In our view, it is merely a recognition of the impact, for good or ill, that Romney had. This is not an attempt to say that he is better than anyone else, or worse than anyone else. It is also not an attempt to point out how Mormons are doing great things or something. When it comes right down to it, I think it is just as possible that a Mormon who has had a large impact because of something bad he did will be so named. Its the impact that counts, not what they did.

This is the first year that we have made this recognition. Next year the Mormon of the Year will be someone else, undoubtedly, and we’ll see how people react then.

I really don’t see this as much different from any of the hundreds of similar recognitions that happen in the media at this time of year.

“Yikes, what was Times and Seasons thinking?”

The idea of naming a “Mormon of the Year” has enough problems springing from the label alone, but to then suggest that the “honoree” is really the Mormon who made the most news, or even had the “greatest impact on Mormons and Mormonism” during the year, is only to highlight the problem. If the criteria is the first, then call him/her “Mormon Newsmaker of the Year” (which would have solved a lot of the objections, IMO), and if it’s the latter–especially when they explicitly leave open the door for adverse “impact”–the problem with their chosen designation should have been immediately apparent.

I have a hunch he would rather be seen as a national political leader who happens to be a Mormon, instead of a Mormon who happens to be a national political leader.

I think he has more character than that.

In the end, when we stand before God, I believe that being a good Mormon is going to count more than being a good President.