Well, she is Mitt’s wife, called one of his greatest assets in a possible presidential campaign. We definitely don’t hear enough about the spouses of high-profile Church members. Here’s one blogger’s attempt to change that. Click here for a Boston Globe profile of Ann Romney.
The Millennial Star
I don’t suppose you could paste the second half of the article? It requires registration, and I don’t register for newspaper sites.
She seems like a very impressive woman.
At the gubernatorial inaugural ball in Massachusetts in 2002, Ann Romney wore a dress that made it clear that she was not wearing her temple garments. What kind of example is this??
Kevin,
bugmenot.com works wonders for those of us who don’t like to register for newspaper sites.
#2 seems rather judgmental. And so what if she no longer wears them? Our ward has a guy who’s smoking habit is so bad, he takes a break between meetings to light up in the parking lot. I’m just glad he comes to church and doesn’t let a problem like that become an excuse to stay away until he’s more visibly in line with church teachings.
Baptist –
are you sure? I’ve seen women wear garments and somewhat revealing outfits. In fact, I’m rather surprised at, besides the nearly nonexistent sleeves on garments, the amount of cleavage women’s garments allow to be shown.
Unless she was wearing a strapless, sleeveless dress. But even then, I don’t wear garments when I lift weights or exercise, so there are times I wear outfits that reveal I’m clearly not wearing garments. Perhaps she thinks of the gubernatorial inaugural ball as a marathon or something. 🙂
#4:
Considering how judgemental you are on the other thread (and in fact, most of the time, especially your constant damning of the BYU administration to hell), you probably aren’t the right person to be calling people to task for judgemental comments.
Ivan,
I once made a passing reference to there is a hell and some people are going there regarding a BYU prof getting canned over some obviously trumped up charges. In that case, BYU even ignored a faculty committee’s recommendation for reinstatement. I’d have no problem had the guy been fired after a warning, but somebody rushed to judgment and his peers agreed with that. Some bully BYU admin guy enjoyed throwing his wait around. I think there is a hell is some people are going there. I’m not pointing fingers at anyone.
Steve –
That was hardly my main point. If I were inclined, I could do a search and find every nasty thing you’ve ever said about BYU (including bizarre conspiracies involving BYU bribing judges and/or juries), but I just expect that kind of diatribe/rant from you. But-
My main point (which you’ve ducked) is that you are so busy condemning others for being judgmental you don’t seem to realize just how judgmental you appear.
You may call it “warning” but that ain’t how it seems to the peanut gallery.
But this is a threadjack. I’m not going to discuss this anymore on this thread.
I hate contributing to the threadjack, but I will agree with Steve EM on that there is a special place in some sort of eternal punishment for certain BYU administrators, past and present. This requires its own thread somewhere.
I went to the link and was able to read both pages of the article.
Anyway, back to the main point – I think Ann Romney is pretty impressive (although, admittedly, pieces like this don’t commonly bash their subjects).
I don’t know that I share the optimism that Ann will help her husband all that much in Iowa, South Carolina, etc. I think she’d be a bigger asset in a general election (especially in constrast to a Clinton), but I think her influence on a primary is minimal.
“bizarre conspiracies involving BYU bribing judges and/or juries”
You’re referring to my belief the guy’s cuase was lost without a change of venue to a non-LDS dominant area. I never even hinted at bribery. Just who’s jumping to judgment?
To continue the thread jack:
Here are ypur words Steve: The trial judge must have been in BYU’s pocket
Sounds like bribery to me.
Oops – left the link out of the last post (and misspelled your).
http://www.bloggernacle.org/?p=299#comment-3623
And you’re still ducking my main point.
Ivan,
I’m not an apologist for BYU or the church but, again, I didn’t even imply bribery. I meant it would be difficult for a happy valley Judge or an LDS Judge to be a fair arbiter in the case. Hence why, IMO, the matter wasn’t settled out of court, almost impossible if the judge isn’t pressuring both sides with hints that a trial will go poorly to a side that seems inflexible. I’ve been deposed as an expert witness in several legal proceedings, mostly in Federal court. All of them were settled post-discovery/pre-trial via the pressure of a competent judge in this fashion. If you feel that makes me judgmental against BYU and the church, so be it. What does that have to do w/ Ann Romney wearing her Gs or not, which I’ve already made clear I don’t care about. I don’t even care if GBH wears them. It’s not my concern. But a prof having his career and pension damaged when a warning would have probably rectified the problem, now that’s something that does bother me.
Well, this is a fascinating discussion about something that has nothing to do with this thread, but I would like to respond to #2. There are 15 pictures of Ann Romney accompanying this story and in each one she is dressed modestly. It’s not easy for women to find appropriate evening gowns, but she appears to have done it.
Geoff-
(well, actually I don’t find the threadjack at all fascinating. It’s actually rather tired. I shouldn’t have continued with it).
As for comment#2 and #15, that’s why I made my comment #5. Sometimes it seems men forget that women’s garments are cut differently, so women can wear outfits that wouldn’t work if their garments were cut like a man’s garment.
But I just assumed Baptist was misunderstanding the event, rather than judging him for being judgmental.
It does seem interesting to me our need to pass on the orthodoxy of our Mormon celebrities. I’m not condemning it–I certainly do it as well. I simply find it interesting–it may even be a good instinct. We want to know that the successful Mormon that we admire etc. is not just a Mormon but a faithful Mormon. That is a very interesting aspect to the way we examine and create our community of saints. BTW I happen to know that Ann oftens skip Sunday School–though if that cost us our orthodoxy there would be few faithful Mormons around!!
I agree with #2, if #2 has his/her facts right. That would bother me. Is Mitt Romney a lapsed/Jack Mormon? It would be important to me how he stays true to what he identifies with, does that make sense? If he says he’s an active Mormon, okay; if he says he’s not, okay. But it’s an issue of honesty, to me.
It matters. Maybe it shouldn’t, but it makes a difference to me.
Congruency, consistency, that’s what I’m saying.
Mitt and Ann Romney are the best examples of saints you could ever want to know. He was our Stake President for years in Boston before running against Ted Kennedy for the Senate. Ann is totally dedicated to the Gospel, a real good human being with a wonderful family, five sons, all married and a bevy of grandchildren. She has been a spokes person and positive role model for those suffering from MS, the disease that she lives with. Please get to know them and hopefully support them when the time comes.
Thanks for that input, Jane. I have to say I really dislike comments like #2 and #17 (although less so) that say things about people who are unlikely to be able to defend themselves. Paul H claims that Ann often skips Sunday School. Such a claim is completely unverifiable and ad hominem. Perhaps she plays piano for the young women. Perhaps she has other meetings. Perhaps she’s tired from MS. The point is how can we possibly know? Annegb (#18), there is no evidence that Mitt is a lapsed/Jack Mormon. I have no idea where you got that information from. Because Ann may (note the word “may”) have not worn her garments to one event? C’mon, people, let’s use some common sense.
No, I was just commenting on #2. I never got that idea. But it would have bothered me.
I don’t go to Sunday School. Because I always get in trouble. Sometimes, like last week, I didn’t go to sacrament because I knew who would be speaking and I knew it would be boring.
I don’t equate meeting attendance with obedience. Although, perhaps I should. I see so many jerks in church who don’t do other things that it’s simply unimportant to me.
I don’t notice peoples’ clothing, either, unless a woman looks really really nice, and I get jealous. Otherwise, I don’t care. I probably wouldn’t have even noticed if Ann were or were not (note subjunctive) wearing garment ready clothing.
But, again, it would matter if they were attempting to pass on an erroneous conclusion. Anything like that bothers me. And a lot of politicians do it.
And yes, thanks, Jane. I appreciate it. It’s better than rumor. I’ve always felt sorry for her because her husband is famous and she’s sick.
Re #2:
I’ve seen pictures of Ann Romney at the inaugural ball, and it was all the buzz in my stake where the Romneys live (Cambridge Mass Stake). There’s no way she had garments on.
And I think we are entitled to judge people who put themselves out in the public square and make no bones about themselves being practising, faithful Mormons. Not judge in the sense of condemn them for apparent sins, but judge in the sense of I don’t think I want my daughters looking to her as an example of what an LDS women should do.
I would note that Governor Romney, while managing the Olympics, admitted that he had used an anglo saxon curse word at least once while in high school. I certainly don’t want my high school aged son looking to him as an example of what an LDS young man should do.
Mitt’s as Mormon as can be, neither lapsed nor Jack. I would never vote for him, but I also live in his stake and will vouch for his Mormonness and activeness.
And, for women, appearing in formal evening wear is a sport that is not compatible with wearing garments. Judging people for their choice of apparel is a sport that is not compatible with Christianity.
I agree with Kristine (as I almost always do).
For those who may not know me, my comment in 24 was intended to be ironic.
I will not be voting for Governor Romney if he gets the republican nomination because I do not support the republican party. But if he were a democrat, I might well vote for him, notwithstanding his having used a curse word in high school, and notwithstanding constructive criticisms from members in his own stake about his wife’s attire at an inaugural.
Kristine (#25)
DavidH (#26)
These are fascinating comments. I’m pretty darned conservative but I could imagine all kinds of scenarios where I vote for the Democratic candidate. I believe a candidate’s integrity is extremely important, more important in many ways than ideology. By all accounts, Mitt has pretty high integrity. I’d vote for Lieberman over Giuliani or McCain (not that I think Lieberman will get the Democratic nod). So, you would vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what? What if the Democratic candidate is Howard Dean and it comes out that he raped a woman? (again, not that Howard Dean will be the Dem candidate). What if the Democratic candidate is Al Sharpton? Can’t you imagine a scenario where you might vote for Romney? Does integrity matter?
I did not say I would vote for the democratic candidate, no matter what. Saying “I will not be voting for Governor Romney” means that is what my plan is, based on current circumstances.
DavidH –
well, your comment earlier sounded less like a “I won’t vote for Romney” (since you said you would vote for him if he were Democrat), and more a “I will never vote for a Republican.”
That sounds to me like the worst form of partisanship: The other party is so evil, I could never vote for them.
As with Geoff B, I could imagine several scenarios where I could vote for Democrats (even though I’m not a Republican, I tend to be conservative).
In fact, oddly, most Republicans I know are willing to vote (occasionally) for Democrats, but the reverse seems never to be true. No wonder the Democratic party can’t take more advantage of the Republican mistakes: They’re so wrapped up in obstruction and negativity they can’t propose anything positive. But that’s another threadjack, so I’ll stop there.
Can you just imagine what its like to be a conservative in MA, with the likes of Kennedy and Kerry.. and with such partisan opinions by democrats here. So happy to have conservative talk radio in town recently with Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt and Sean Hannity, also Dr. Laura.. and of course having Mitt as our Governor has been a breath of fresh air. If Democrats would merely look at their platform, what do they stand for that I could ever agree with? Just not happening for me or my family, well most of us.
Ivan,
I apologize if my earlier comment implied that I believed in the “worst form of partisanship”. I am glad that it is conceivable, under the right circumstances, that you or Geoff might vote for a democrat, even though democrats are “so wrapped up in obstruction and negativity they can’t propose anything positive.”
I have voted for many republicans in my lifetime (in fact, until 2000, I voted almost uniformly republican), and worked for the Reagan Administration. I changed my registration from independent to democrat two years ago in order to vote for Joe Lieberman in the democratic primary, and afterward decided I felt quite comfortable as a moderate in the democratic party (including as a member of Democrats for Life). My perception is, that at the present time, it is more comfortable for me to be, and I feel more welcome as, a pro-life, anti-war moderate in the democratic party than I think I would as a pro-life, anti-war moderate in the republican party. I am hardly a knee jerk liberal.
For a multitude of reasons–the Iraq invasion, huge deficits, the new Medicare drug benefit, skewed tax cuts, warrantless domestic surveillance, the torture memo, the attempt to privatize Social Security, misuse of intelligence information–I am opposed to this Administration and this republican led Congress. At our state level, I perceive the republican party as anti-immigrant and pro-private/anti-public education, among other things.
Is it possible I could vote for another republican in the near future? Anything is possible, but I doubt it.
While I am not Catholic, I am largely in agreement with the principles in this release issued yesterday by a majority of Catholic democrats in the House of Representatives. http://www.house.gov/delauro/press/2006/February/catholic_statement_2_28_06.html
For the record, I would vote for some Republicans, just not for Governor Romney.
I might vote for Mr. Romney.
My dream candidate is Chris Rock, but his honesty would probably get him kicked out.
I know I won’t vote for Hilary Clinton, I’ve voted Democrat before, I’ve voted Republican before, but I will never vote for that woman.
Of course, I live in Utah, where one’s vote is almost wasted, but I do it anyway. I voted for all the Democrats running this last election, except president.
Well, I thought I was the only one who wondered about the Romney’s temple garment wearing habits, but I guess not.
Wow, I never knew that saying a swear as a youth automatically made someone a bad role model. How many good role models does that leave?
I know, because Ann is this terrible sinner. I mean, she is a devoted wife, mother, and grandmother who has the nerve to be a spokesperson for MS and run Massachusett’s faith based initiatives. How does Ann live with herself?
The Romney’s are good people. All of this is verging on ridiculous.
Hillary,
I agree with you. See my post 26 referring to my post 24 you quoted referring to swearing in high school: “For those who may not know me, my comment in 24 was intended to be ironic” (using the word “ironic” in the sense of sarcasm).