If the Church was as evangelical as some say then yes, they would say the US was going to hell for voting in the anti-Christ or whatever, but they didn’t. Look at Trump and how he reacted, the guy is crazy go nuts. I was impressed by the Church’s statement and thought people should take something from it about graciousness and civility. But I guess I was wrong.
They released a statement after the election distancing themselves from Romney, who was the loser. It is a perfectly valid question to ask if they did this, at least in part, because he lost, and what sort of statement they were ready to release if he had won.
And you are correct. Especially about the part of being both disappointed and relieved. And maybe more so on the relieved part.
I disagree. That would have really impaired their ability to win new converts, and I hope you’re not saying the Mormon church isn’t very interested in doing that.
Really, as only a member(unless you were at the level that released the original release) you can do no such thing.
Of course they do. If you think you have truth you want to share it. It would be pretty selfish otherwise. Saying they are “winning” converts is an interesting choice of words.
I assure you I do not. There may be someone out there who thinks or believes they are this to me, but that doesn’t make it so.
You (your church) do not get to project your beliefs onto me. I assure you your beliefs (and all religions) are unwelcome here. You want the freedom to practice your particular flavor of invisible-man-in-the-sky worship, but you have to respect that also gives me freedom from religion.
OK, so you agree with me that a statement about Obama being the Antichrist would have made it harder for the LDS to convert people. So why would they have made that statement? LDS leadership certainly pays attention to politics.
I don’t think it’s unusual.
I can answer the question to the best of my knowledge. My perspective is as valid as yours.
leftfield6: Since you don’t even know it I’m not sure how we’ve projected it onto you. Sheesh, lighten up a little. I don’t think anyone has forced you to church at gunpoint.
Active Mormon here, far from devastated at Obama’s reelection. Thrilled is more like it. And I’m far from alone.
What knowledge do you have as to the content of that alternate press release?
Seems like there are a few of us in this thread. Ha! It warms my heart.
It addresses Americans everywhere because it is intended to capitalize on the attention focused on the church during the election. It’s milquetoast PR.
As for Mormon bishops and whatnot looking out for us, what a coincidence! Disenfranchised Mormons including gay, lesbian, transgendered persons, uppity women, and anyone disfellowshipped for questioning Mormon history and modern practices also have guardian angels waiting to provide fellowship, treat them as equal human beings, and welcome them with open minds, open hearts, and open arms. We call them people-who-are-not-Mormon.
Just as an aside to the Prop 8 hijack, I should point out that while the website April R directed us to clearly has an agenda (as it’s the official unofficial apologetic organ of the Mormon Church), it did have accurate if incomplete and somewhat misleading information.
The Mormon Church itself appears to have only donated $180,000 in in-kind contributions to the Prop 8 campaign. However, it also cajoled, harassed, and leaned on its members to give as much money and time as possible to the campaign for them. How much of the $23 million raised by the Prop 8 folks came from Mormons is an unanswerable question. One group claims $17 million of the $23 million, but I doubt it’s that high. We do know that $2.5 million in contributions came from people living in Utah and that probably near 100% of those contributors were Mormon.
What is undeniable is that local California Mormon congregations were exhorted from the pulpit and by their leaders to donate and that some wards and stakes even had fundraising goals. This seems like a worthy use of a church’s time and efforts if it were to raise money for hurricane or tsunami victims. It seems awfully petty and un-Christ-like to spend so much time and effort to raise money so that two dudes can’t get married.
End hijack. But the point remains that biased cites can still have some accurate information.
No direct knowledge just 40+ years of reading similar statements. 20 year employee of said church. Probably could label myself as a liberal, feminist with a cynical eye towards the Church. What are your credentials?
Really, other than the first sentence why would they need to send out a different message? There isn’t.
This is just a basic, generic, “hey everything is cool” statement by the Church. Members can look at it and feel good that their leaders can say nice things and move along. Non-members will do exactly what has been done in this thread. The reaction to this is very benign statement tells more about the reactors than it does anything about the LDS leadership.
Which is a wonderful thing and I’m thankful for it. There are also a lot of us LDS types that treat others as human beings but I appreciate that you liked to stereotype us all into one type of person. You know, because that’s cool and everything.
I also didn’t say that bishops and stake presidents were watching out for you, I said ya’ll had one. Nit-picky clarification.
Didn’t you say that you work for the church?
I hate it when someone like you says ‘Yeah, it’s the church’s official position, but I don’t go for it. I’m totally liberal. Don’t lump me in with the crazy ones.’
You’re a supporter of the church. Therefore, regardless of your personal views, you endorse the church’s history, actions, and positions.
I think Romney would have made a pretty shitty president, but a part of me was hoping he’d win. It would have kept the uncomfortable spotlight on the LDS church for another 4 to 8 years. Romney was part of the so-called “Mormon Moment” in which “members” and non-LDS were constantly bombarded on the internet with all things mormony. Clicking internet links and doing Google searches is the first step to apostasy. As Church Historian Marlin Jensen pointed out earlier this year, due to media attention “Maybe since Kirtland, we’ve never had a period of - I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now.” (Kirtland, Ohio was the LDS headquarters until Joseph Smith’s fraudulent bank failed. Then a bunch of bilked Mormons evicted him and his few loyal followers, so Smith abandoned Kirtland and set up a new headquarters among his other congregation in Missouri.)
Mtomm, you DID project it upon me (as a reader of this thread) when you say I have one I just don’t know it. To me that smacks of “you’re just unenlightened because we haven’t shown you the magic yet”.
No worries, I’m good. No need to lighten up, just stay off my yard!!! 
So it’s fine to represent your church up until someone offers an indefensible criticism of Mormon policies and practices, then you no longer represent Mormon beliefs. With such division in the ranks, you’d think the church would focus on uniting its members instead of attempting to warm up to the voting public.