Despite the fact that I would never vote for Mitt, I do feel sorry for him. In recent weeks an article surfaced where Mitt was accused of threatening excommunication if a pregnant single mother would not give the baby up for adoption. I looked into the newly released Church Handbook of Instruction (CHI), which is essentially the LDS Church SOP. It does not in any way advise this course of action, though this is the 2011 version. The CHI used to be unavailable to anyone outside of leaderships, though it is hardly a risque manual by any stretch of the imagination. There used to be a lot of intrigue from non- or anti-Mormons, and curiosity from Mormons. Since it was released, it is more interestingly benign than incendiary.
So Mitt stands accused of threatening excommunication because a single mother would not give her baby up for adoption. The handbook does not say this, though excommunication for fornication is a possibility, but rarely exercised in my experience (given the people I have known over the years). I just checked an old version of the handbook, and there is no threat if the mother does not place the baby for adoption there either.
Mitt strikes me as a very by-the-book sort of individual, and I cannot see him doing this, but no one can really know what happened. I feel for the then young woman, regardless.
What this does bring up is the very odd position an LDS Bishop finds himself in, and it is not something people outside of a detailed knowledge of the Church might understand. When the same woman asked for a blessing, and Mitt did not attend but instead sent two others to perform the religious duty, this is Bishop 101. A by-the-book guy like Mitt might very well send the young woman’s Home Teachers, a program in which ecclesiastical responsibilities are spread throughout the congregation.
In this relationship every family (even if only of one member) would have two male (and in an alternate program for women, two women) assigned to them for religious responsibilities to include assistance, teaching, and general contact as necessary. More often than not, the individual in question would be responsible for some other family themselves, so a web of networking exists. A lot of people find it creepy and controlling. I never did, but then again I would never find the random thoughts of someone from Church to be compelling simply because they were LDS. I have had great home teachers, bad ones, and in general I am awful at it, since I am so rarely around.
So I can see Mitt employing the religious responsibility network to help this woman, since it is technically their religious duty. And because Mitt was a businessman while he was an ecclesiastical leader. Mormon pastors are not paid, and do the duty part time. As such they are doubly busy, fulfilling the roles a traditional pastor fills, while leading their everyday lives. It is a lot of work, which is one reason the above mentioned network of relationships exist, to ease the burden (and one reason I never found it creepy, it was a communal relationship given the lack of a paid clergy, which I found in keeping with the teachings of Christ).
So when Mitt was requested, and he sent someone else, I saw it as a man trying to balance life and Church, something most pastors have less of a difficulty with, since their employment is their religious life (they still might have to worry about some conflicts, but not as many). I am also more than aware of the problems that can come from the high-maintenance member of the LDS Church. LDS missionaries tend to attract the more colorful members of society. I fully understand that this is a Christian injunction, to teach everyone, but as the wife of a member of my extended family once told the missionaries in her congregation “You’re not allowed to teach anyone who does not have a job or a car!!!” The missionaries laughed it off, though she was serious, since she took an hour before and after church picking up new members who had no transportation, who were extremely high maintenance. We do, at least on the fringe of Mormonism in the sparsely populated areas, tend to attract the mentally unstable more than a little often. It is likely more in keeping with Christian precepts, as I said, but it is difficult too.
This individual strikes me as a little high maintenance. As I said, you can never really tell what went on, but I do know how difficult a largely lay organization can be in areas that are not as well established with common operating mores and traditions. It is a hard job, and I do feel for Mitt, even though I disagree with him so much.
Nice the CHI is finally available so we can check rumors we hear and learn if the object (in this case, Mitt) is keeping or violating official policy.
You should look them up. I found one on wikileaks that was from 2006 (and said the same thing about single mothers), but there was also one from 1960(?) that was incredibly interesting, in that it was maybe 10 pages. It had almost no real guidance, other than general “how to run a service” sort of things. A very good article could be made describing the changes to the CHI over time, to the multi-volume manual it is today from what appeared to be a general collection of guidelines.