Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Who had a Jew as a VP candidate." Don't know how you voted and I don't care to know. But while Lieberman being Jewish matters to you, it didn't to me. I voted for Bush in 2000 because I just didn't like Gore. Period.
Originally Posted By ecdc I actually think Elderp's posts are very reflective of what the Mormon reaction would be to media coverage of LDS beliefs. Mormons are very conscious, I would argue to the point of hypersensitive, of portrayals of themselves in the media and news stories about them. The LDS Church has an official response page on its website to what it calls "Mistakes in the News". Mormons love the attention the media gives them - as long as it's on their terms. They love the stories that extol clean living, abstinence from alcohol, conservatism, strong nuclear families, etc. They don't mind the bringing up of polygamy as long as it's abundantly clear they don't practice it anymore and it's not too salacious. But delve too deep into Mormon theology, which has never been effectively codified, and Mormons might respond as Elderp does, with lengthy explanations of why they believe that. In short, Mormons are desperate for public acceptance and reject any suggestion that they are odd, weird, strange, or otherwise outside the mainstream. Yet they have some odd practices and strange beliefs - they just don't recognize it as weird the way outsiders do. Comments like Doug's on Mormon theology are problematic because Mormons have a very fluid theology. You can dig up all sorts of interesting quotes from Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, and other early Mormon leaders that supposedly teach Mormon beliefs. The problem is, it isn't even clear if Mormons then believed what Brigham had to say about various topics, let alone Mormonsm today. Mormons have always been more about practice than belief.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>Yes it is. The question has been raised from time to time if the exempt status should be restricted for Mormonisms sometime involvement in political issues, but it's never been too serious.<< Well, yes, considering how much money they pumped into passing Proposition 22 in California a few years back, it amazes me they got away with it.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You can dig up all sorts of interesting quotes from Brigham Young, John Taylor, George Q. Cannon, and other early Mormon leaders that supposedly teach Mormon beliefs.>> You can regarding Christianity and Christian leaders also.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<You can regarding Christianity and Christian leaders also.>> And there I go again. I realize that Mormons ARE Christians. But you know what I meant... "Mainstream Christianity".
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder In and of itself, having a Mormon president shouldn't be a big deal. However, whenever a President's religious beliefs override political sensibilities and shape a decision then it becomes a huge deal, such as Bush and stem cells. If Romney's Mormon religion dictated political policy, or if any president's religion dictated policy, they ought not to be in office.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I didn't say I supported people thinking like that, but it is the reality." Yes, it is. People do think like that, and it will prevent them from voting for a Jew. "But while Lieberman being Jewish matters to you, it didn't to me." It doesn't matter to me, either. But it does matter to a whole lot of other people.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Sure didn't matter to the people of Connecticut a couple of weeks ago.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I realize that Mormons ARE Christians." A lot of people don't think so. Some think it is very close to Christianity, but is not. Mormons believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three SEPARATE beings, and are not three facets of the same single creator. They don't follow the concept of the Trinity and do not consider Jesus as the same entity as God at all. This little alteration is apparently big enough to have Mormons be called tools of the devil by some. To me, it's meaningless, but it's but one reason people think the theology is not Christian.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Sure didn't matter to the people of Connecticut a couple of weeks ago." A) He wasn't running for President or VP. B) He didnt' win unanimously. C) He wasn't running all across the country. D) Connecticut is in a part of the country that is more liberal than other parts of the country. So, not a particularly good analogy on your part.
Originally Posted By ecdc "You can regarding Christianity and Christian leaders also." Exactly. And the kind of microscope evangelical Christians are willing to place Mormonism under (Book of Mormon historicity, Biblical plagiarism, polygamy, Masonry, etc.) suddenly disappears when it comes to putting their beliefs under a microscope. The Bible fares no better than the Book of Mormon in the face of higher Biblical criticism. Christian history fares much worse than Mormon history, if you're looking at it trying to somehow "disprove" the beliefs of either group.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So, not a particularly good analogy on your part." In your opinion. We can only go by when he runs, and he just ran in Connecticut and won as an independent, quite the uphill battle. Moreover, more than a few people have mentioned they'd love to see a McCain-Lieberman ticket. I'm not one of those people, but the appeal is there.
Originally Posted By ecdc "I'm not one of those people, but the appeal is there." I'm glad I'm not the only one.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Moreover, more than a few people have mentioned they'd love to see a McCain-Lieberman ticket." Of course there are people who would like to see that. That does not mean what I am saying is not valid. But why not Lieberman-McCain? In either case, he'd not win.
Originally Posted By alexbook Think back to the last two elections: I think a significant portion of the electorate thought Gore or Kerry was more intelligent, more qualified, etc., than Bush, but voted for Bush anyway because they "trusted" him. He's "a regular guy", he's not "arrogant", he's "a guy you could have a beer with", etc. Lieberman or Romney could be elected, but they start the campaign with a strike against them in the "regular guy" stakes because of their religions. They can overcome that problem, but it *is* a problem and trying to pretend it's not won't help them. There were people who didn't trust Carter initially because of his piety, but he won (at least the first time). Kennedy and Nixon overcame being members of "fringe" religions. The thing I wonder is whether someone could be elected President today who declined to discuss religion at all. William Howard Taft was a Unitarian who refused to talk in public about his religious beliefs. It's hard to imagine a national politician getting away with that today.
Originally Posted By jonvn Every candidate has to make a BIG showing of going to church. Every election. They have a meeting in a church, are shown going to a service, something like that. Why? Because you have to in order to get a certain segment of the vote. That's how it is in this country. At least we don't hang people for being witches anymore.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Comments like Doug's on Mormon theology are problematic because Mormons have a very fluid theology.<< I believe that Mormons claim "ongoing revelation." What is "problematic" for the devout Mormon is that one must believe any number of contradictory things at the same time, while mindful that an "eternal" principle may be changed at any time. Brigham Young's statements were, indeed, held to be completely accurate in his time. There is abundant historical evidence for this. The LDS Church has never repudiated his statements about the Constitution. That individual Mormans are, or are not, aware of this is immaterial. >>And the kind of microscope evangelical Christians are willing to place Mormonism under (Book of Mormon historicity, Biblical plagiarism, polygamy, Masonry, etc.) suddenly disappears when it comes to putting their beliefs under a microscope.<< I have never had any problem with placing any religious beliefs under a microscope. Each of the items mentioned above (>>Book of Mormon historicity, Biblical plagiarism, polygamy, Masonry<<) are, indeed, quite problematical, especially if one has a complete understanding of them in the context of what Mormons claim. >>The Bible fares no better than the Book of Mormon in the face of higher Biblical criticism.<< This is hardly the forum to discuss this statement, but I cannot let it stand without any comment. Simply stated, the Bible has its many detractors and supporters, both inside and outside of Christianity. There is, however, no doubt among reputable scholars that it is a genuine ancient document, that it describes known history, and that it was a product of various authors, writing during different historical eras and in different parts of the ancient world. The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is recognized only by Mormon authorities an an ancient text. Scholars both hostile and dispassionate recognize that it is exclusively a product of the nineteenth century and that it is in contradiction with known history and anthropolgy. If Mitt Romney's religion becomes an issue in the upcoming Presidential season, Mormons would be well advised to brace themselves for the appearance of some mighty uncomfortable material. My studies of this unique faith were prompted by intellectual curiosity, and I have always made an effort not to offend, even as I disagree. Others who are actively hostile toward the LDS will not be as charitable in their depiction of Joseph Smith's church.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer >>The Book of Mormon, on the other hand, is recognized only by Mormon authorities an an ancient text. Scholars both hostile and dispassionate recognize that it is exclusively a product of the nineteenth century and that it is in contradiction with known history and anthropolgy.<< I think this is one of the key reasons that Mormons are looked upon with a more critical eye than other religions. The text that their faith is founded upon doesn't seem to hold up to archaeological or anthropological scrutiny.
Originally Posted By ecdc This is a surprisingly ignorant and pedestrian post for someone of your intellect Doug. I didn't peg you for stereotypical evangelical tripe about a faith of millions with a rich history, complex past, and curious theology. It sounds like your studies cme from reading Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults. I can't respond in detail now but will later. Suffice it to say that Mormons don't find your assertions "problematic" at all. The comical thing is the only ones worried about Brigham Young's statements are Evangelicals hell bent on discrediting Mormonism. And it's downright laughable to hear anyone who believes in the Bible call Mormon beliefs contradictory. The Bible has its own problems. But as one whose actually bothered to read the real version of Mormon history (the one that includes Orson Pratt publicly denouncing many of Brigham Young's statements) and not the evangelical warped version, I find it hard to accept such shallow analysis. I'm genuinely surprised at your obviously veiled contempt.
