LDS Church and Mitt Romney: No Meddling in Politics?

[_Jason Bourne]

Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

(emphasis added)

Boy, I sure do hate being right. Let the smearing commence!

Gee what smear. Just because he did not believe. And you sir are just as quick to swallow it whole and smear the apologist. You in fact are their mirror.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow... What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot

Were this the 19th century or early 20th I may agree. Other then ERA, Utah liquor issues and Gay marriage, all claimed to be moral issues by the LDS Church I think you may be hard pressed to back up this comment.

No need, Jason, since you just did it for me. Thanks for that, my friend.

Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

Do you really believe this. Let's suppose for a moment it is true. I highly doubt Romney would be dumb enough to so casually admit it. If he is that dumb then he certainly should not be president.

He didn't just "admit it", at least not according to the interview. The interview suggests that he and Sister Dushku were friends, and that she pressed him on why he'd taken a certain position. Besides, are you advocating that he lie about being essentially a puppet for the Brethren?

On a sidenote: Has this interview been posted on MAD? I would be interested in seeing how the Mopologists (predictably) go about smearing Sister Dushku.

Probably in a similar way you just smeared Romney and LDS Church leaders.

Except, of course, that I did not smear them. I did not call them liars or any such thing (unlike you and the Nehor, both of whom call Sis. Dushku's veracity into question). I merely said that the possibility of such a gross violation of the separation of church and state is very troubling. Also disturbing is the thought that M. Romney needs to ask permission from the Brethren in order to take a stand on an issue. Is that a direct attack or a smear on anyone's character? No; I don't think it is.

[_Mister Scratch]

Anyone else finding this hard to swallow after reading the whole interview?

(emphasis added)

Boy, I sure do hate being right. Let the smearing commence!

Gee what smear. Just because he did not believe. And you sir are just as quick to swallow it whole and smear the apologist. You in fact are their mirror.

Come now, Jason. I think that you and I know the real truth. Mopologists have been struggling mightily to convince everyone that Mitt is not in the Brethren's collective pocket. They want everyone to remember the example set by Pres. Kennedy. Did JFK do the bidding of the Pope? Did he have to confer with the Vatican regarding the Bay of Pigs? I don't think so. It turns out that the prying into Romney's religious affiliation is more important than the Mopologists would have us believe.

[_Jason Bourne]

Except, of course, that I did not smear them. I did not call them liars or any such thing (unlike you and the Nehor, both of whom call Sis. Dushku's veracity into question). I merely said that the possibility of such a gross violation of the separation of church and state is very troubling.

Sorry Mister Scratch. You said:

What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot! Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

You really think blanket accepting of one interview and what you then said above without any substantiation is not a smear? The recent issues were moral issues. Do you honestly think Romney's chain will be tugged by SLC central?

Also disturbing is the thought that M. Romney needs to ask permission from the Brethren in order to take a stand on an issue. Is that a direct attack or a smear on anyone's character? No; I don't think it is.

I think you did more then say it was disturbing.
pretty sneaky" and "endorse hypocritical politics" is a smear.

[_Mister Scratch]

Except, of course, that I did not smear them. I did not call them liars or any such thing (unlike you and the Nehor, both of whom call Sis. Dushku's veracity into question). I merely said that the possibility of such a gross violation of the separation of church and state is very troubling.

Sorry Mister Scratch. You said:

What a stunning anecdote! TBMs have long been trying to claim that the Brethren do not dictate politics, and yet here we have a pretty clear indication that they not only do involve themselves in pretty sneaky ways, but that they endorse doctrinally hypocritical politics to boot! Many people, both LDS and non-LDS, ought to seriously question just how much of an individual Mitt actually is as a politician. That he would feel the need to ask permission to hold certain views is very, very troubling.

You really think blanket accepting of one interview and what you then said above without any substantiation is not a smear?

What are you talking about? That *is* the substantiation, my friend! And, moreover, you yourself pointed out that the Brethren have a history of meddling in politics. Finally, it is not a "smear" if it is true, now is it?

The recent issues were moral issues.

What does this mean? Are you therefore saying that it will be okay for the Church to manipulate Romney so long as it sticks to "moral issues"?

Do you honestly think Romney's chain will be tugged by SLC central?

The above interview certainly seems to suggest that this is a (rather frightening) possibility.

Also disturbing is the thought that M. Romney needs to ask permission from the Brethren in order to take a stand on an issue. Is that a direct attack or a smear on anyone's character? No; I don't think it is.

I think you did more then say it was disturbing.
pretty sneaky" and "endorse hypocritical politics" is a smear.

Well, given the accounts of Hinckley & et. al.'s doings in the ERA affair, I think that "sneaky" is quite an apt descriptor. Further, we know full well that Mormon leaders have flip-flopped on politics, or endorsed positions and people which ran contrary to doctrine. So, once more: it is not a "smear" if it is true. And, the only way this Romney tidbit cannot be true is if Sis. Dushku is a liar. That's a pretty stiff charge you're leveling at her, Jason. In fact, since you cannot prove it is true, I reckon that it is a smear. ; )

[_Trevor]

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

Judy Dushku is a professor of government and the mother of actress Eliza Dushku. She was in Mitt Romney's ward when he served as bishop. According to Dushku, she and Romney had a falling out over his insistence that a female member of his ward not seek an abortion for the sake of her personal health. When he switched to pro-choice in his platform, she contacted him about meeting to discuss what she thought was a good decision on his part. From her account, Romney pretty much admitted in this meeting that he was switching because he could not win as a pro-lifer. Once again, according to Dushku, Romney said that the Brethren essentially gave him the go ahead, since they realized how unlikely it could be to oppose abortion in such a politically liberal state and win public office there.

I see no reason to disbelieve what she is saying about him running by the whole pro-choice thing with the Brethren, since it is a sensitive issue that at least one BYU prof lost her job over. On the other hand, I cannot say with certainty that it is true, because anyone else who could corroborate this story has no interest in doing so. You either trust Dushku on this or not. I see nothing outlandish to disbelieve. After all, Jason, could this not be considered a "moral" issue by the Brethren and Romney?

As for the media outlet it is found in, well, that does not look like a very mainstream, trustworthy organ. It is clear that the interviewer has a much more slanted perspective and a giant double-headed axe to grind. I tend to believe Dushku also because she did not go for the bait to assent to the interviewer's rather off-the-wall accusations against the LDS Church.

Edit: I should also add that Dushku remains active in the LDS Church.

[_Trevor]

Well, given the accounts of Hinckley & et. al.'s doings in the ERA affair, I think that "sneaky" is quite an apt descriptor. Further, we know full well that Mormon leaders have flip-flopped on politics, or endorsed positions and people which ran contrary to doctrine. So, once more: it is not a "smear" if it is true. And, the only way this Romney tidbit cannot be true is if Sis. Dushku is a liar. That's a pretty stiff charge you're leveling at her, Jason. In fact, since you cannot prove it is true, I reckon that it is a smear. ; )

Yeah, that ERA thing. From my perspective that is a black mark on the LDS Church's record in politics. I frankly do not see how ERA was a moral issue, and I think many LDS women who were sent to oppose it ended up feeling ashamed of what they had done, especially when they saw how sincere and decent many of the non-LDS women supporters of ERA were.

But, to return to the point at hand, I think the LDS Church has been drooling on itself to have a Mormon in the Oval Office. I am sure they will bend whatever rules they can without getting caught to make it happen. The whole Elder Holland episode is a decent example of how they were willing to step over the line to get Mitt in there. I would not be surprised if the idea of putting Mitt in the presidency has been on the agenda for some time. After all, his father wanted to be there, and he looks like a promising candidate in many ways.

Am I surprised that he has consulted with them on issues? No! I am certain he has. The position he took on the federal government's past interference with Mormon polygamy is a fine example of how this guy literally sold his grandmother to back up the LDS Church in its unprincipled fight against gay marriage. I don't think it is a simple coincidence that he and Hatch took the same position at the same time. They were told to do so. So am I supposed to doubt that he earlier consulted them about his position on abortion? Puhhlease!!!

Do I fear Mitt Romney as president? Probably less than I fear George W. Bush, since I think this turd of a president has fattened the mega-wealthy, eroded our civil rights, and practically destroyed our credibility in the international community. Can Mitt do worse? I really don't want to find out, but I kind of doubt it. But, what we need is someone who will take us in a new and better direction. I am not looking to Mitt Romney, child of privilege and authoritarian Mormon culture, to do that.

[_Gazelam]

Why would Mitt Romney even want to meet with Eliza Dukshus mom, or give a ratts ass what her opinion of him was?

[_Blixa]

I have a close friend who knew Judy Dushku pretty well at one point (and used to baby-sit Eliza). IRC, she was a convert, and converted to marry her second husband. Of course I may not be remembering that correctly. My friend said she was very much a liberal feminist which made my friend wonder about how she was LDS.

On the topic of the ERA: I lived that one. Up close and personal. It was the one of the ugliest times I've ever experienced. "The Church's" wielding of power on that one was absoutely brutal.

[_Trevor]

Why would Mitt Romney even want to meet with Eliza Dukshus mom, or give a ratts ass what her opinion of him was?

When, now? Or when he was her bishop? I should think that as her bishop he probably would have wanted to meet with her on occasion. I don't see the problem here.

If you are suggesting she made the whole thing up, including ever having met with Romney, I would say you need to be a little more realistic.