Comments on: DKL’s Analysis of GOP Political Activity

By: Matthew Hayes

Matthew Hayes — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:45:37 +0000

It would be a great help to show the world that mormons are not racists anymore and that the issue is all behind us. But he won’t off course since they already have plenty of foreigners from latin america and one apostle from Germany.

By: Mormon Mentality - Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People » Wrong Again: McCain beats Romney

Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:57:25 +0000

[...] regret that I must admit defeat in both of my two-part response to my earlier prediction of the outcome of the events of the past week. Even so, being wrong in the past hasn’t stopped any of the professional political [...]

By: queuno

queuno — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 18:49:38 +0000

I’ll see Carlos’ conspiracy theory that the Brethren aren’t helping Romney’s case, and raise it. Maybe the Brethren don’t want Romney to be president. Maybe he’s supposed to be a mission president over the China Beijing Mission that they are going to announce in 2 years, that will eventually quadruple the membership of the Church. You heard it here first.

(But seriously … maybe the Brethren have surveyed the situation and want Guiliani to win the presidency, despite their stated claims of neutrality. And Monson is conducting sessions with Guiliani trying to tell him how to tell better anecdotes.)

By: queuno

queuno — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:52:14 +0000

So what does it mean for Romney? Again, I really don’t think he needs to offer an opinion. But if he were to state, “I think it was racism from old leaders and I’m glad that it was rescinded”, I just don’t think any current members of the Church would really be all that offended.

And I think that in another 15 years, the average joe will care even less than he does now.

By: queuno

queuno — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 06:47:35 +0000

One of the security guards at my firm is a black man, newly baptized in the Church (2 weeks). (Another Mormon coworker and I figured this out when we were going through his security station this past week to enter a secure area, and he had the Book of Mormon and the new JS manual open on his desk.)

We chatted about his baptism and his experiences for a few moments, particularly his experiences with his mother, who attends one of the big prominent Baptist megachurches. My coworker asked if he had any issues with the Church’s reputation. His comment was interesting — that while he had heard of the history, he considered it history, that he joined the Church because he prayed and received a witness, that in his mind, the lifting of the ban *30* years ago is an eternity in his perspective, that the ban was irrelevant to his life today (being younger than 30). He also knows African members of the Church who spoke highly of it. He also is very pleased with Hinckley’s statement a couple of conferences ago.

I really don’t consider the apostles actions “mistakes” in this area. I think at some point you have to move forward and stop picking at the scab. *NOTHING* that the apostles could do at this point is going to make any situation regarding the ban better or worse. Hinckley took the opportunity to speak on it a few years ago — and you can argue that Hinckley is the most PR-savvy president this Church has *ever* had.

Do they err? Sure. But from a PR standpoint, I don’t think that anything they could do could make things any better.

My new work friend thinks that for black men under 30 (like him), it’s a non-issue. I’m sure others may disagree with me. I’m just one citing the perspective of one new convert.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 05:47:53 +0000

queuno:
“I really don’t think that the leaders at the highest levels of the Church are too concerned about racial perceptions of the Church”

I agree with you there, the leadership just don’t care about perceptions of being a racists organization. They say ‘the Lord changed this in ‘78 so its over’ and totally ignore what others opinions are, which is mistake in my book.
They do look at what the world thinks in almost every other area.

By: queuno

queuno — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 02:01:56 +0000

I’m glad the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 don’t engage in racial quotas and call new leaders in an effort to appease the world. And, I was open about the fact (on a T&S thread) that I favored calling a latino apostle were it my druthers, but ultimately, I was quite OK with whatever was decided.

I really don’t think that the leaders at the highest levels of the Church are too concerned about racial perceptions of the Church. I think they have more important things to worry about.

By: Margaret Young

Margaret Young — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 23:40:39 +0000

ARJ–YES. The fact that my husband was in a stake presidency did actually lead us to not be vocal or visual about our support for–whoever we supported. If I lived somewhere else, it would not have been an issue.

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:31:07 +0000

Margaret,

Giuliani will NOT be the Republican nominee. It will either be John McCain or Mike Huckabee, depending on how much revolt there is against the evangelicals in the Republican party. It will also not be Mitt Romney. The problem Mr. Romney has is his shifting of his views. It is sticking to him for a lot longer than he hoped. He hoped that he would have broken that label by constant repetitive marketing, but alas, in politics, once you get that label, it is hard to come off. Mitt Romney has the additional problem of religion. Mike Huckabee is the natural choice for those who might have questions about Romney’s faith. They see two candidates with similar positions and go with the one they are more comfortable with. Mitt Romney cannot buy into those voters.

In New Hampshire, John McCain will be the winner. In South Carolina, Mike Huckabee will be the winner. In Florida, Mike Huckabee will be the winner. In Michigan, John McCain will be the winner. What you will find is a split among the voters between the evangelical and the anti-evangelical. It should be interesting which way the overall party goes.

But one way it will NOT go is to Rudy Giuliani. McCain is the safer bet for those who preferred Giuliani, who has scandal after scandal roped around his neck like a millstone. Who wants a president who looks like he prefers criminal lawless loyalists over law-abiding people? Just look at the overall numbers. Mike Huckabee is leading now, nationally, followed by McCain.

It doesn’t matter though what happens on the Republican side. The nominees are overall terrible. Whoever ends up being the Republican nominee will be trounced in November because the Republican brand is attached to everything bad under the Bush administration.

Mitt Romney should have remained the moderate he has been all his life. I know I say that over and over, but it is so true. He would not have had the problem he is facing now if he just remained a moderate. In fact, he would have come out the victor.

By: Carlos

Carlos — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 08:40:30 +0000

Queuno – true GBH may not care about Romneys chances but I meant that he could end this perceived racism towards african americans by the church, by calling 2 or 3 blacks to the GA ranks, that is a 2nd or 1st Quorum. It would help to show the world that mormons aren’t racists anymore and that the issue is all behind us. But he won’t off course since they already have plenty of foreigners from latin america and one apostle from Germany -very white dude.