Originally Posted By ecdc Hyper, your responses are fairly typical among more educated LDS members in regards to polygamy and the black priesthood ban. The problem is, those answers will never, ever, fly in a political campaign. And they shouldn't. Telling an African American voter in Chicago that "there is plenty of precedent in Judeo-Christian history for witholding certain religious blessings from people of certain ancestry" is not going to win them over given that they happen to be the people of a certain ancestry. I suspect you would be equally offended (at least you should be) if someone told you that Mormons suffered persecution because they were not favored of God because they believe in a different Jesus and don't follow the Bible. As I've repeated throughout this thread, religious people usually start with a myriad of assumptions and move forward from there; your explanations seem perfectly reasonable to Mormons, but seem offensive and entirely unreasonable to blacks, gays, etc. Mitt's challenge will be to step outside of those Mormon shoes that make those assumptions and look at things from very different angles. This is the crux of Mitt's problem as a Mormon: he will have to disavow some of the church's teachings to win favor with many voters. The question is, will he do that? Or will he assume the same position you assumed - that of an unapologetic Mormon who, while clearly thoughtful in his responses, ultimately shrugs his shoulders and says "It's God's way, whatcha gonna do?" But of course, non-Mormon voters won't believe it's God's way, so you better come up with something better that's *outside* of Mormon theology and understanding. I've looked at it every which way I can think of, and there doesn't seem to be any way Mitt Romney can claim to support the Church's priesthood ban without pissing off a lot of people, both black and white. And as someone running for the nation's highest office who has to represent people of all races, he should absolutely be held accountable for his position. If he refuses to denounce statements (that have still not been repudiated by the LDS church, BTW) that say that African Americans were descendants of Cain and cursed and marked for it, that interricial marriage is wrong, then he should lose. I certainly wouldn't want someone representing me who felt that my race, gender, or ethnic background was somehow not only deserving of inequality, but backed by God. If Mitt makes it far, reporters will go really nuts when they see some of the things LDS leaders said over the years regarding blacks. And given the Mormon reluctance (to put it mildly) to repudiate anything a Mormon leader has said, it puts him in a tough spot, to say the least.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Are liberals opposed to Mormons because they are Mormon, or because they are generally conservative?" I'm not opposed to anyone just because he is a Mormon. I will be opposed to someone who behaves like a right wing religious nut, though. "The issue is who gets to decide what social agreements the government will support? A few justices?" Probably yes, because that's how it has had to happen in the past. "Evangelicals are staring to warm up to Obama." He has not got a prayer of winning.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> But after reading the various strong reactions of some posters here in regards to the LDS, it's clear that at least to some folks, they have very strong feelings about the church and its teachings.... If those strong feelings are mirrored in the country at large, as the poll suggests, then 40% is a mighty large amount of people. I realized after I'd hit "Submit" that I'd typed the word "everyone" which was a bit much. But, as you say, the vast majority here seem to have some fierce opposition to Mormons, simply because they are Mormons. But none can (or will) explain how that disqualifies Romney or any LDS candidate from doing an adequate job in this or any other public office. >>> If those strong feelings are mirrored in the country at large, as the poll suggests, then 40% is a mighty large amount of people. I imagine if a similar poll was taken, substituting the word "evangelical" for "Mormon," a similar number would say they wouldn't ever vote for an evangelical. And they wouldn't and didn't. And yet George Bush (who probably falls under this category) still got elected ... with a large number of voters voting against him precisely because of his religious beliefs. Religious prejudice is alive and well in the U.S. (and apparently in Laughing Place), but it is thankfully an minority attitude, I believe. (At least in the general population.) >>> Perhaps once they get to know a specific candidate, such as Romney, then perhaps the issue of his religion would play less of a factor. I quite agree. Just as when people go around knocking Mormons and Mormonism, they often change their attitude when they actually get to know a Mormon or two. >>> Some Evangelicals are staring to warm up to Obama. In what numbers, though? And again, when you look at qualifications, how can Obama compare to Romney? Has he been an executive? (Senators run a small office. They typically have no experience running an entire organization ... or branch of government.) What does Obama stand for? Obama seems nice... but it seems to me that he, like Oprah, wins popularity by trying very hard not to offend anyone. For the life of me, I am hard pressed to think of any issue where he as taken a strong stand. I can't tell you what he stands for. That's a problem in an election. John Kerry knows. >>> I could see many Evangelicals holding their noses and voting Democrat. I think that's ridiculous. They would rather vote for someone who believes in abortion on demand, that government knows better how to spend the peoples' money than the people do, that the U.S. should sit by and watch as maniacal dictators expand their power and terror, than a Mormon? Who believes in Jesus Christ? In compassion? In Christian principles and living? In family? In sexual responsibility? In patriotism and duty to God and country? I think people in the media are pushing this notion that evangelicals are grudge-holders and religious bigots. And yet what MOST evangelicals are saying is quite the opposite. When logic and reason are used, there is no reason for them not to consider Romney. Evangelical leaders get that, and the message is filtering down to others who want to hold bigoted views, but are losing the reasons for holding them. >>> This is the crux of Mitt's problem as a Mormon: he will have to disavow some of the church's teachings to win favor with many voters. Why does Romney have to disavow a policy that was discontinued nearly three decades ago? Did John F. Kennedy have to disavow the more unpopular policies of the Catholic Church? For crying out loud, if you're going to hold Romney's feet to the fire on this, why not hold every Christian and Jew responsible for the Old Testament's laws that called for execution for disobeying parents? >>> I suspect you would be equally offended (at least you should be) if someone told you that Mormons suffered persecution because they were not favored of God because they believe in a different Jesus and don't follow the Bible. Where have Mormons persecuted Blacks? Missionaries took their message to black people and Native Americans and Polynesians from the earliest days of the church. Black people came out west with the earliest pioneers, and were free in Utah ... not slaves. When Joseph Smith began a campaign for U.S. president (killed shortly after), he stated his policy would be to have the government purchase slaves, and then free them. Persecution? Where are you getting that from???? As black people joined the church, the word was they WOULD get the priesthood someday. That was the word, way back when, when equal social standing of black people was VERY unpopular, even in the north. I was 8 when the priesthood policy was changed. I was a kid, but I remember attitudes very clearly. Mormon leaders wanted black people to have everything. Lay members wanted it. I was taught in church (even before 1978) that we were all God's children, and all should be loved and treated with kindness. The understanding was that the change was going to happen ... hopefully soon. It was just a matter of when we received permission from God. When it happened, EVERYONE was happy ... with the exception of a bitter few, who left the church. This was an eagerly awaited and welcome thing. My parents couldn't wait to tell me. It was the big news in church on Sunday, and everyone was all smiles. (I was in an entirely white neighborhood in Denver.) Given the whole context of the issue, and the attitudes of Mormons before and after regarding race (who else sends its young people across the world to every people possible, speaking THEIR language), how can anyone justify the implication that if Romney loves his faith, he's a racist? I don't suppose anyone in the media, or you, would care to ask black members of the church today why they are Mormon, would you? They love the church and are loyal to it, and its history, despite the extremely negative spin coming from people with an axe to grind against Mormons.
Originally Posted By bellekalikimaka <<The understanding was that the change was going to happen ... hopefully soon. It was just a matter of when we received permission from God.>> So, when you finally received permission from God...did it come in a memo or by certified mail?
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>I imagine if a similar poll was taken, substituting the word "evangelical" for "Mormon," a similar number would say they wouldn't ever vote for an evangelical. And they wouldn't and didn't. And yet George Bush (who probably falls under this category) still got elected ... with a large number of voters voting against him precisely because of his religious beliefs.<< This is correct. However, folks who wouldn't vote for an Evangelical tend to vote Democrat not Republican. Romney needs the Republican Evangelical vote to win, and it is certain that a non trivial percentage of Evangelicals would not vote for him.
Originally Posted By fkurucz Re #281. Very well put. I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm sure that Romney is a pretty decent guy, and perhaps might even be a good choice. But neither the left nor the right will support him. <<"Evangelicals are staring to warm up to Obama." He has not got a prayer of winning.<< Probably not, but the point was that Evangelicals can find a Democrat to be an acceptable choice, hence they would not necessarily vote for Romney.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>It has merely opposed governmental endorsement of same-sex marriage.<< Then, can you explain how LDS, as a tax-exempt organization, got away with pumping so much money into the Proposition 22 initiative in CA a few years back?
Originally Posted By jonvn "but it is thankfully an minority attitude, I believe" I think you'd be surprised at how much it is NOT a minority attitude. "Did John F. Kennedy have to disavow the more unpopular policies of the Catholic Church?" Actually, kind of, yes. He had to state that he would not follow the dictates of the Pope in making decisions regarding public policy while President. "So, when you finally received permission from God...did it come in a memo or by certified mail?" Mormons believe that the president of their Church rules throurgh divine revelation. So, if their president says something on the matter of church business, it comes as a message from God.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan I think it would be interesting to do a poll that asked if people care a lot about what a candidate did 30 years ago. It seems that they don't. They elected Bill Clinton twice despite him not serving in Viet Nam. They elected George Bush twice despite questions surrounding his Nat'l Guard service. As for me, I'll be voting for the candidate that talks most about the future and dealing with challenges that are ahead concerning energy, international relations and paying the bills run up by this administration.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Why does Romney have to disavow a policy that was discontinued nearly three decades ago?<< Because the racist theology behind the policy has never been disavowed. If he's asked about whether he agreed with it or not, what will he say. That's all I'm asking. You gave an answer that, as I noted, is entirely unapologetic because it says God wanted it a certain way, period. That attitude would sink Romney's campaign. Hyper, go back and read your posts and see how stunning you may sound to non-Mormons. You're expecting people to leave Mitt alone or give the LDS church a pat on the back for finally allowing black men access to the priesthood and leadership positions. This is again because you come from an inflexible position that says "God wanted it this way, and He changed it when He wanted to." That works great for Mormons, but good luck telling that to 294 million Americans who *don't* believe that. Your post is like saying "Since when did Mississippi ever persecute blacks? They let them live there, didn't they, and in the 1960s and 70s they finally started letting them vote and desegregate. Most people were happy about it, so what's the problem? As for other religions having to answer for their unpopular policies, they should have to as well. But Mormonism, right or wrong, will always get more attention because it's smaller and seems stranger or more unique. But many Catholics have no problem openly saying they think the church is wrong (take John Kerry, for example), but Mormons who get too public about saying they think the church is wrong can be (and have been) subjected to church discipline, including excommunication. >>Where have Mormons persecuted Blacks? Missionaries took their message to black people and Native Americans and Polynesians from the earliest days of the church. Black people came out west with the earliest pioneers, and were free in Utah ... not slaves. When Joseph Smith began a campaign for U.S. president (killed shortly after), he stated his policy would be to have the government purchase slaves, and then free them. Persecution? Where are you getting that from???? As black people joined the church, the word was they WOULD get the priesthood someday. That was the word, way back when, when equal social standing of black people was VERY unpopular, even in the north.<< Wow Hyper. You need to really step outside of those Mormon shoes and do some reading. You can praise how Mormonism treated blacks all you want, but at the end of the day, they were second-class citizens in Mormonism. To a non-Mormon, your post essentially says "Mormons believed blacks and Indians were going to hell so they were kind enough to go out and teach the truth to these ignorant people. But they weren't about to let them have leadership positions or be equal with other people in the Church." But if you need examples of why your post is wrong, here you go: --Utah was actually a slave territory and there were slaves in Utah. A handful of times, Brigham Young accepted slaves for the church as payment for tithing (they were all freed within a few years). --Utah had anti-segregation laws supported by the LDS church in the 40s and 50s. Blacks were not allowed to stay at the LDS church-owned Hotel Utah. When they made an exception for singer Marian Anderson, they required her to take the service elevator and told her she was not allowed to eat in the dining room with the white people. --The extremely popular book (still a bestseller among Mormons) Mormon Doctrine by Apostle Bruce R. McConkie still includes the racist teachings that blacks were descendants of Cain and that interracial marriage is wrong. It's still sold at LDS church-owned Deseret Book and bought and shipped to LDS missionaries and members around the globe. >>I was 8 when the priesthood policy was changed. I was a kid, but I remember attitudes very clearly. Mormon leaders wanted black people to have everything. Lay members wanted it. I was taught in church (even before 1978) that we were all God's children, and all should be loved and treated with kindness. The understanding was that the change was going to happen ... hopefully soon. It was just a matter of when we received permission from God. When it happened, EVERYONE was happy ... with the exception of a bitter few, who left the church. This was an eagerly awaited and welcome thing. My parents couldn't wait to tell me. It was the big news in church on Sunday, and everyone was all smiles. (I was in an entirely white neighborhood in Denver.)<< People could "want" it all they like. People could be happy as clams. But the message is still the same: God didn't want black people in leadership positions until 1978 (no word on why that was the magic year). And Mormons were A-ok with this and made almost zero effort from within the faith to change the policy (I say almost zero because there was a small group of liberal Mormons, regarded suspiciously by some in the leadership, who made efforts to have changes made by reaching out to more moderate members of the LDS leadership). Again Hyper, if you expect Mitt to get credit because people "wanted" the policy to change, then good luck with that. >>Given the whole context of the issue, and the attitudes of Mormons before and after regarding race (who else sends its young people across the world to every people possible, speaking THEIR language), how can anyone justify the implication that if Romney loves his faith, he's a racist?<< No one has implied that Romney is a racist. I don't believe he is. This thread is about the viability of a Mormon for President. I'm simply pointing out that the media might (and should) seize on this aspect of Mormonism for examination. >>I don't suppose anyone in the media, or you, would care to ask black members of the church today why they are Mormon, would you? They love the church and are loyal to it, and its history, despite the extremely negative spin coming from people with an axe to grind against Mormons.<< Actually, I've done that several times in informal conversations - my guess is far more than you have - but once in a facsinating and fairly formal setting. As part of an article I was working on, I had the opportunity to sit down with a dozen black members of the church and their spouses - some black, some white - and ask them what they thought. There was one woman in particular who took your approach - God said so, that's it. But everyone else, while they did value their membership and loved the church, was deeply troubled and disturbed that racist sayings by leaders from Brigham Young to Harold B. Lee had never been disputed, repudiated, or challenged by more recent leaders. They noted quite correctly that today's LDS leaders seem to think if they don't talk about it or ignore it altogether, then it'll just go away. But in a unique faith like Mormonism, where people rely on the sayings of their leaders for the truth, curious seekers will naturally look for statements explaining a policy or practice, and they'll find them in statements that are anywhere from 20 to 150 years old. And they won't find anything challenging it. Hyper, you're kidding yourself if you expect Americans to be ok with this sort of thing. They shouldn't be and they won't be. You're fine with it because your Mormon and it all makes perfect sense to you. But it doesn't and won't to anyone else. Romney can make it through stuff like this, but he'll have to admit that his church made mistakes. Otherwise, he's done.
Originally Posted By jonvn He'll just not get the black vote, that's all. Republicans don't get that anyway. Most everyone else will just silently nod their heads and say "not a bad idea." Most people are racists. And beyond it offending black people, as it should, it won't go too far beyond that. Look at the George Allen race in VA. The guy was obviously a bigot, and only lost by a few votes. People don't care. People don't care because they basically agree. They just don't say it out loud.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'll also add, I know how Mormonism works. I get that many members didn't like the Priesthood ban but wouldn't speak out against it. Mormons just don't do that sort of thing. BTW, Mormons still don't allow women in leadership positions, but I don't think that would be much of a campaign issue. Sadly, women's issues aren't as "PC" or "sexy" in the media as race issues are. Depending on who he's up against, I'd have no problem voting for Mitt Romney. I'm bothered most by his anti-gay position, but we'll be hard-pressed to find someone who's much better. Even if a Democrat is elected, they won't do anything to further gay rights for fear of being unpopular. Romney's a sharp leader with a pretty well proven track record. In the primaries I'd vote for Guliani over him and possibly McCain, but no one else. Against Hillary I'm undecided. Against Obama I'd vote for Obama. Against Kerry or Gore, I'd probably vote for Mitt. So much for my ax to grind against Mormonism
Originally Posted By fkurucz Also, Romney is pro-choice. So as far as the Religious Right is concerned it would probably be Game/Set/Match.
Originally Posted By ecdc ^^^^^^^Wouldn't it be great if 100 years from now George W. Bush was seen as the last gasp of the Christian right - they're last hurrah. With moderates on abortion like Guiliani and Romney running, maybe it will be a sign that the Christian right is no longer viable as a powerful entity. Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka I'm very disturbed by the idea that an entire religious group of people had to *wait* for a magical message from God before they would allow people to be their equals. Who did the message go to? Is there just one guy who gets the message? How does he get the message? By band of angels, by a dream? Really, who makes the BIG decisions after they get permission from God?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm very disturbed by the idea that an entire religious group of people had to *wait* for a magical message from God before they would allow people to be their equals.<< The rest of us had to wait for a guy in a stovepipe hat and a funny beard, and we had to have a lot of people kill each other over it, and then wait another hundred years for a court decision. And even with that, many people still aren't treated as equals. See: Katrina.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I'm very disturbed by the idea that an entire religious group of people had to *wait* for a magical message from God before they would allow people to be their equals." The church was the product of 19th century America, and we had to go through a civil rights movement that had black men holding posters that said "I am a man." Know why? Because they weren't considered to be such prior to the 1950s. The philosophy is not a surprise, given the times it arose.
Originally Posted By melekalikimaka It's the waiting for the message part that bugs me. I could understand if people gradually changed their minds and, i don't know, maybe voted on whether it was the right thing to do. The fact that they all supposedly thought it was the right thing to do yet needed permission to change things bugs the hell out of me.
Originally Posted By jonvn I'm not a mormon, surprise, so maybe they can speak for themselves on this, but the thing is was that it was a sticking point with them for a while. It had gotten rather controversial for them in the previous 20 or so years, and finally something was done about it. You have to realize that before say, 1964 or so, it was perfectly acceptable to treat black people as something less than human. They couldn't sit in the same parts of busses, they couldn't drink from the same water fountains, they couldn't eat in the same restaurants, and so on. Our culture now is very different than back then. And this is the early 1960s. Think about what it must have been like in the 1860s and earlier when these human beings were considered nothing more than trainable apes who were of little more use on the plantation than pigs who could talk and pick cotton.
