Bigotry Raises Its Ugly Head Again.

[Vance]

This time the Anti-Mormon bigotry is from the "right".

But let's avoid the politics here and discuss the bigotry exhibited on, what I thought was, a respected site.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Vote-for-Romney-Is-a-Vote-for-the-LDS-Church-Warren-Cole-Smith-05-24-2011.html

Just a few gems.

"The boat of Mormonism is not tied to the anchor of either historical Christianity or even commonly accepted historical facts."

[Daniel2]

Interesting article. Thanks for sharing. Certainly, everyone is free to speak out and vote according their conscience. I think we'd be hard-pressed to condemn others for those that are wary of voting for a politician who's beliefs contradict our own (whether religious or not).

It's also interesting that at the conclusion of the article you mentioned, it's worth noting that it provides links to two articles that take the opposite stance:

Yes, Christians Can Vote for Mormons

and

In Defense of Mormons

Personally, I'd vote for Huntsman, but not Romney--so I don't personally feel that religious bigotry is at play, so much as hoping to choose a candidate with a similar political ideology.

Darin

[cdowis]

Just a few gems.

"The boat of Mormonism is not tied to the anchor of either historical Christianity or even commonly accepted historical facts."

It is colorful and accurate. Most Christians would, for example, disagree with our interpretation of the Council of Nicea, as well as the history of ancient mesoamerica.

[Vance]

It is colorful and accurate. Most Christians would, for example, disagree with our interpretation of the Council of Nicea, as well as the history of ancient mesoamerica.

And by that we reject "historical Christianity"?

And isn't "Most Christians" and "commonly accepted historical facts" the fallacy of "ad populum"?

[Vance]

Personally, I'd vote for Huntsman, but not Romney--so I don't personally feel that religious bigotry is at play, so much as hoping to choose a candidate with a similar political ideology.

??

Personally, I'd vote for Romney, but not Huntsman--so I don't personally feel that religious bigotry is at play with that choice either.

But this article argues that you shouldn't vote for either, BECAUSE they are Mormons, and that IS religious bigotry.

[Daniel2]

But this article argues that you shouldn't vote for either, BECAUSE they are Mormons, and that IS religious bigotry.

I think the article speaks for itself as to the motivations of the author without the need to debate or confirm that label. Given his beliefs, one can understand his reasoning and motivation.

Whether or not it's bigotry is a discussion I think is rarely useful and one I almost always try to avoid, as the use of such an epithet ultimately has proven useless, IMO. More often than not, bigotry (like beauty) seems to be in the eye of the beholder.

Darin

[Walden]

??

Personally, I'd vote for Romney, but not Huntsman--so I don't personally feel that religious bigotry is at play with that choice either.

But this article argues that you shouldn't vote for either, BECAUSE they are Mormons, and that IS religious bigotry.

There was an interesting article in today's LA Times that condemns the "religious bigotry" that you speak of (this article is specifically about Romney, but speaks to general religious bigotry in American politics)....here's the link

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This time the Anti-Mormon bigotry is from the "right".

But let's avoid the politics here and discuss the bigotry exhibited on, what I thought was, a respected site.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Vote-for-Romney-Is-a-Vote-for-the-LDS-Church-Warren-Cole-Smith-05-24-2011.html

Just a few gems.

"The boat of Mormonism is not tied to the anchor of either historical Christianity or even commonly accepted historical facts."

I left a note “Bigotry at its finest”…it was deleted. It was then I realized it was an EV site, where differing opinions are not welcome.

[BCSpace]

The Christian worldview teaches that there is a short tether binding beliefs to the values and behaviors that flow from them. If the beliefs are false, then the behavior will eventually—but inevitably—be warped.

This is a true statement. But Weyrich's example of continuting revelation placing Mormons on the wrong end of it is flawed and ulitmately antiChristian.

But the real problem is that Mormons believe and teach an American history that is in many particulars completely unsubstantiated and in others demonstrably false. Mormons believe that the "lost tribes" of Israel actually ended up in America, and that Jesus visited America and these tribes during his incarnation. These are just a few of Mormonism's highly idiosyncratic views of history.

Does Mitt Romney believe these views?

Ostensibly he does as he claims to be LDS. Would like to see what he thinks is demonstrably false. Does Weyrich believe in a universal Flood? By the same logic, that is demonstrably false.

Placing a Mormon in that pulpit would be a source of pride and a shot of adrenaline for the LDS church. It would serve to normalize the false teachings of Mormonism the world over. It would also provide an opening to Mormon missionaries around the world, who could start every conversation: "Let me tell you about the American president." To elect a Mormon President is to advance the cause of the Mormon Church.

I agree that it would advance the cause of the Mormon Church. This is a legitimate concern because one's religion (or lack thereof) has a great effect on one's policies and modus operandi; no exceptions. Which is why we should be active in addressing the false points raised by Weyrich. There are other far less legitimate and valid religions/philosophies than Mormonism and Conservative Evangelicalism when it comes to electing a POTUS.

[Daniel2]

I agree that it would advance the cause of the Mormon Church. This is a legitimate concern because one's religion (or lack thereof) has a great effect on one's policies and modus operandi; no exceptions.

I had the same reaction to that portion you quotedn about "advancing the cause of the church," BCSpace--I think ANY religious Faith would be proud of and feel empowered to a degree merely because of the notiariety that would come from having a member of it's Faith elected to the office of POTUS... Clearly, the author of the article has an ax to grind with advancing the cause of Mormonism (not that that isn't his right, of course).

Darin

[Jaybear]

Clearly, the author of the article has an ax to grind with advancing the cause of Mormonism (not that that isn't his right, of course).

Darin

Not sure I would call it having "an ax to grind."

The author genuinely and sincerely believes that Mormonism leads people away from Christ. Ergo he believes having a Mormon president would lead more people away from Christ.

Similarly, Mormons believe that the LDS Church is the only true church, and having a Mormon president would lead more people to Christ's church.

Two sides, same coin.

[BCSpace]

Clearly, the author of the article has an ax to grind with advancing the cause of Mormonism (not that that isn't his right, of course).

Beyond the legitimacy of his rights, it is also just as legitimate to consider the religion of a candidate. Others would not vote for a Muslim or a homosexual for similar reasons (the origins of current values which might be similar to one's own) but such can't be considered bigotry by any stretch of the imagination. Ignorance a more accurate description of his view. As much as I disagree with him, Weyrich made a valid point right at the beginning and which I quoted first above.

[thesometimesaint]

The US has had a small handful of Deists, one possible Atheist, a couple of Quakers, a couple Southern Baptists, and the rest are generally considered Christian in the generic sense of the word. Maybe the Founders were on to something prohibiting a religious test for public office.

[bluebell]

Similarly, Mormons believe that the LDS Church is the only true church, and having a Mormon president would lead more people to Christ's church.

Do mormons really believe that?

[Jaybear]

Do mormons really believe that?

Why wouldn't they?

[bluebell]

Why wouldn't they?

Because it can be dangerous for one man who is not authorized to be the face of a religion to be the face of that religion. Scandal or even just unpopularity could easily lead people away from the church.

Regardless of my thoughts on it though, you made a statement of fact and your whole point in that post stands or falls based on it. It seems reasonable for you to explain where, so i'm asking for something to support why you have claimed it.

[Sky]

With articles like the one written by Warren Cole Smith, is it any wonder that Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints have a hard time getting along with each other?

Smith’s argument in a nutshell seems to be that a person must accept the Nicene Creed in order to be considered for elected office. And a belief in continuing revelation is ‘dangerous.’

If the election next year is between Romney and Obama, I wonder who he will vote for? He might just have to sit the election out.

For a good read by Joanna Brooks from Religion Dispatches, see Mormons and Romney Presidency "Dangerous" According to Evangelical Author

[Avatar4321]

It is colorful and accurate. Most Christians would, for example, disagree with our interpretation of the Council of Nicea, as well as the history of ancient mesoamerica.

It is accurate. but then since when has the Evangelical movement been "tied to the anchor of either historical Christianity or even commonly accepted historical facts?"

He isn't exactly in a strong position himself.

[Avatar4321]

I have to wonder, what missionary anywhere would try to convert someone to the faith by pointing to the President? Has there been a mass conversion to Christian liberation theology since President Obama was elected?

And how would he react if someone said the same things about evangelicals as he is saying about Mormons? I mean it wouldnt be difficult to make the same argument from a nonbelievers perspective against them concerning their judgment.

Seems rather short sighted. Not to mention it shows a lack of faith in God.

[ERayR]

Why wouldn't they?

Because we invite them to come to the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of Romney or Huntsman.

[Jeff K.]

bluebell, on 01 June 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

Do mormons really believe that?

Why wouldn't they?

Sure, look at how Harry Reid has helped.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The US has had a small handful of Deists, one possible Atheist, a couple of Quakers, a couple Southern Baptists, and the rest are generally considered Christian in the generic sense of the word. Maybe the Founders were on to something prohibiting a religious test for public office.

Such as, "it did not seem to matter as long as you loved freedom".

[Jaybear]

Because it can be dangerous for one man who is not authorized to be the face of a religion to be the face of that religion. Scandal or even just unpopularity could easily lead people away from the church.

Sure there are risks. I didn't say having a mormon president would advance the cause of Mormonism.

Regardless of my thoughts on it though, you made a statement of fact and your whole point in that post stands or falls based on it. It seems reasonable for you to explain where, so i'm asking for something to support why you have claimed it.

You seriously want me to explain why Mormons believe that electing a Mormon president would advance the cause of Mormonism?

I don't think it a coincidence that 95% of Utah republicans voted for Romney in the primary.

I don't think its a coincidence the Romney brought in more money from donors in Utah than from New York.

Jeff K: Sure, look at how Harry Reid has helped.

Harry Reid is not the US President.

Moreover, a lot of Mormons don't consider Harry Reid to be a "real" Mormon, because he is a democrat.

ERAY: Because we invite them to come to the church of Jesus Christ, not the church of Romney or Huntsman.

Nor do you invite them to come to the Church of Jimmer, or the Chuch of Donny and Marie, or the Church of Steve Young. But if you think the PR dept of the LDS Church would not be thrilled if the US elected a Mormon president, then wow, we really do live in different worlds.

[bluebell]

Sure there are risks. I didn't say having a mormon president would advance the cause of Mormonism.

You seriously want me to explain why Mormons believe that electing a Mormon president would advance the cause of Mormonism?

I don't think it a coincidence that 95% of Utah republicans voted for Romney in the primary.

I don't think its a coincidence the Romney brought in more money from donors in Utah than from New York.

Harry Reid is not the US President.

Moreover, a lot of Mormons don't consider Harry Reid to be a "real" Mormon, because he is a democrat.

Nor do you invite them to come to the Church of Jimmer, or the Chuch of Donny and Marie, or the Church of Steve Young. But if you think the PR dept of the LDS Church would not be thrilled if the US elected a Mormon president, then wow, we really do live in different worlds.

So, you stated your opinion and pretended it was a fact. All you had to do was say so.

[Jeff K.]

bluebell, on 01 June 2011 - 04:22 PM, said:

Do mormons really believe that?

Why wouldn't they?

Sure, look at how Harry Reid has helped.

Harry Reid is not the US President.

Moreover, a lot of Mormons don't consider Harry Reid to be a "real" Mormon, because he is a democrat.

Jaybear you seem to have issues with consistency.

Whether some Mormons consider Reid a Mormon or not is irrelevant to whether the rest of the world's perception of Reid being a Mormon. So your counterpoint is irrelevant. I would also like to point out that whether leader of the Senate or the President, he is a powerful political figure and the difference is merely the one of degrees and does not touch upon the main point. Has Reid being leader of the Senate enhanced non Mormon reflections of our church? Not significantly.

Did Kennedy's Catholic membership enhance the stance of Catholics in the US, well, a momentary buzz and then.... meh.

Amazing how a little reflective history reveals those teapot tempests that fly around. I dare say the Donnie and Marie show had a bigger impact on people's review or our church.

The author genuinely and sincerely believes that Mormonism leads people away from Christ. Ergo he believes having a Mormon president would lead more people away from Christ.

Similarly, Mormons believe that the LDS Church is the only true church, and having a Mormon president would lead more people to Christ's church.

Some Latter-day Saints will indeed see it as a way to advance the "cause". However all Mormons will hear the First Presidency speak in Conference not the US President and most of us will shrug when the first political compromise we disagree with comes to the fore. Politics are that way, and religion is not.