Wednesday, May 10, 2006

One of 'dem "Marmons" in the Oval Office


Couldn't resist passing this along (especially from the earlier prodding from Chris insisting that I "pull my share of the posting weight around this blog" - ok, he didn't say that, but he could have). Anyway, I pulled this from an email sent today by my roomie. I think it runs well with Taylor's previous post.

He writes:

I just realized why GBH talked about racism at last GC's Priesthood Session...To prepare for Romney's presidential run.


Once Mitt gets going, he will almost certainly face criticisms over
the church's pre-1978 policy on blacks and the priesthood. In fact,
the controversy came up in his previous campaigns and already has
been discussed, though yet not substantially, over the past year as
he's inched closer to declaring his candidacy.

Now, when the media revisits the easy-to-demagogue issue, GBH's fresh
reaffirmation of the Church's continued efforts to ensure equality
will be ready for citation, demonstrating that despite whatever the
"haters" out there might say (heh, yes I just wrote haters; I swear
this is the first time), LDS authorities are actively engaged in
rooting out any traces of discrimination. Even if it implies that
racism remains a problem in the church, which must be the case to
some degree if it's a G.C. topic, it also serves as a prophylactic
against misrepresentation. People who think Mormons are racist will
not change their minds no matter what church leaders say, but for
those who aren't so inexorably wrong-headed, GBH's words could
succeed in convincing them otherwise.

Excellent timing (him, not me).

Seriously, I don't know why I thought this just now. Random.

Either way, score another one for GBH--prophet, seer, revelator and,
as it turns out, political strategist extraordinaire. Just imagine
what he could do with a slogan.

13 Comments:

At 5/10/2006 09:03:00 PM,

I wish this theory were correct, but... it's wrong. President Hinckley was reacting to a series of stories about Utah County school students throwing racial slurs at sports games. Lots of bad press.

 
At 5/11/2006 10:26:00 AM,

S-

I think Dan's roomates theory was intended to be taken light-heartedly. From the tone of the email, I don't think he really believes the GBH was trying to give Romney's campaign a boost.

 
At 5/11/2006 11:26:00 AM,

Sorry, should have provided more information about the source of this quote... He's RARELY serious about anything.

Thought you might want to see the updated email trail - I found it funny.

ME: For some reason, I don't think the entire point of the talk was to put one of 'dem Marmons in the Oval Office... but it is a good side effect. :)

HIM: Heh, I know, but it'd be funny if true.

The whole thing is more interesting as a Machiavellian plot that, incidentally, is also divinely inspired.

ME: You should make a movie. I'm sure it'd bring a lot more people to Temple Square than Legacy did.

HIM: Unfortunately, somebody already beat me to it.

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/da_vinci_code/

 
At 5/11/2006 12:04:00 PM,

S-
Even if it weren't tounge in cheek, whose to say that GBH's comments can't have more than one purpose and/or cause. There's the obvious ones, but he is, of course, a prophet. Not everything he says need be a reaction to the obvious.

 
At 5/11/2006 06:33:00 PM,

No. Only one cause/purpose/meaning is allowed. Duh.

Else how could we quote the GA's to support our positions/theories, if the quotations could have multiple interpretations?

It would totally damage near-sighted rhetoric.

 
At 5/12/2006 07:43:00 AM,

Mr. S-

If you're so clearly on my side of the camp ("duh") than why be so flat-out dismissive?

"I wish this theory were correct, but... it's wrong."


Or, is this another case where sarcasm doesn't make its way through the electrons on my screen? 

Posted by C

 
At 5/12/2006 10:44:00 AM,

I think it highly doubtful that GBH spoke on racism last fall in order to help advance Mitt Romney's political career. Racism is an evil among us and prophets are called to address those evils. In this case there is much folklore in the Church surrounding the longtime ban on blacks and the priesthood. People have been seeking an official repudiation of that folklore for years. Sure clarifying the Church's position on racism and condemning it will likely help Romney, but I think the Lord cares much more about putting an end to a pernicious sin than bolstering ole' Mitt's presidential aspirations (Contrary to popular opinion in Utah County, God isn't a Republican).  

Posted by Marc

 
At 5/12/2006 11:14:00 AM,

"Contrary to popular opinion in Utah County, God isn't a Republican"

I'm new to this whole blogging thing, but I just don't understand why God wouldn't support a Republican agenda. He is clearly in favor of strong families and good morals, and the Republican party is the only one that truly supports that sort of thing.

I guess you can be an active member of the church and also be a democrat, but I don't really see how...

 
At 5/12/2006 11:43:00 AM,

Lance-

Just like He's clearly in support of helping the poor, the sick and the afflicted. Who does that sound like? Oh, yeah. The democrats.

Personally, I think there are pros and cons on both sides of the asile. No party is perfect. It is therefore a bit naive to say that, from a Gospel perspective, there is only one right party. 

Posted by Janelle

 
At 5/12/2006 12:12:00 PM,

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 5/12/2006 12:14:00 PM,

Lance - I fear I'm wasting energy even responding to your loaded post, but most Democrats I know support strong values and good morals (things which are in no way more synonymous with the Republican party than the Democratic party). There are so many examples of good active Mormon Democrats it boggles the mind that you could even make the assertion that "you don't see how" a member can be active and a Democrat (unless you're simply trying to get under people's skin with that vitriolic statement). Sure there may be those within the Democratic party that hold views in contradiction with the gospel, but there are just as many within the Republican party (e.g., look at the House Majority leader John "I've sold my soul to the tobacco lobby" Boehner). In my view this is precisely the reason the Church has taken GREAT pains to assert that there are principles of the gospel to be found in the platforms of both parties. If the fact that James E. Faust was head of the Democratic Caucus in Utah in his younger years and that his children are still Democrats isn't enough for you. Take a look at Gordon B. Hinckley's 2004 interview with Larry King, where President Hinckley claimed he's voted for both Democrats and Republicans:

HINCKLEY: I voted for men and not for party. The Church doesn't become involved in politics.

KING: You've voted for people in both parties, then.

HINCKLEY: Yes, sir.

 
At 5/12/2006 12:18:00 PM,

Janelle,

Actually, in a two party system, there is only one "right" party...

get it? because it's a pun, see, two parties, only one is on the ideological right, so there is only one "right" party.

OK maybe it's not funny.

 
At 5/12/2006 02:09:00 PM,

Sheldon,

Yeah, you had me laughing... granted it was only a courtesy laugh that easily combined with the required eyeroll... but you had me laughing. :)

 

:
:
:

BloggerHacks

<< Home