Replies

Luke, I’ve made it quite clear that I disagree with the theological premises of the LDS, but the questions have to be obvious. Inasmuch as the LDS has endorsed standards of clean and moral living that are shared by most civilized world religions, why is it seemingly winking at how Mitt Romney has carried on his governance contrary to such standards? Why didn’t Mitt sooner bow out of the governor’s seat in Massachusetts than be an instrument of setting up gay marriage there? And why didn’t Mitt’s doing so create a huge hubbub in Salt Lake City?

Because he is a bishop in that church. A leader they follow.

Luke, I’ve made it quite clear that I disagree with the theological premises of the LDS, but the questions have to be obvious. Inasmuch as the LDS has endorsed standards of clean and moral living that are shared by most civilized world religions, why is it seemingly winking at how Mitt Romney has carried on his governance contrary to such standards? Why didn’t Mitt sooner bow out of the governor’s seat in Massachusetts than be an instrument of setting up gay marriage there? And why didn’t Mitt’s doing so create a huge hubbub in Salt Lake City?

Great questions! One answer to your second question is "I don't know."

I have been an interested observer of Mitt's policies and have been significantly disappointed over the years. That is why during the primaries Mitt was not my choice. Now we are facing a Hobbesian choice. Like many, I will enthusiastically support Mitt and Ryan over Obama and his media masters.

At the same time I will write, I will argue, I will urge Mitt to become a leader of moral, family values in the cultural war we are facing. If he continues to run from this responsibility and opportunity he may well lose the race and become a footnote president, in the grand tradition of Bob Dole and John McCain.

But understand this, Mitt is a pragmatic utilitarian. He appears to make his political moves based on cost-benefit analysis, rather than from the core of any principled belief. That means he can be swayed by data, by reason and by concerted grass roots efforts. Personally, I think we will see Mitt evolve and become more conservative on moral issues. The choice of Paul Ryan is a good sign. But I could be way off base. Nevertheless, I am 100% sure there is a better chance of that than moving Obama out of his socialistic corner.

As to your first question, if your pronoun reference is to the actual Mormon Church, you must understand that it and its leaders are extremely careful to maintain neutrality with respect to candidates, political positions and parties. So what you have observed is not a surprise. This insight is also a partial answer to your third question. The other part of the explanation is probably the effects of some mixture of "identity" politics and passive ignorance.

For example, my Utah based sister was shocked I did not automatically support Mitt during the primaries. She would have been more shocked to know I volunteered to help a couple of the primary candidates know how to best deal with the religious issue and exploit Mitt's weakness on moral leadership.