political power just on terms of “brotherhood ” and reunification ; and Blacks in the South were now worth less to their employers than they were when they were slaves. As slaves, they were at least worth keeping healthy enough for resale. Now, who really cared if they lived or died? Remember, the KKK came out of the frustration of Blacks being free at all.
I’m not a history buff but I always thought Lincoln was one of the worst presidents. Didn’t let the south secede (an idea our country was founded on) all in the name of money and horrible with civil liberties and stripped liberties away (or/and paved the way for the stripping) from the people that we have never gotten back.
Jon,
Lincoln didn’t let the South secede because they had strong ties with England,who still wanted to conquer us. The Cotton Kingdom in the South fed the textile revolution in northern England.If the South became a puppet of England, there could have easily been a third war against England,along with the South. Imagine the Civil War with England to boot. Actually,this is not well documented, but England and France almost went to war with us during the Civil War. That is why Lincoln wrote a letter to the Czar asking for help. I forget the name of the Czar, but he sent war ships to American shores along the Atlantic and Pacific to discourage the French and English.
Lincoln was a good man, but he didn’t see the future of his actions. Bur who evet does?
My frustration with Lincoln was that he cancelled states rights.why could he not just illegalize slavery and secession and leave it at that?
It was Czar Alexander II of Russia.
@Glass,
Interesting, I didn’t know that. Regardless, the US was founded on secession so I don’t understand why Lincoln wouldn’t let the south secede, it seems hypocritical to celebrate it on the one hand and the denounce it on the other. It’s more understandable with that tidbit of information but still not principled course of action, how can man be free if they can’t choose their own government?
From my understanding slaves everywhere else in the Western hemisphere became free without a devastating war like the US had, why couldn’t we achieve it more peacefully? Because of the way the saints were treated? That’s what the earlier prophets believed, wasn’t it?
Jon,
The D&C leads ne tp believe that the Civil War had something to do with people becoming evil.
Another source of LMMFAO….thanks, Glass….
This is what happens when you let yourself get fed the pap of political indoctrination and mistake it for an education, especially in reading the screed of an glorified “EEO Baby”. As for the institution of higher learning where you must have taken an American History class, I’d consider suing for a refund of tuition.
Some fundamentals regarding the so-called “Civil War” (would be more accurately called the War against Confederate Independence)..
1) The issues that led to Confederate succession, and the US Federal invasion and conquest of same, have little to do with slavery and more to do with economics…particularly that Southern governments, business, and many of its wealthy citizens were heavily in debt to Northern banks. It could be fairly said that the whole affair was a massive debt collection effort, not unlike that practised by La Cosa Nostra in the following century.
2) Lincoln was NOT the “Great Emancipator”. He freed NO slaves during his tenure. In fact, Secretary Seward quipped of the Emancipation Proclamation (which was an inducement for Confederate states to quit the fight and rejoin the Union and could KEEP THEIR SLAVES if they did), “he kept in slavery those within his reach, and promised to free those out of his reach.” Lincoln also professed that “preserving the Union” was his highest priority, that if he could do it by allowing slavery, he would do so.
3) Johnson may have been a “Southern Boy” Your condescending attitude towards Southerners is offensive, Suh…I was born in Lake Charles, LA, which is about as “Deep South” as you can get, and there is no hint of drawl in my voice…and I have a Master’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering and another in Chemical Engineering…and don’t drive a pickup or own a dog…anyway, Johnson was very pro-Union and endured significant personal risk in being a Union Army General, military Governor of Tennessee, and the only Senator from a Confederate state to not resign his seat. He was also born to humble circumstances and openly despised the planter class in the South. He was nominated VP because he was a prominent “War Democrat” and helped “split the ticket” of the “National Union” Party. Since NO electors were sent from any Confederate states, there was absolutely no need to win the votes of ANY Southerners!
4) “Almost” went to war with the UK during the Civil War? Hardly! You might be thinking of the Trent affair. Trouble is, if the UK had ever seriously contemplated a “reconquista” of the “Colonies”, they’d been dealt a nasty blow when “Inna Eighteen-Fourteen we took a little trip. along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip” (thank you, Johnny Horton). If anything, the British AVOIDED a direct conflict with the USA, since they were still smarting from the Crimean War and the Sepoy Rebellion in India. They were also heavily outnumbered on the US-Canadian border (by about eight to one) and had doubts about the willingness of the Canadians to resist a Yankee invasion. As for the Russian Navy, it actually was sent in the winter of 1862-63 to US ports in anticipation of a resumption of hostilities with the UK and France…they didn’t want to have their Navy stuck in port by ice.
5) Johnson’s Presidency was doomed from inception since the National Union party fell apart once the war was over. Since he’d been a Democrat to begin with, he could not get support from moderate Republicans. The Radicals did everything they could to either force him out (and came within a vote of succeeding) or render him ineffective. If there was any failing on Johnson’s part, it was that he stubbornly insisted on carrying out Reconstruction as he felt Lincoln would have done, not caring that he had the support of almost nobody. Makes him perhaps a principled man, but not necessarily a great leader…or at least one that should have recognised that circumstances had rendered him a lame duck from 4/15/1865.
Perception is eveything
Douglas,
Insecure much? I could be wrong, but I don’t think that the term “Southern Boy” insinuates idiocy. But thanks for the resume anyway. You’re hired.
Listen, I know that revisionism runs rampant through Civil War history, but the Southern version has always been the most suspect. I am not a Lincoln worshiper either, but I do know he said he would free all,some,or none of the slaves to preserve the Union.
Douglas,
In a way, it seems that the Civil War goes on now if only in its historiocity.
Interesting enough, I first heard that bit about Russia from an Arkansan libertarian who can run circles around most historians.
If we can’t seem to agree on Mormon history, is it any wonder that US history might suffer the same problem.
Jeff,
No kidding.
Its worse with the Civil War because one side often wants to treat slavery like it was a cursory afterthought. In reality, the slavery issue defined politics all through western expansion (slave state vs free state.) But then it had nothing to
do with the war?
Will,
I forgot to mention that I agree with you about Wilson. The bringing in of the Federal Reserve,and the way ut was done, is unforgivable.
I have mixed feelings about his dealings in Europe. Versailles was a flop, but not because of him and his ideals. Still, the League of Nations was a bad idea of his, and his insistance of “self determination ” created new problems with old problems in Europe.
@Glass,
Where did you learn all your history? Just an avid reader or did you study it in college?
Jon,
Thank you for asking. 🙂
I got an Engish and History degree in college. ( I actually hated history until I served un the Air Force in Germany for three years in my mid-twenties. )
I struggle with fiction unless it has historical relevance. I read alot of nonfiction because I find it fascinating in so many ways. History is a mystery because (as we sae today) the voices are so relative…and yet that is their truth. And that is an exercise in psychology, sociology, anthropology, geography, and who knows what. And there is always more to learn.
I owe alot to thanks friend of mine from Arkansas who resolve is an avid reader of history, biographies, and conspiracy theory.
But honestly I have a great deal to learn as I am relatively now at the game. I am an aspiring historian and little else.
That was way too long. I hope it didn’t sound uppity. Truth be told, I’m a hack.
How about you? Are you into history?
I owe alot to my friend in Arkansas who…
My phone is Beelzebub’s handmaid.
Sorry for that.
I’m into history more than I used to be but feel like a novice. Much of my history I’m learning comes from the Lew Rockwell crowd, like Mises.org. Pretty fascinating stuff, I know they have their own agenda too so I still need to be leery, but when it comes to politics it seems they are the most truthful.
When my kids get old enough to get into history I kind of want to shy away from the political history, we’ll still teach them that but I never understood why schools focus solely on the political and nothing else.
Most of my reading now days is technical as I am teaching myself programming (masters in electrical engineering, but not very fun when all the jobs are managerial). I will pick up historical books on trips and read them though, usually native american, of course. Now you can’t say you are long winded. I’m not an avid reader though, comes in spurts.
Jon,
I feel like a novice all the time. There is usually more than one version of any subject in history, so I am odten feeling as if what I know is never enough,
Douglas,
Now you’ve got me all insecure about what I thought I knew about Andrew Johnson. If you are not too salty at me, what is a good resource?
#74 – hafta get back to you on a specific alternate treatise on Andrew Johnson.
Some of my faves on Civil War and Reconstruction include “The South Was Right” and Thomas DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln”. Though I consider the latter’s work to be excellent, he certainly isn’t unbiased (and just who is…?). I wish Prof. Walter Williams would write up something on the subject himself, being a conservative of the African persuasion.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html
That’s the best I have for now…
BTW, though I disagree vehemently with either Bill Clinton’s or Barrack Obama’s politics, I don’t necessarily consider them to have been “bad” enough Presidents to rank at the bottom. In fact, I oft said of George W. Bush, “Damn you, sir, you’ve caused me to say, ya, know, Bill Clinton wasn’t so bad…” My friend’s family from Texas also knows the Bushes personally, and well, they’d rather have had Jeb than George W. (or Jr.) as their Gov and later President. The apple didn’t necessarily fall far from the tree, but it rolled down the hill a mite….
I would rank FDR at near the bottom for the long-term harm of his policies, save for one important thing: there is the likelihood that had Hoover been re-elected in 1932 (or the Democrats nominated someone else and that man had won it), there would have been a Communist revolution in the USA shortly thereafter. Even if unsuccessful, imagine the tumult, and also imagine what would have happened with either a Communist regime, OR, if the country, not unlike what happened in Nazi Germany, embraced fascism or Nazism in reaction. At least FDR provided desperately needed leadership, regardless of the idiocy of some of his ideas.
Douglas,
Thank you for that information.
Magic bulletproof underwear… we can save on the Federal Budget by cutting secret service protection.