Former Stake President managing MormonThink

[_why me]

As Romney is now history and the flurry of the 'Mormon Moment' is fading, MormonThink will get back to the basics of providing information on Mormon issues that are of interest to a great deal of Mormons.

So you admit that you used Romney for your own purposes? That is good of you. Yes, now you go go back to the same old and hope for the best. You must be very disappointed that Romney did not win.

[_Darth J]

Why Me:

Give an example of a factual statement on Mormon Think that is false.

Alternatively, give an example of a conclusion drawn from factual statements on Mormon Think and explain why the conclusion is wrong.

Note: I mean logically wrong, not "because it says the Church isn't true" wrong.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Why Me:

Give an example of a factual statement on Mormon Think that is false.

I had extensive discussion of this issue on this very challenge on the other board. (I don't characterize theological discussion as "false" or "lying," but rather incorrect or inaccurate.") My blog discussion, now not too relevant, is at:

http://randomrunner.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -politics/

[_Darth J]

Why Me:

Give an example of a factual statement on Mormon Think that is false.

I had extensive discussion of this issue on this very challenge on the other board. (I don't characterize theological discussion as "false" or "lying," but rather incorrect or inaccurate.") My blog discussion, now not too relevant, is at:

http://randomrunner.wordpress.com/2012/ ... -politics/

Your blog is overstating what Twede said about a potential Romney presidency, and in any event what Twede said was a prediction, not a conclusion.

Your blog says this: "David Twede’s mormonthink.com site is inaccurate in the way it portrays Church involvement in politics and the way it suggests that Romney, as a “high priest”, will need Church approval and get his direction from Church leaders."

That is not really what Twede said. Twede said the LDS Church has meddled in certain issues, but there is little evidence that the Church has tried to directly tried to influence individuals holding office in modern times. He was stating that the President of the United States is orders of magnitude greater than any other office a Mormon has ever held, so it is an open question whether the Church would try to influence him.

http://mormonthink.com/politics.htm

"However, besides speaking out on moral issues, we see from history, its leaders have acted unfavorably on issues such as Nazism, race, and women’s rights. Likewise it does spend money on platforms against gay rights, like California’s Proposition 8. It has censored and held court for members with outspoken political ideology not aligned to its agenda. It has even, further in its past, curtailed the political careers of those that dare run without its approval. Yet, the evidence that it presently & directly meddles with LDS members of Congress or of the bench is very minimal.

Then again, the Mormon Church has never seen an LDS Commander in Chief, despite wishing for it since the inception of its sect. One never knows what may occur when the White House is filled by a White Horse contender."

There is also nothing in your blog post that appears to be substantively different from what Twede says about the Church's involvement in politics, except that you omit any mention of members who have been excommunicated for publicly disagreeing with the Church on political issues. Here is a search on Mormon Think for Mitt Romney:

http://mormonthink.com/search-results.h ... F&ref=&ss=

Based on what the site actually says, your statement, "But, Mr. Twede has only a superficial understanding of the Church’s involvement in politics to suggest that a conspiracy is afoot to thwart opposition to Mitt Romney" appears to be a straw man.

[_Yahoo Bot]

My blog stands.

Twede's entry was entirely calculated to lead one to the conclusion that the Mormon Church would influence Romney as president.

Twede asserted directly, at least in the version I saw when I wrote my blog (he may have changed it after seeing mine), that the Church was in the business of influencing elections of officials -- citing the Nauvoo experience chiefly.

If he didn't say these things, he can come here and deny it. But I don't copy wholesale blog entries in mine. In retrospect, I should have quoted the offensive entries but too late.

So, the version I saw was incorrect and inaccurate in many respects.

This entry you highlight I can comment upon: "One never knows what may occur when the White House is filled by a White Horse contender." This is an excellent of example of offering an opinion by raising questions. He raises the question, and then the tenor of the post is to offer the conclusion. It is a particularly offensive form of rhetoric that I detest, because it is disingenuous. It is further disingenuous for you to contend that he is offering no opinion.

There should be no doubt that after reading his entry, Twede contends that the Church intended to influence Romney's election and further intended to influence him during his presidency. (Keeping in mind that the Pope has threatened to excommunicate politicians who vote in support of abortion or capital punishment.)

[_LDS truthseeker]

There should be no doubt that after reading his entry, Twede contends that the Church intended to influence Romney's election and further intended to influence him during his presidency. (Keeping in mind that the Pope has threatened to excommunicate politicians who vote in support of abortion or capital punishment.)

Well, there is precedent that the church has in the past tried to influence government officials:

1964: Apostle urges Mormon governor to oppose African-American civil rights

Current Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney's father, George Romney, spoke in favor of the Civil Rights movement while he was governor of Michigan. In response, Mormon apostle Delbert Stapely wrote him a letter (PDF link) which urged him, in an unofficial capacity, to consider "the curse upon the Negro" and the "very tragic end by drowning" met by another Mormon advocate of civil rights. The church would not allow black men to hold its priesthood until 1978.

Letter written by apostle to Gov. George Romney: http://www.boston.com/news/daily/24/delbert_stapley.pdf


Here's a story about five Senators and eight House Members are attempting to USE THEIR OFFICES to influence governments on behalf of the Mormon church.
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/7000 ... rland.html


Here's a few more times the church tried to monkey with politics:
http://news.yahoo.com/mormon-political- ... 00079.html

So is it really a stretch for anyone to suggest the possibility that the church might influence a LDS president?

[_Darth J]

My blog stands.

Okay. Jeffrey R. Holland said that the Book of Mormon still stands, too. So to the extent that "stands" means "continues to exist and the words it contains can be read," you are both right about your respective topics.

Twede's entry was entirely calculated to lead one to the conclusion that the Mormon Church would influence Romney as president.

That isn't a conclusion. It is a prediction. A prediction cannot be falsified until after the fact. All you can speak to is why the prediction is reasonable or unreasonable.

Twede asserted directly, at least in the version I saw when I wrote my blog (he may have changed it after seeing mine), that the Church was in the business of influencing elections of officials -- citing the Nauvoo experience chiefly.

If he didn't say these things, he can come here and deny it. But I don't copy wholesale blog entries in mine. In retrospect, I should have quoted the offensive entries but too late.

So, the version I saw was incorrect and inaccurate in many respects.

Well the version that exists now doesn't have all that, which suggests that your blog does not stand because it does not address what is currently there. (Perhaps that would mean your blog "stood.")

This entry you highlight I can comment upon: "One never knows what may occur when the White House is filled by a White Horse contender." This is an excellent of example of offering an opinion by raising questions. He raises the question, and then the tenor of the post is to offer the conclusion. It is a particularly offensive form of rhetoric that I detest, because it is disingenuous. It is further disingenuous for you to contend that he is offering no opinion.

I didn't say he isn't offering an opinion. I said he is offering an opinion other than the one you attribute to him. It is not particularly compelling for you to call me or him disingenuous when you are not accurately representing what either of us has said. You are claiming he thinks there is a conspiracy to influence Romney and that it is a foregone conclusion that the Church will tell him what to do. The entry on Mormon Think that I saw offers the opinion that it is uncertain whether the Church would try to, not that it will for sure try to.

But for fun, let's say without evidence that he did read your blog and decided to change his original assertions based on what you offered. Why would reading superior information and correcting your opinion accordingly be disingenuous? You're not showing how his conclusion is unreasonable (that we can't be sure how the Church would act). You've just said you don't like it. Twede explicitly acknowledges a dearth of evidence of the Church trying to directly influence government officials in modern times.

There should be no doubt that after reading his entry, Twede contends that the Church intended to influence Romney's election and further intended to influence him during his presidency. (Keeping in mind that the Pope has threatened to excommunicate politicians who vote in support of abortion or capital punishment.)

I'm not interested in your tu quoque about Catholics, which only exacerbates the issue of organized religion influencing government officers. If the Church's speaking out on political issues is not meant to influence members---including Mitt Romney---then what exactly is the point of the Church speaking out on political issues?

[_why me]

Why Me:

Give an example of a factual statement on Mormon Think that is false.

Alternatively, give an example of a conclusion drawn from factual statements on Mormon Think and explain why the conclusion is wrong.

Writing is about intent and bias and interpretation.In the case of MT the intent and bias is against the LDS church. And the interpretation that they give to doctrine and history betrays such intent and bias. Thus, the problem.

[_why me]

Based on what the site actually says, your statement, "But, Mr. Twede has only a superficial understanding of the Church’s involvement in politics to suggest that a conspiracy is afoot to thwart opposition to Mitt Romney" appears to be a straw man.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but if my memory serves me well, the board of MT was considering how to proceed after it was announced that Twede would have a church court appearance. One choice that the board had was to go to the media. And this is the choice they made when they approached the liberal media with a Romney angle for Twede's court appearance. Did the board mislead the media, if my memory is serving me well? I think so.

[_why me]

If the Church's speaking out on political issues is not meant to influence members---including Mitt Romney---then what exactly is the point of the Church speaking out on political issues?

There is nothing wrong with a church speaking out on political or social issues. In fact, a church has an obligation to do so. And the Mormon church is no different. The problem comes when these issues come up against members who have the opposite belief system. The LDS church is conservative on social issues and if a member is liberal on social issues, a problem develops. And when one is a critic of the LDS church, it becomes natural to become liberal on social issues to moan about the LDS church stance.