In the virtual hellscape that is post-Elon Twitter, I’ve been noticing that there are quite a few outspoken church defenders who very openly state that they would love for all left-leaning, liberal, progressive, or “woke” church members to leave. Sometimes they include invitations for people to kill themselves or other light threats, because Twitter. Nearly all of my friends who’ve left the church lean progressive. I suppose these specific so-called defenders would consider that “proof” that those folks were bad apples rather than considering the possibility that their bad acts, which go unopposed, have revealed rottenness at the core of the church.
I’ve been reading Romney: A Reckoning, and it includes an incident in August of 2020 when Mitt Romney was invited to brief the Q15 on the upcoming election. This is an interesting twist on the accusations he suffered as candidate Romney in which antagonists claimed he would take direction from Salt Lake. Au contraire! He was in the position of advising the quorum of apostles. He told them the choice in the 2020 election was between an “awful person” or “awful policies” and that their choice would depend on what they considered more important.
I have a few serious problems with this characterization. First, Mitt was secretly rooting for Biden, which the biography makes clear, but he didn’t feel comfortable openly supporting him or even casting a vote for him because he believed in broadly conservative ideals: capitalism, the role of religion, and skepticism of new government programs. But as a problem-solving legislator, Romney did in fact create new government programs that were not particularly conservative, and that many on the right demonized or refused to support, although they have mostly proven popular and effective. Part of Trump’s 2024 platform is to finally repeal “Obamacare” which was based on Romney’s winning healthcare plan in Massachussetts. He drafted the CARES act under Trump. He marched with Black Lives Matter protesters. As a governor, he compromised on abortion. He wrote a child tax credit proposal (didn’t pass) that didn’t require recipients to work. He was (often) willing to listen to constituents and to craft solutions that would solve real problems for real people, which is what government is supposed to do.
Yet he was unwilling or unable in this crucial moment, meeting with Church leaders, to recognize that a “good person” with supposedly “awful policies” might actually, like he did, learn and grow in the role and employ “good policies” based on listening to the needs of constituents, nor to recognize that his own policies were not very partisan! Instead he told Church leaders essentially nothing. Everything he said could be taken by them to mean whatever they wanted it to mean, and that is the most Mormon thing of all–giving others advice that is so neutral they can justify or rationalize whatever they alread believed. The reckoning Romney faces is also one the Church faces–or more likely, isn’t facing.
As pointed out previously, the Church has continually shifted its position on political neutrality to downplay the character of the candidate (which Romney really thought was most important) and to emphasize the importance of policies that are socially conservative (what Oaks and others seem to want most). Romney also didn’t emphasize that the “awful person” in question also had a lot of disastrous policies, many of which are enumerated in the book; Romney had even voted to impeach based on the strong-arm tactics used by Trump with Zelensky, which was Trump’s approach to foreign policy. At every turn, Romney saw that Trump’s actions were motivated by his incompetence, narcissism, greed, and malign purposes. This is detailed in the book. Having an “awful person” in charge does not actually lead to “good policies.” But Romney implied that it did to conservative church leaders who also likely believed in the idea of “holding your nose” and voting for the (bad) Republican rather than voting for (what they assumed was) the actual devil himself, any Democrat. If he had instead said the choice was between an awful person with awful policies and a good person with a mixed bag of policies who might overspend and tax corporations, he would have been representing his actual views more accurately. But he didn’t say that!
And he should have known better! Earlier in the book when he lost against Obama he specifically unboxed his feelings about the actual Obama presidency. When he ran against him, he had convinced himself that the election was an existential threat, that he needed to win to prevent the economic downfall of the country. But he observed that Obama was actually a decent man, a good leader, and that his policies weren’t actually all that bad. All the doomsaying he had done to amp himself up as a candidate was overblown; he admitted this to himself. He might still prefer conservative policies, but progressive ones didn’t cause the downfall of the country. They weren’t awful. But when asked by Church leaders for advice on the upcoming election, he reverted right back to comfortable conservative tropes, telling them what they already believed. Democrats have bad ideas, but character matters so it’s a conundrum. Perhaps he failed to notice when the church’s political neutrality statement subtly removed the encouragement to vote based on the candidate’s character in 2016; after all, he heard that admonishment his whole life like I did, and he certainly believed it. He might not have accurately read the room, and it wouldn’t be the first time.
I recently listened to an interview with the son of a pastor who described what he called the new “war” in Evangelicalism that is tearing their congregations apart. He said that historically, the Christian approach was to hold those inside the faith to a high standard (hence the term “high demand religion”) while treating those outside the faith with an outpouring of love to welcome them into the fold, to entice them to join. He noted that in the last few years, this has flipped. Those on the inside get a pass for some of the most egregious sins and behaviors, and those on the outside (ideologically) are treated as enemy combatants, with the worst judgments possible applied to them. All the generosity is reserved for those on the same team. Of course, this persuades nobody and sows division. Perhaps this is why LDS church leaders are calling for more civility. Perhaps its another disease we’ve caught from the Evangelicals.
The pastor’s son didn’t mention something I’ve always observed, that those who have left the church are vilified, blamed, and often treated worse than those who have never joined; we love potential converts, but we hate heretics. The “outpouring of love” appears to be mostly a show, employed as a tactic to lure in new followers, fellowshipping, not a genuine Christian expression of loving our neighbor. If the transaction of conversion is seen as off the table, the mask of civility falls.
I did a quick Twitter poll, and Reddit poll to see what others are experiencing. First, a quick clarification, the majority of respondents to both these polls are ex-Mormons, so this is the perspective of those who have left the church, not how active members see themselves. Still, if this is not how active members actually feel, they are doing a bad idea of getting their true feelings across. The Twitter results (small sample size, but pretty consistent the entire time it ran):
The results of the Reddit poll were nearly identical, with only minor shifts: So, is this the dog that caught the car? Did conservative church leaders allow this to happen with their conservative dog whistles (and less subtle anti-left rants), and now they have the congregation that Trump and the John Birch Society built? Or is this just the perception of those who left and participate in post-Mormon discussion groups (vs. those who slip quietly into the ether of inactivity or those who left because the church was too woke?)
Considering the interview with the pastor’s son, it seems like it’s about a 50/50 split in Mormon congregations (based on feedback from ExMos on Twitter) in terms of whether they see progressives as possible (political) converts or enemies, and how dire a threat they view them if they see them as enemies. If so, here’s a re-cast of those results:
- 20% see Democrats & progressives as an existential threat. And a whole bunch of them, when they aren’t shooting at FBI agents, are ranting on Twitter
- 30% see them as wrong and bad, but not necessarily a threat; they believe in being civil or at least passive aggressive
- 40% see them as bleeding hearts who will eventually grow into conservatives with exposure to the “right” ideas
- 10% are the centrists, moderates, or even *gasp* progressives who remain active in the church, despite being in a shrinking minority
My own experience is that the anti-left talk has gotten much louder and more emboldened in the last few years, as my own intolerance of right wing ideology has grown (which is weird because I am not a Democrat and have voted for both parties). I’ve mentioned before that the ward I grew up in was filled with pretty vocal Democrats, although my parents were conservative, so I heard the gospel from different perspectives. I’ve talked to a friend who moved back to that area to care for elderly parents, and he says that the ward culture is completely different now, lots of paranoia and conspiracy theories, and pretty toxic. While it’s clear that the most strident voices feel emboldened on Twitter, I’ve also heard shockingly partisan things in person at church over the last 5 years that I have never before heard in my life. Trump has held up a mirror to our congregations, and it ain’t pretty.
- Are your surprised by the encounter Romney had with the Q15 before the 2020 election or does this seem like what you would expect?
- Do you agree that churches have flipped from judgmental of insiders / welcoming to outsiders to judmental of outsiders / generous to outsiders? What do you see?
- Do the results of the survey match or differ from your own experience?
- Do you think these attitudes have changed over time, or is it merely that people are saying what they think louder and with less civility?
Discuss.
Wheat & Tares 
When I still attended church, I was always an outer circle member (never-mo spouse and I’m an introvert) and therefore was unaware of much that went on. I do recall a discussion with a woman I visit taught about 10 years ago. I don’t remember the topic, but in an almost whispered voice she said regarding another woman in the ward: “I think she’s a democrat.” This was said like there could be no greater condemnation. The woman in question might as well have been having an affair with the entire bishopric. It was eye opening.
I think it’s more nuanced in the sense that individuals are torn between “doing their gender-performing duty” aka “soft influencing” for women and “presiding” for men vs “personal inclination”. Once I have “heard them out” to the degree that “they have done their duty” – then we get to work focusing on connection, on LovingKindess.
>Do you think these attitudes have changed over time, or is it merely that people are saying what they think louder and with less civility?< — in the early '00s I visit taught a new convert who let drop in a visit that she was a Democrat. My companion pursed her lips and said, "you'll probably find that you have to change that" and we changed the subject.
I think we are all hardening in our positions on both sides. I am trying to be open to different points of view, but as so many of those seem scarier and more dangerous (from my perspective) that is harder to do. Of course, everyone digging in results in all of us becoming more entrenched and less willing to see that there are valid reasons for people holding different views than our own. But in answer to the question above — I think we are ALL saying what we think louder and with less civility.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney actually came out and encouraged voters to vote for Biden in 2024 if Trump is the Republican nominee.
Evangelicalism has irredeemably descended down the rabbithole of Trumpism. Yes I agree that it has changed to become more insular, tolerant of egregious behavior of its own, and hostile towards liberals and Democrats. Mormonism politically is the religion of Mitt Romney. Trumpism has crept inside, but it hasn’t taken it over completely. In my environment people’s political views have become more private. I think generally church members want Democrats to keep silent.
Things have changed over the past two decades. Liberals have won a series of battles over LGBTQ rights and conservatives know they can’t change that. Democrats have gained an advantage in healthcare policy with the implementation of Obamacare. The country has become more ethnically diverse. Conservatives whites have increasingly felt they’ve lost their grip on the country and have increasingly resorted to the politics of resentment and conspiracism. This existed before Trump came into the picture. It accelerated with the rise of the Tea Party and went into full gear with the candidacy and election of Trump in 2016. It has only gained momentum since. As a liberal and Democrat, I feel I can have fair civil discussions and disagreements with Romney-style and anti-Trump Republicans. But with Trumpists, there is no conversation to be had. All sustained engagement I’ve had with Trumpists have devolved into shouting matches and insults. Friends I’ve had who are now Trumpists are no longer my friends.
I think it is human nature for us to harden over time in our beliefs and opinions, becoming inflexible in view of new evidence unless we constantly challenge ourselves to be open to new experiences and understanding. In other words, I think it’s always been hard to be loving and kind to all, whether they are “potential converts” or those that have “left the faith.” I don’t see the culture in church wards as having “flipped” necessarily – rather, it would seem to be a phase we’re collectively in (due to our larger western culture) where the currents are favoring the inflexibility and ossification that comes with not trying to see from another’s viewpoint. We’ve always had a lot of work to do on ourselves, in or out of the church, to be truly welcoming and caring to all, regardless if “they” agree with “us” or not.
Well, I interpreted your survey finding before I got to your interpretation. You said that conservatives see progressives as potential converts to conservative thinking, if they hear it often enough. I was a bit more cynical. I told my husband that conservative church member are happy to collect tithing from those progressives as long as the progressives keep their stupid opinions to themselves.
My experience with church members is that they treat progressives the same way they treat apostates. The attitude is that once a member rejects church teachings, they are beyond hope of repentance. The sinner can repent, but once you reject the teachings, hope is gone. They treat progressives the same way. Sinning may be a mistake, but apostasy is apostasy, whether it is not believing in the holy trinity of God, Joseph Smith, and modern prophets, or not believing in the *other* holy trinity of the GOP, which when written really resembles GOD, Capitalism, and Christian Nationalism.
Those two holy trinities are really reversed in importance recently with the political ones becoming more important than even the religious ones. All of the ideas of Christian Nationalism are taught in the BoM. Manifest Destiny is there, racism and white supremacy are there. The idea that this nation must remain primarily Christian is there, with the idea that as soon as we fall away from worshipping the Savior, it will cause the downfall of this promised land. So, with the teachings of Christian Nationalism and racism in the BoM, a person cannot reject the political ideal of Trump followers without rejecting the BoM. So, progressives by definition are already apostates, they just haven gotten around to rejecting Jesus.
I guess that I am an LDS conservative’s worst nightmare. I am a registered Republican, so I can do everything I can to assure the most moderate candidates in the Utah GOP get votes. I first registered as a Republican because I wanted the honor of voting against Trump TWICE (primary and general elections) when he first ran. Where are my fellow subversives?
Anna, your are spot on as far as the attitude of LDS conservatives towards, well, everyone else. It is political tribalism at its worst. It is if the books of Helaman and 3rd Nephi were written for such people, and no, they are not the persecuted minority. In Utah County there is a saying among a few of the politically-oriented conservatives when it comes to their own children: “Better dead than Democrat.”
Old Man,
I am registered Republican in NV. I stand with you. The GOP has moved away from voters like my husband and I. We keep trying to show them how to keep our vote. So far no one’s listening.
It is often difficult to have an open and honest political discussion with a die hard liberal or a die hard conservative (I used to be one). But you know what’s worse? Having a discussion with a die hard Mormon who not only believes he is a faithful member of the “one true Church”, he also believes that his politics are just as “true” because after all, the Brethren are conservative politically. Never mind that none of us really knows what the Q15 believes politically. But we can make an educated guess and this is all a TBM right-winger needs to feel high and mightly about his own political beliefs. When you encounter someone like this, it’s not you against him (or her). It’s you against him and the Brethren, so of course you are misguided. The self-righteousness is almost unbearable. And to think I used to despise the libs.
This is my third go around on trying to write a comment, but I keep getting lost in what my point is. I clearly have more thoughts than organization, and for that I apologize in advance.
As Hawkgrrrl points out, the twitter poll is more about how lib/prog/Dem members *feel* than it is about what the “majority of members want”. I live in a reasonably affluent suburb of SLC, and despite that, it’s no bastion of conservativism, either politically or religiously. Biden narrowly won my stake in 2020. (Yes, the non-members likely influenced that.) Religiously, my bishop has a trans kid. One of his former counselors (now on the HC) has a gay kid. One of his current counselors has a lesbian sister. My ward is trying to include a trans kid in the teachers quorum. The YW president puts Biden signs in her yard. In the last 5 years I think my wards RS presidency has had more lawyers in it than stay at home mothers. My point is, that from a boot-on-the-ground perspective, if this is what the church looks like in my corner of the Salt Lake valley, I don’t see a strong case for democrats not being welcome. (I make no claims about Utah and Davis county. There be dragons.)
To me, the political conflict in the church is not a JelloBelt/nonJB issue, or even so much a Boomer vs Millennial issue. It is a Q15/70 vs everyone else issue. I see a huge number of members that are ready to move on from church conservativism. They’re liberal/progressive and are tired of being quiet about it. I see plenty of conservative members that don’t feel like they have to vilify people who disagree with them. Certainly there are exceptions here. There are outspoken and antagonistic members on both sides, but mostly conservatives who feel supported by Q15 leadership. But (and let’s take a moment to remember how incredibly US-centric all this is) I see a lot of members that are ready to move on from this. The question is whether the Q15 will let the church move on, or if the members will run out of patience and decide to move on without the church. For every person I see leave the church because of truth claims, I see 5 that look around and find that their morals no longer align with the church that they thought was supposed to be teaching them morals.
I think that the presence of politics in congregations varies between congregations and can change over time (like Hawkgirl’s Pennsylvania ward). In our stake, the leaders, over several years, made it clear that politics/political commentary should not be a part of sacrament meetings or classes, and over time, people got on board with this, and you almost never hear anything political (so much so that if you do, it is jarring). Instead, the leaders encouraged church meetings and classes to be focused on Christ. It worked in our stake (which is located in the Moridor), and has really helped me have a much better experience at church. I know one person who made a very political statement in a fast and testimony meeting, and the bishop spoke with the person afterward and encouraged them (with kindness) not to go there anymore, and the person has not. I think with effort, we can get politics out of church meetings and avoid that source of disunity, at least that is what has happened in our stake.
lws329: To your point, in a rally Kari Lake in AZ did (before she lost the governor race, which she said she would claim was fraudulent and then did), she asked who had voted for McCain (!) and then told them to “get the hell out,” that they weren’t welcome! McCain was a war hero, an AZ legend, and the presidential candidate for the GOP, but if you supported him, you are now no longer welcome at grifter Kari Lake’s rallies, apparently.
I wanted to go back to this concept of an awful person vs. awful policies, the thing Romney said to the Q15 that I think is at the rotting root of the wrong-headed thinking in the Church. The neutrality statement used to recognize that candidates of good character were the key to good governance, and didn’t put “desirable” policies (aka anti-gay, anti-women) in the forefront of decision making. If you have a leader who is a bad person but promises to do what you like, there’s a reason there are stories cautioning against this in all cultures throughout time. And yet, Romney didn’t want to be controversial or confrontational, so instead he cast democrats as having “bad policies,” making the choice seem at best equivalent, which even he didn’t think it was really. But he didn’t want to speak truth to power, he didn’t want to go out on a limb, he didn’t want to confront church leaders who were set against democrats. And we can see that they were against the democrats by how much foot-dragging they did before they congratulated Biden on his win. So, the far right wingers in our congregations are in fact right that the power base of the brethren are with them, against the Democrats.
I marvel at how people label politicians as “good” persons. Why are they good? What makes a politician “good” vs “bad”?
For US Presidents, I see a lot of flawed people, with some dangerously flawed. I say they are dangerously flawed because they make policy decisions that cause great harm to others and this harm was foreseeable. The last president who I can argue had good policies but had bad personal morals was Bill Clinton. Trump had some good policies (still too much spending) up until 2020 when he lost his mind and proved without a shadow of doubt he is dangerously flawed.
Bush and Obama and Biden each endorsed destructive policies. For Bush it was wars and economic ruin. For Obama it was urban policies that put criminals on the street and greatly elevated murder, assault and theft. For Biden it is the sheer dishonesty in everything the man does and the flippant way he deflects responsibility for his failures. If I were to pick one of the many ruinous policies of Biden it is the utter lack of border security. The man literally mocks the law in regards to protecting the sovereignty of the United States.
Biden and Trump are equally untrustworthy. Biden is actually more dangerous because he has the support of people like Romney and the mainstream press. I don’t want a president who is protected from criticism! At least with Trump you had constant scrutiny of the man and his administration. With Biden we have the “Emperors New Clothes” and that is a very dangerous predicament for the country.
Fellow subversive here. I’m a registered Republican in Utah so I can vote out Mike Lee.
Romney’s interaction with the apostles doesn’t surprise me. It’s a classic case of downplaying differences between your real views and the perceived views of one’s audience. Everyone does it in certain situations, particularly where there’s a power differential. It might have been nice if he’d been a bit more candid, but I don’t blame him. I do a version of the same thing at church all the time.
I don’t think attitudes toward insiders/outsiders in the LDS church have changed in the same way they have in other churches. We don’t get talks from leaders about outsiders being an existential threat. They are still regarded as potential converts who need to be taught the gospel. Church culture is subject to outside influences, so treating outsiders as a threat is surely on the rise, but not dominant. My own church experience has fortunately been relatively free of some of the politics at church that I hear others tell of lately.
After the 2022 Utah Senate race, Evan McMullin suggested that everyone in the Quorum of the 12 should register as independents to appear more nonpartisan. I disagree. Seeing Democrats like Hugh B. Brown and James E. Faust be faithful in the highest levels of the Church was inspiring, and it showed that the Republican party didn’t have a monopoly on faithful Latter-day Saints. Having apostles with diverse political leanings would be FAR more impactful than just having them all register independent.
That being said, I would pay big bucks just to see how political opposites like Hugh B. Brown and Ezra Taft Benson worked together in the same Quorum. It would make Hamilton vs. Jefferson look like child’s play.
When you speak truth to power, you have to use a language that power will listen to. Ammon did that. Mitt arguably did that too. Abinidi did not. Too many people here are pining for a futile Abinidi moment. People in general (and the Q15 in particular) do not respond well to that.
Disciple, let me paraphrase what you said: a president with the support of the media is a greater danger than a president who has tried to foment an insurrection. Did I get that right? And you believe that?
Don’t forget that the Q15 sent the Tabernacle Choir to celebrate Trump’s inauguration, even though many other performing artists had turned down the Inauguration Committee, and the Church could have quietly done the same in light of Trump’s polarizing rhetoric and loss of the popular vote. Seeing the Latter-day Saints front and center on January 20, 2017 sent a clear message to the country about whose side the Church was on. And for those of you thinking, “Well, they were only showing respect for the office,” do you think the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should send the Tabernacle Choir to Trump’s next inauguration if he wins in 2024?
When I lived in Draper politics was discussed in all church settings. In my corner of California, it rarely comes up which is nice.
While we are on the topic though I really wish we could re-define what is a political topic. How a company taxes and spends the money it collects from its citizens is inherently political. How a company manages its borders political.
A woman’s right to choose, and a queer person’s right to well-being, and people’s access to a living wage and healthcare are not political issues. We call them political issues because political parties have taken sides on these issues. We should be able to discuss these without dismissing them as political topics. They are human rights topics.
If someone as powerful as Mitt Romney can’t speak his mind and experience to LDS church leaders then heaven help us. They will continue to live in a bubble very much detached from the reality of the average member’s lived experiences. I would have no issue speaking my mind to them. But then I’m a lazy learner so anything I had to say would probably be dismissed.
According to Entertainment Weekly, Andrea Bocelli, Elton John, Céline Dion, Kanye West, Garth Brooks, Rebecca Ferguson, David Foster, Charlotte Church, KISS, Moby, Idina Menzel, Marie Osmond, R. Kelly, Paul Anka, Jennifer Holliday, and the B-Street Band (a Bruce Springsteen tribute band) all had more scruples than the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (as they were known at the time) and turned down invitations from Trump’s Inaugural Committee.
Quentin,
We can agree that rioting and violence and intimidation of public officials is bad. I hope we agree on that. Do we agree this is always wrong? Always, and not just when Trump is involved?
I find the charge of insurrection so interesting. Whatever additional label we wish to add to the J6 riots, they clearly were not an insurrection. My goodness! It was over in a couple of hours. More importantly, the disruption only prevented a vote that everyone now says is superficial. No matter what happened on J6, the transition to the Biden administration occurred on time, without delay.
What I find most curious is that Trump is said to be raising an insurrection because he does not believe the election was fairly held. This is curious because politicians challenging the fairness of American elections is a tale as old as time. It is also curious because bipartisan litigation over election law and ballot integrity are persistent. It is so interesting that Trump being concerned about election integrity is “insurrection” but anyone else being concerned is a legitimate legal matter.
It should concern all citizens of the United States when their government chooses to break the law. We do not need riots for this insurrection. We simply need a government where the laws of the land are not enforced and where citizens are denied due process. There is a long list of examples where all presidents of the past 20 years have literally broken the law. They have chosen to act as kings in deciding for themselves what laws to enforce and who to enforce them against. I find it curious that so many Americans only have a problem with this when “the other party” does it.
We should always remember the wisdom of George Washington who implored Americans in his Farewell Address:
“I have already intimated to you the danger of
parties in the state, with particular reference to the
founding of them on geographical discriminations.
Let me now take a more comprehensive view and
warn you in the most solemn manner against the
baneful effects of the spirit of party, generally.”
For what it is worth:
Both in Maryland and here in Sandy, Utah, I have been quite vocal about being an ex-Republican who voted in 2020 for President Biden. No one has ever given me a hard time, and they have been quite respectful when I voice my opinions. A few months ago, as the Utah 2023 primary date was approaching, our visiting Stake High Councilman bore his testimony in our Ward’s Fast and Testimony Meeting, in what was a MAGA call to arms. I got up immediately after him to bear my testimony. As I was climbing the steps to the stand, I loudly told him that he was out of line. I later called the Bishop that same night to complain, and my Bishop made a point of reading the 1st Presidency’s ritual statement on political neutrality, the next Sunday.
There has been not political peep one, since, in any of our Church meetings.
I have found that standing up for what I believe causes most people to re-consider their own beliefs, and to park their political beliefs at the Church door.
I will not be intimidated by majority views.
Thank you,
Taiwan Missionary
A Disciple: I’ve debated with many a Republican about whether Jan 6 was an insurrection or not. And here’s my take:
1. it was NOT a successful insurrection
2. it was very very close to an attempted insurrection *
* Pretend just for fun that Mike Pence goes along with Trump’s idea to NOT certify the election as VP. We have a potential Constitutional crisis.
*Pretend just for fun that one of the Jan 6 rioters who shouted “let’s go get Pence” had actually followed through with their verbal threats (which I’ve seen on video). You think that’s far out? Who knows what Captain Moroni is capable of doing when driven by the Spirit (note: it wasn’t he who shouted that but he was on site)?
* Pretend just for fun that the Republican governors and secretaries of state in Arizona and Georgia go along with Trump’s efforts to halt the election results in those states. Then others catch on. We have an uncertified election.
* Pretend just for fun that Trump’s efforts to control the Justice Department’s rulings on election integrity was successful. We have absolute chaos.
I guess my point is: just because an insurrection didn’t actually happen doesn’t mean it wasn’t attempted in and out of the capitol before and after Jan 6
(I’m a former Reagan Republican)
A Disciple,
According to FBI data, violent crimes per 100,000 people decreased 16% between 2008 and 2016.
Biden has taken steps to increase border security and has added procedures to make migration more orderly from Haiti, Cuba, Nicaragua, and other countries, allowing for families in the US to host migrants from there. Bear in mind that Trump accomplished little to nothing on border security when he was in office. He added a whopping 47 miles of border wall (and Mexico didn’t pay for it either). He couldn’t even convince his party to include funding for a border wall shooting down the government for over a month, and this was when Republicans were a majority in the Senate and House.
Plus border security is more government, isn’t it? And don’t you hate the government?
Disciple,
Your response to my point about insurrection, in brief, appears to be that January 6 wasn’t all that bad and that all administrations break the law. The first point is a subjective judgment, I suppose, and the second point I will concede. Governments break their own rules. It’s a matter of degree, and also how foundational the rule is that they are breaking. So let’s talk about foundational principles of our system. One of them is relinquishing power when your term is over, something your hero George Washington has rightly been praised for doing at a moment in history when there was no real precedent for it.
Trump’s continued claims that he won the last election should be disqualifying for any American who cares about government being chosen by the people. Either he believes what he is saying, in which case he’s not mentally competent to be president, or he doesn’t believe it, in which case he has no respect for the most foundational principles of democracy. I don’t see how you can have much more dangerous a candidate than that.
You also made a point that people tend to see only see the sins of the other party. I agree. It’s why so many Republicans now struggle to admit how problematic Trump is. Romney is one of the few who has been courageous enough to speak out, and I admire him for that. Even worse, if Romney is right, most of his colleagues in the Senate agree with him but are to cowardly to say anything. That is terrifying.
“awful person” vs. “awful policies” is a interesting, and pretty facile distinction to make on Romney’s part, or anyone’s part really
mostly because policy is largely out of anyone’s hands, including presidents
a look over American history and what presidents did or did not do during their respective terms is (with a handful of exceptions) NOT a history of individual guys making fateful decisions that have historical consequences, rather, it’s mostly about the guys in the office who choose to go along with the program or not and thus embody the political and economic trends of their time
we have good examples of this even in recent history, military invasions of the middle east get kicked off in the 90s, and haven’t really gone away, regardless of who is president. The War on Terror, mostly associated with GW Bush, was (by the end of Bush’s second term), massively unpopular, and even when Obama swept into office, it didn’t stop, the amounts of troops and hardware get shuffled around every few years, but it’s still going. We still have troops in Iraq and continue to bomb things in the general area.
Trump cried endlessly about the bad economy, and yet even when in office, rent and cost of living just kept going up, he couldn’t stop stop even if he had wanted to (and I don’t think he did).
Part of Biden’s 2020 campaign was (correctly) casting light on the inhumane conditions that migrants were being held in at the US-Mexico border, “kids in cages’ and all that. Which IS horrific, and needs to end. But that hasn’t gone away, children are still kept in cages at the border. Some facilities were closed and people shuffled around, if anything all that’s happened under Biden’s administration it’s been just moving kids out of federal government property and moving them into cages owned by private prison companies.
we regular people don’t get a lot of say in any of this, nor do the people we (theoretically) elect to represent us, elected officials either get with the program, or they don’t, but they can’t do anything to resist or changed the course of the available programs, they can only get onboard with certain factional interests and accelerate a certain faction of “have’s” getting what they want
and this is also why the framing of the “virtue” of a particular candidate as being really important, is ultimately meaningless. it doesn’t matter if a good guy or bad buy goes to the white house to be president, there’s nothing any individual or even administration can do to significantly alter things, all they can do is choose whether or not they want to attach their brand to it (e.g. Obamacare)
in the interest of full disclosure, and knowing that this will incur down votes, I will say that I was also politically naive as recently as the last election and thought that by voting for Biden we might get that student loan forgiveness that his team dangled out there, or, at the very least, that I’d be voting for harm reduction (all of this is bad, but it could be worse under Trump!), I’ve disabused myself from that notion, and won’t bother to vote in 2024, it’s an empty ritual at this point, and not worth investing the time into. Things are just going to continue to get bad until the whole thing collapses in a few decades or so, and we can start building something better in the post-USA world
I’m not a Democrat, but it always astonishes me how eager Mormon Twitter is for me to leave the Church. The loudest Mormon voices online are working as hard as they possibly can to make the Church smaller. Even if I didn’t believe, I’d probably stick around just to spite them.
Schwimmy: Honestly, I’m not really sure why all the downvotes for your comment, unless it’s people thinking your making an ESH argument (reddit terminology: Everyone Sucks Here). I agree with you on the whole that presidents aren’t kings and can’t do everything they promise. They also don’t really control the economy the way people blame or praise them as if they do. Biden tried on student debt forgiveness, but was overruled by the conservative courts. Legislators could do it, but they don’t have the will. Recent presidents have tried to get around their limitations through ever-increasing numbers of executive orders, but these appear to ebb and flow generationally. FDR signed the most ever, by far (!), but he also had more than 2 terms. In recent presidencies, this is how many executive orders they’ve signed: GW Bush (291 – 145 per term), Obama (276 – 138 per term), Trump (220 – in one term), Biden (115 – in one partial term).
As I see it, the risk with Trump is that he is running on an anti-democratic platform (meaning more unchecked power to the executive branch). It’s the only way to push an agenda that the majority of voters do not want, and unfortunately, that’s where the GOP is right now. He is explicitly campaigning that he will only install loyalists over government agencies, which is unprecedented. His loyalty tests include requiring that they agree with a full ban on abortion (which in reality includes miscarriage treatment and causes maternal deaths), and that the election was stolen. He also has openly stated repeatedly that he reserves the right to stay in office despite the results of voting. Now that didn’t work last time, although I disagree that it wasn’t an insurrection. I guess it was a failed insurrection, but so was the Civil War, eventually. In both cases, people died. Trump repeatedly says things to incite unhinged armed individuals to attack his perceived enemies, and the right is ideologically embracing political violence at unpredecented rates. While it’s true that election fraud is an oft-used refrain by politicians who lose, Trump is the only one who refused to concede when his 63 court cases failed. He still claims, touting conspiracy theories and wishful thinking, that he won when the evidence that he lost is rock solid. That doesn’t matter to him, and the rest of the GOP is too craven to tell the truth (another point the Romney bio makes clear), in part due to fear of reprisal from the unhinged, violent GOP voters. All of this is bad, but even worse is his stance on foreign policy. He plans to withdraw from NATO, clearing the path for Putin to make even further incursions into Europe. Putin’s goals are a return to the greatness of the USSR and Russian Imperialism. Is that really something we want to support?
If he is elected again, the best hope for the future is that he’s very old, just 3 years younger than Biden, and he will not live forever; like Biden, he’s exhibiting signs of cognitive decline. The other hope is that the military will refuse to back him in his inevitable violent attempt to stay in power after his term, but given his plan to fire anyone who is not a loyalist makes it questionable what we can expect the military to do when push comes to shove.
So if you’re cool with all that, I guess feel free not to vote. If not, it looks like we’re doing Groundhog Day 2020 election again. If your point is just that you wish we had better choices, I think most of us would say “me too!” I would personally just like to be sure we have choices again in 2028.
I down voted Schwimmy, even though I agree with him, for one reason. He is giving up voting and not even trying to save the USA. My husband spent 20 years active duty military, and at several points he could have been sent to a war zone and killed. But that was a risk we were willing to take because I think the USA is worth fighting for. So, if it is worth fighting in a war to save it, how much more is it worth getting off your butt and voting to try to save it.
Yes, I think things look just exactly as bleak as he said. Yes, I think a president is pretty helpless to actually change much. But I still think this country is worth fighting for. So, vote damn it.
Schwimmy’s example of Biden’s failure is the student loan forgiveness thing? Really? That’s why you’re never voting again? You do know that the Trumpers on the Supreme Court are the reason that didn’t happen, right? Biden has gone ahead with other alternatives to forgive student loans, and millions have had their loans forgiven, just not as many as Biden first planned.
The vote is for an entire administration. I watch consumer financial news fairly closely. Under Biden, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is chopping down the unfair overdraft fees and late fees charged by banks and credit card companies. The Republicans keep trying to kneecap the CFPB.
Biden is trying to get the IRS fully funded ($80 billion), so the USA can rake in billions of unpaid taxes without even changing the tax laws; just by funding enforcement. Spend $80B on enforcement and bring in $400B in taxes. The Republicans are fighting that tooth and nail. Avoiding the govt shutdown in November cost Biden $20B of that funding, and the new Speaker Mike Johnson is trying to claw back even more of that. If a Republican administration takes over, the IRS will be further gutted, meaning more millionaire and billionaire tax cheats can walk away with their billions in unpaid taxes.
One of the last things Trump did before losing the election was to cancel all diversity, equity and inclusion training for the entire federal workforce. Biden put that back in place almost as soon as he was in office.
You’re not just voting for one person; you’re voting for an entire administration. If you want the CFPB to defend individuals against corporate gouging, if you want the IRS to go after filthy rich tax cheats, then we need a Democratic president. One person isn’t all powerful, but he steers an entire administration.
Am I surprised that the Q15 consulted Mitt Romney regarding the 2020 election? To be honest, I am a bit surprised. Given that the church does not explicitly endorse any candidate, I don’t see the purpose of such a meeting, unless it was as the OP suggested, to give those 15 men permission to vote for a morally degenerate candidate whose immigration/border/refugee policies conflicted with the Church’s public stance on the topic. Am I surprised by Mitt’s diplomatic non-advice? Not really. I think Mitt observed how his dad’s rather outspoken style and unapologetically “liberal” views on key issues (civil rights, the Vietnam war, fair housing policies), rubbed a lot of Republicans the wrong way and stalled out his political career (and maybe even his church “career”).George certainly wasn’t afraid to be seen as disagreeing with Church leaders on the Civil Rights Act (though he did follow the party line on the ERA.
How do the majority of members view the progmos/Democrats in their midst? I am of the opinion that they expect them (us) to make our way out of the Church before the proverbial human waste material hits the proverbial air circulating apparatus. Until then we’re tolerated as long as we keep our opinions to ourselves. I do think there are more closet TBM Democrats then one might expect. I remember going to the 2016 Democratic caucus in Rexburg (yes that exists) and was surprised how well attended it was. Yes, a lot of them were faculty members and students, but there was also a respectable showing from regular members of the community. I overheard a few people saying: “I didn’t know you were a Democrat!” In my current ward, I pretty sure there are a few closet Democrats, fewer right-wing extremists than previous wards, and the rest would consider themselves center right or apolitical. You don’t here a lot of overt Trumpy stuff in Elder’s quorum. This could be that the major industries here where everybody works (at least indirectly ) would not exist without significant federal funding, and they all quitely know this, or it could be the large immigrant population, but I could be wrong. For now, most people in my ward are playing nice.
Schwimmy, you bring up some good points. I’m not sure why all the downvotes. Probably because you said you wouldn’t bother to vote in 2024. However, I think you’re overly cynical. There are some areas where presidents continue the policies of their predecessors from the opposing party. I think you see that in foreign policy especially. Trump started getting us out of Afghanistan and Biden carried it through. Then Trump turned around and criticized Biden for doing what he himself had started. Obama was bombing 7 different countries at one point. Biden and Gavin Newsom both wanted the continuation of Trump’s border policy of Title 42 to help stem the flow of migrants. Biden is adding to the border wall, making a sort of movable wall. Border agents continue to separate kids from their parents at the border.
Still, the differences between the Republicans and Democrats in a number of areas are quite drastic. Democrats expanded healthcare coverage to some 40 million people, where Republicans have had no plan at all to cover the uninsured. Republicans got us into the Iraq War, where Democrats most likely wouldn’t have pushed such a war. Obama managed to persuade Iran to halt nuclear expansion through diplomacy, a monumental achievement. However, because Trump tore up the deal (really for no rhyme or reason other than just to spite Obama and the Democrats) Iran is now closer to a nuclear weapon than they’ve ever been. In fact I attribute Hamas’s Oct. 7 attack on Israel in part to Trump’s reckless foreign policy. Iran showed compliance with the Iran deal. Had the Obama diplomacy continued, it could very well be that Iran may have had more of an incentive to become a cooperative player in Middle Eastern politics. But with Trump tearing up the deal and regularly threatening Iran, even going as far as to assassinate Soleimani, Iran has gone back to pursuing a politics of destabilization in the region, including supplying the Houthis in Yemen and Hamas with weapons. The Democrats are making efforts to cancel student loan debt, even if it faces myriad obstacles from the Republicans. The Democrats are pursuing policies that simply have greater impact on reducing poverty in the US. The Republicans still believe in trickle-down economics, and seemingly much more aggressively than they have in the past. The Democrats have made substantial changes for green energy. The Republicans support policies of pollution and carbon emission. Trump is extremely corrupt and has surrounded himself with corrupt criminals, many of whom have been convicted of crimes.
So yes, the Democrats aren’t able to achieve many of their ideals. On many fronts, it is simply more pragmatic for them to pursue the policies of Republicans. But make no mistake. They are a significantly different party with greatly different platforms. They have been able to bring about consequential change over the past two decades, while the Republicans have sowed massive chaos bringing us the politics of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, and Donald Trump. If Trump wins in 2024, I fear that chaos could submerge the country and do irreparable damage. Even though our individual vote doesn’t count for much, it is a civic duty for each one of us to do so. The stakes are very high in 2024. We must stop this madman from ever seizing the levers of presidential power again. And more and more it appears that the vote is only way we can. The Republican Party won’t do anything to stop Trump. The anti-Trump Republican voters are almost powerless against him in the Republican primaries. The court system is extremely slow and easily disrupted (although Judge Chutkan’s trial shows promise to going through in a timely fashion). The Supreme Court is not trustworthy (Justices Thomas and Alito are corrupt people who have repeated violated court ethics, and quite egregiously so). Plus there is no constitutional provision that stops a convict from running for president and becoming president by winning an election. Trump could get convicted, be sentenced to prison, run his campaign from prison, win the election, pardon himself, and I don’t know if there is anything the courts could do. We must vote like our lives depend on it.
I live in a relatively liberal city in the US. We definitely have a number of hardline conservative members, but there are also a good number of liberals, including those who are traditionally-faithful members. In fact, I’ve heard reports that the ward centered around the university is less welcoming to conservative members—some story about the Sunday School teacher tell the class that women should have the priesthood like it was a fact 🙂 But my stake’s probably an exception.
My eastern ward covers several square miles and several counties, and we have conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, urban and rural, rich and poor, and everywhere in-between. Maybe we’re lucky, but our lessons at church avoid politics. I couldn’t tell you the political leanings of 98% of our active members. I think that we’ve successfully taught the leaders, teachers, and members to keep politics out of our Sunday lessons and services, although we also don’t preach “avoid politics.” It just happens. Our ward has much more ethnic, social, and financial diversity than many LDS wards, so our people know there won’t be an echo chamber. We aren’t perfect, but we seem not to have the terrible situations others recount.
Thanks for this. As a liberal Democrat in a very conservative Utah County ward, I often have to keep my mouth shut, but my ward, for the most part, is unfortunately rather ill-informed about things political. I don’t hear too many wacko conspiracy theories. Most members are still in the now obsolete mode of voting Republican because they have always assumed Democrats to be evil (thanks, Ezra). They just don’t realize what their party has become. And if they do, they lack the courage to leave and do the one thing that would change the GOP—vote Democrat.
I am a Democrat and Woke as all get out. All my Ward and Stake members know how I am and accept that fact. I am a rarity in Florida. There is more of us then most people think. We keep a low profile. LOL!!!!
I have figured out why the progressives and/or Democrats *feel* that conservative fundamental-ish Mormons want them to leave. Because, yes, I felt that way before leaving. It is the rotten potato principle. If you have a cellar full of potatoes and 6 out of 1,000 are rotten, the whole cellar stinks of rotten potatoes. So, while *most* on the ground believing members want the nonbelievers and “librals” to stay and just not cause arguments, there are a verbal few that are rotten potatoes and invite people who question to get out. That stings, and stinks.
As to how many Democrats in Utah county, when I was a kid, the Democratic caucus was at our house in Provo. Two people came. 1960s. Two people and my dad made three Democrats in all of Provo.
Bert, you write that Republicans “lack the courage to leave and do the one thing that would change the GOP—vote Democrat.” I can think of something else that can change the GOP: conservatives voting for non-Trumpist Republicans.
To the original post’s first question, I was surprised to learn here about Romney’s meeting with the Q15 before the 2020 election. I don’t know that it is appropriate for a sitting senator to privately brief any organization about what is happening in Washington. I favor transparency. Why should a sitting senator brief the LDS leaders in SLC, the pope in Rome, the Dali Lama in India, or the leaders of the Southern Baptists, Mennonites, or Lutherans about the upcoming election? A church can hire paid political analysts for this type of briefing. I wonder: did the directive to vote for politicians with the best policies (instead of the best character, which it how it was formerly framed, if I remember correctly) come out before or after Senator Romney told the LDS leaders that the “choice in the 2020 election was between an ‘awful person’ or ‘awful policies'”?
Georgis: If you look through the posts I linked above in the notes about the changes to the political neutrality statements over time (one by Dave B, one by me) you’ll see that the deliberate shift away from character was directly before the 2016 election when Trump was on the ballot, but the shift toward policies started at least 15 years earlier, mostly due to church leaders’ anti-LGBTQ agenda. It’s not a great look. Now, could it be that they thought church members considered Clinton’s character to be the bad one? Or that they thought both had bad characters? Maybe. I know Hillary was vilified all over conservative media, and chants of “Lock her up” and signs that said “Hillary for Prison” were all over the place at the time. Personally, I thought Trump was the one we all could agree had a character problem in the runup to the 2016 election, but conservatives didn’t necessarily see it the same way. They had fewer qualms about “locker room talk” aka openly boasting of sexual assault.
I’m reading several books that I hope help me understand this very dichotomy hawkgrrl introduced: what it means to be a truly faithful, Christ/Heavenly Mother & Father Gospel adherent as a political participant. I too am reading Coppins’ book about Romney, in my quest to understand how one can act as a Church member in one way publicly and in another way behind closed doors. And still proclaim to have a testimony of and adherence to the Gospel of the Living Christ. And how to my convert mind and soul of 45 plus years, this type of behaviour is so disingenuous.
Juxtapose my experience in the Romney book with one of the other books I’m currently reading: Russell Moore’s “Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America”. Those that don’t know Moore’s background, please google him. Succinctly, he is a former major influencer in the Southern Baptist Conference movement who has stepped away since the advent of Trump and Trumpism.
I’m reading this book and if I didn’t know better, feel many times that the thoughts and guidance of the book are directed not just to American Evangelicals but to many if not most Christians, LDS and religious/moral believers of our country. Real nuanced guidance that I can as a Latter-day Saint apply to my current mindset as I strive to engage with my family, ward and community (Amarillo, TX).
In short, Moore recommends an understanding of what exactly is transpiring via some of those who wish to lead us in country, congregation and family and counteract their misdirected influence with strong, humble, continued Christlike pushback engagement. He testifies this could and may well through Grace help those around us who have been mislead by the fallacies and conspiracies of today’s society due to the current direction of the GOP (which in reality has been 70 plus years in the making ((Joseph McCarthy/McCarthyism))
And as I’ve been reading and meditating about the book’s content, my frequent refrain is: “Why don’t I receive this type of council/advice at General Conference, stake conference and/or at my ward pulpit and Church class instruction?
I know I already left a lengthy comment, but just a an aside, I wonder if there are any Progressive Evangelicals who have managed to stay in their congregations and feel welcome there. I personally don’t know any Evangelicals who are also Democrats. The only public figures I know of who might be considered “Evangelical” are the Carters (former president and first lady, God rest her soul). I don’t know their specific denomination, but I’m sure it’s not of the mainline liberal variety and seems to be part of a more spiritually charismatic tradition. Surely no one is going to question the sincere Christian conviction of the Carters given their decades of philanthropy and being very active in their local church…. right? Do Democrats have to work extra hard at being Christian to prove that they are Christian? This seems to be the case. Not that they are trying to prove anything, but this may be how it looks to their Republican peers. I can’t remember which Kennedy son started the Special Olympics, but he seems to have leaned heavily into his Catholic upbringing as informing his work around inclusivity and compassion over the years. The Kennedys always seemed to have the burden of convincing Americans that they were truly Christian. It’s sad how the Religious Right has become the gatekeeper of Christian identity in the United States. The only requirements seems to be to vote Republican, focus on eschatology and sexual “purity,” and exclude demonize everyone else. When it comes do actually doing the things that Christ modeled like the examples above…meh. Take or leave it. Just don’t be a Democrat.
grew up in UT, left after graduating from college and have spent my adult years living on the west and east coasts. Mostly, we’ve had conservative church leaders wherever we’ve lived.
One ward we attended, east coast, a ward member approached the 2nd counselor in the bishopric and said to him “what are you doing about that car in the parking lot—that one with the sticker?” Puzzled, the counselor asked him to point out what car he was talking about? The member pointed to the car that had a bumper sticker “Vote Democratic.”
Little did the ward member (or we know) that he was pointing out the bishopric counselor’s father’s car, (who also was a ward member).
and that the father was the local precinct leader of the Democratic Party.
I also remember being registered as an Independent for awhile which allowed me to vote in Republican primaries. But, in some states one cannot vote as an unaffiliated ( neither registered as Democratic or Republican) voter.
In response to Mat’s comment about the Special Olympics-this was founded by a Kennedy DAUGHTER, Eunice Kennedy Shriver, whose sister Rosemary was intellectually disabled. In 1963 Kennedy Shriver, then head of the Joseph P. Kennedy Jr. Foundation and a member of JFK’s Panel on Mental Retardation, started a yearly camp and encouraged universities, recreation departments and community centers to hold similar camps, with funding from the Kennedy Foundation. The first Special Olympics games were in 1968. While the Kennedy family’s Catholicism may have played a role, their experiences with their sister, as well as supportive research from doctors and educators in the late 1950s and early 1960s, was equally (if not more) influential.
Lois: We moved during the pandemic to a different part of town that was about 10% more Trumpy in the election results. What I found alarming was the percentage of cars in the church parking lot with First Responder license plates. Now I realize that “first responders” include all sorts of jobs: ERs, fire fighters, etc., but at the time, it felt a whole lot like “Blue Lives Matter” plates to me.
Tygan: Your university-centric ward experience sounds similar to where I grew up back east. Several families in the ward were associated with the local college (where I had my first job), and they were all liberal (old school democrats more than progressives). I was accustomed to hearing the gospel through the lens of lifting the poor, not expecting the poor to lift themselves, welcoming immigrants, not policing immigrants, equal partnership in marriages, not complementarian marriages.
I think we see these puritanical purging tendencies everywhere these days, and the Mormons are no exception. We’ve got cancel culture, increasing polarization, and populism on the rise. Many people on both sides don’t trust anyone who claims to be moderate or in the middle. I hate everything about it.
The party lines are often pretty arbitrary and don’t always make logical sense – the industrial complex surrounding the blue vs red fight has a lot to gain from the rivalry. It’s Coke vs Pepsi – both are almost exactly the same product, but the bitter rivalry gives both sides huge amounts of money and power. Neither is particularly interesting without the other, and the political rivalry is doing an immense amount of societal damage.
I’ve essentially turned my attention away from partisan politics and have tried to focus my energy and resources on things like non-partisan voter reform…it’s (unfortunately) often a lonely place to be.
I respect Romney for trying to remain reasonable and moderate in most situations and then being astute enough to recognize times when he may not have been. I feel much the same way about Barack Obama. While there are certainly areas where I would disagree with both of them, I respect both as leaders and would be pretty comfortable trusting either as president (which is obviously impossible for Obama now, and very improbable for Romney)
I can honestly say that I’ve rarely experienced politics at church. Once was about ten years ago when we were visiting my parents ward and the Gospel Doctrine teacher made a couple of “jokes” where the punch line was “Democrats”. But when he did it, he was always looking at the specific member and it had the feeling of a running gag. Afterwards a sister in the ward tore him a new one. In my current ward the closest thing that happens is there is an old man who will occasionally make “kids these days” type of comments which have an air of Fox News talking points, but it’s not that bad. And I think that he gets discouraged when he notices that no one is chiming in with him. He did make it a point in his testimony once about how Sunday has felt more holy to him once he decided to stop watching Fox News on Sundays. His wife concurred that it was a good change.
I recently left Twitter. It is a hellscape of insanity. In LDS world it’s mostly ex/anti mos who are angry, belittling, and rude, not to be outdone by the, DezNat defenders, who are equally bad or worse. I put zero trust in a twitter poll on anything related to politics or the church.. I do know that the Q15 is very concerned about the number of members that are heading down the right-wing extremist path. The challenge is how to address US based problems in a global church. I know they struggle with that. Frankly, write them. Tell them your thoughts. I know they listen and care. Don’t send long diatribes, but honest thoughtful letters of concern to your favorite apostle. There is not a right winger among the Q15. The ETB era is long gone. And, I can tell you that one of them privately has called Mike oh captain my captain Moroni Lee a twit, whose own father would not vote for him.
As to Mitt’s meeting I don’t think it is fair to say they were seeking Mitt’s advice rather more his observations. Remember their man in DC for years, in getting things done was not Orrin Hatch (who apparently had visions of fulfilling the White Horse Prophecy (according to Mitt’s book), it was the villifield, by fellow LDS, Harry Reid. They supported Harry privately in his reelection. One of the Q12 had a area conference just prior to Harry’s last election. It was a tight election. The apostle said in the prayer meeting that he wanted Harry to be recognized (I can’t recall if it was just an acknowledgement that he was there, a testimony, or what). The story was told to me directly by the apostle involved. In the prayer meeting someone objected and the apostle said he was happening over the objection. The apostle told me that it was a close election and that could have put Harry over the line. My point is don’t be too harsh on your judgement of the Q15 and assumptions of their politics.
I was not aware the the Church’s Political Neutrality statement had removed “character” as a qualification for elected office. Although, I find that disappointing I don’t think in anyway it is a subtle message that it ok to vote for a morally bankrupt Trump.
I grew up in the Mormon Corridor but have lived my adult/professional life in the East. Not once in my ward have I heard an overt political statement in church. I would guess our ward is probably a 50/50 split between R and D. Maybe only a couple of right wingers who are very quiet. It’s a political oasis. I pray for all you folks living in places were the right wingers and making a resurgence. Be calm and write your fav apostle!
PIRATE PRIEST, You might look at some things from the Australian systems when looking at voting reforms.
1. We have an independent electoral commision, who not only conduct the election, and count the vote, they also set the boundaries. They conduct state and federal elections, and even union elections.
2. We have preferential voting. In the voting cubicle you number the candidates in the order you prefer. When counted if your #1 is not elected your vote is passed on to your #2 until your vote counts.
Some thoughts that might be useful.
Theology attempts to dictate to the masses “WHAT” they should think & believe. Religion guilty of many and repeated war crimes against the species of Man-Kind. This track record hardly qualifies these vile disgusting authority religious figures – the right to dictate “WHAT” people, through the generations, should “THINK” or “BELIEVE”. Both Xtianity and Islam guilty of the Shoah. Theology stinks of death. Whether it be the Nicene Creed or the strict Monotheism of Islam. Both examples: trash abominations of faith.
The tohor commandment which established the mitzva for a Cohen to marry a virgin. Equally, Leviticus 21:14, the reverse tohor commandment prohibits the Cohen to marry a widow, or divorced or raped woman.
The Torah defines faith as: the pursuit of Justice. Not the belief in this or that God(s). The counterfeit new testament duplicates the sin of the Golden Calf as likewise does the Muslim koran! Aaron translated the 1st commandment Sinai revelation of the living Spirit Name, to the “WORD” אלהים. Bad translations, as useful as tits on a boar hog.
The term Golden Calf, a word-metaphor. The Torah speaks in the language of Man. The bible corrupt translations understand this word-metaphor literally. In Hebrew such an obvious error known as טיפש פשט roughly translated as “bird brained stupidity”. Aaron translated the living Spirit Name, revealed in the first Sinai commandment to the “WORD” אלהים|Gods. This living Spirit Name simply NOT a word that the lips of Man can easily form and readily pronounce; as if this living Spirit Name compares to a graven image, or an idol chiselled out from a block of wood or stone.
Both fraud scriptures – new testament and koran – translate this living Spirit Name, which Human lips cannot pronounce due to the fact that the Human mouth cannot articulate living Spirits as if this living Spirits exist on an equal plane as words written on a chalk board. The translated words for God, they profane both the 1st & 2nd Sinai commandments. Word translations of the living Spirit Name, whether Lord, Allah, Jehova, Yahweh, etc., these “Golden Calves” all and equally worship other Gods. Just as the theological belief decreed by Islam’s strict Monotheism violates the 2nd Sinai Commandment. If only one God, then the 2nd Commandment – totally in vain.
The fraud, new testament and koran, both stand upon cracked and utterly worthless foundations. The lie: ”sister religions”, nothing other than complete and total non-sense religious rhetoric propaganda; on par with parents telling their young children that Santa Claus will give them their hearts-desires on that pagan Yule – winter solstice - famous festival day of celebration. Or the belief system that promises that some imaginary God will return and take believers to heaven in the future. Fanatically held beliefs can no more convert a lie into the truth than can Medieval alchemists turn lead into gold, by means of some imaginary mythical Philosopher’s stone.
Mocker, you probably have a message amid all of your words, but I can’t figure it out. Communication is more about what your reader understands than that words you utter. I don’t think that there’s too much communication happening from your post. May I recommend that you re-write it, thinking about who the reading audience is here? Use words that this group understands: most people here don’t speak Hebrew. You write, for example: “The tohor commandment which established the mitzva for a Cohen to marry a virgin.” What, in English, is a tohor, a mitzva, or a Cohen? Sometimes a verb helps, as standard English generally avoids fragmented sentences. If you want people to understand you, then you have to write understandably, and I respectfully don’t think that you do. There is one thing that I can figure out: you appear to be full of hate and anger against Christians and Muslims, but you certainly do not suggest where truth can be found. If it can be found in Judaism, you do not appear to be showing the way. If you are only spewing forth hate, then you aren’t encouraging dialogue, and at this site people generally seek to encourage dialogue.