Mormon President Of The "Free" World? Would It Be Paradise?

[Jeff K.]

Let's be honest. If you read the Book of Mormon, Mormon wasn't a Mormon in the 2011 sense of the word.

Chuckle, no but he was a member of the Church of Jesus Christ. And the main point being that a righteous leader alone cannot make a righteous nation.

[ozpoof]

Paddy:

Why? The Church is well known and respected throughout the world. Until very recently the US ambassador to China was a Mormon(John Huntsman). Harry Reid is the well known Speaker of the US Senate. He is respected throughout the world. He's a Mormon. Mormons come in all types of political persuasions. If you are a Mormon in US politics your first duty and responsibility is to support and defend the Constitution of the US.

No offence but in many countries Mormons aren't common, and their reputation is not one that demands respect. During and after recent natural disasters in Australia, Buddhist groups, Muslim charities and the Salvation Army offered food, clothing, goods, appliances, even cash. Mormons individually helped, but so did thousands of non-members. The LDS church gave not one cent, and still collected tithes from those who lost everything. I was told by a member who called the Stake for help to first turn to immediate family, then extended family, then OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, then the Church. Those other organizations are almost always other churches or religious groups. Needless to say, after these disasters, the church's reputation is not good, especially amongst members who were in real need.

[Log]

No Mormon - indeed, no man - who seeks office should have it.

Now the cause of this iniquity of the people was this—Satan had great power, unto the stirring up of the people to do all manner of iniquity, and to the puffing them up with pride, tempting them to seek for power, and authority, and riches, and the vain things of the world.

[ozpoof]

The US has two lawmaking houses. The House of Representatives is proportional to population for each state. Large states like California have many more representatives than small states like Rhode Island. The individuals in that state are all popularly elected every two years. The second house is the Senate which has two senators for each state regardless of the population of that state. Senators are also elected by popular vote every six years.

Laws must pass both houses and be signed by the President (though a presidential veto can be overridden with a 2/3 vote in both houses).

Thanks for that.

[Deborah]

The LDS church gave not one cent, and still collected tithes from those who lost everything.

You are misinformed. From Earthquake:

Immediately following the earthquake, the Church mobilized to provide relief.

The local stake high council set up stations in the four ward areas. Members donated food storage to their nearest station so it could be distributed to those in need.

The Area office in Auckland shortly thereafter secured an order of water and food, including spaghetti, baked beans, fruit salad, and canned corn, which was delivered to each of the stations.

LDS Family Services staff and volunteers traveled to Christchurch soon after the earthquake to provide counseling for Church leaders and members.

Anyone needing respite accommodation was able to use the Church College of New Zealand campus in Hamilton, New Zealand.

Over the weeks, more than 600 volunteers from around the world have flocked to New Zealand to offer help, including those from the Church’s emergency response effort.

[Jeff K.]

No offence but in many countries Mormons aren't common, and their reputation is not one that demands respect. During and after recent natural disasters in Australia, Buddhist groups, Muslim charities and the Salvation Army offered food, clothing, goods, appliances, even cash. Mormons individually helped, but so did thousands of non-members. The LDS church gave not one cent, and still collected tithes from those who lost everything. I was told by a member who called the Stake for help to first turn to immediate family, then extended family, then OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, then the Church. Those other organizations are almost always other churches or religious groups. Needless to say, after these disasters, the church's reputation is not good, especially amongst members who were in real need.

I know of many families here locally that specifically sent supplies through the church down to the region. So I find the accusation both unkind and inaccurate.

[Stargazer]

I can't see a Mormon US president being very good for the church internationally. The US is a dirty word for many in the international community and being a Mormon would only create an association with the church which would not be very good.

Paddy

An interesting theory, but with a Mormon as President the Church would automatically gain some reputation points, because regardless of whether some people in the international community don't like the United States, they all recognize power and authority at least to the extent of mostly respecting it. The fact is, our missionaries who are US citizens automatically gain some respect simply by reason of that fact, even in places where some people don't like the US. On my mission to Germany I ran into lots of people who didn't like the US all that much, but were perfectly willing to like us, at least partly because we were Americans.

This in fact is what some of our religious opponents fear in a Mormon as POTUS. They decidedly want with all their hearts that the LDS church remain marginalized and a topic of ridicule. But a Mormon POTUS takes that marginalization and does it considerable damage. If the people of the US are willing to elect a practicing Mormon as President, this sends a message about the Church that cannot be anything other than good.

But i don't think Romney's going to get the nomination. And Huntsman doesn't appear to be running after all. I think the question is moot.

[Calm]

No offence but in many countries Mormons aren't common, and their reputation is not one that demands respect. During and after recent natural disasters in Australia, Buddhist groups, Muslim charities and the Salvation Army offered food, clothing, goods, appliances, even cash. Mormons individually helped, but so did thousands of non-members. The LDS church gave not one cent, and still collected tithes from those who lost everything. I was told by a member who called the Stake for help to first turn to immediate family, then extended family, then OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, then the Church. Those other organizations are almost always other churches or religious groups. Needless to say, after these disasters, the church's reputation is not good, especially amongst members who were in real need.

If there are other organizations in place, the Church will give funds to them rather than start their own shelters etc. in order to wasting money by duplicating efforts. They often work with Catholic Charities as they've been doing great work for a long time and Muslim charities in Muslim countries.

[Calm]

More recently, the Church donated AUD200,000 to the victims of the devastating Cyclone Larry, which hit Australia’s northeastern coast in the state of Queensland. The donation brought the Church’s total for humanitarian aid given in Australia over the last 10 years to over AUD4.2 million.

http://newsroom.lds.org/country/australia

This does not count what would normally be offered through fast offerings and such I believe.

[DH]

eschatological fireworks.

Heheh! I like that. You have a way with words, DCP!

[Stargazer]

Others have addressed some of your inaccurate information about the Church's assistance outreach, so I will confine myself to the heirarchy of seeking assistance you mention.

No offence but in many countries Mormons aren't common, and their reputation is not one that demands respect. During and after recent natural disasters in Australia, Buddhist groups, Muslim charities and the Salvation Army offered food, clothing, goods, appliances, even cash. Mormons individually helped, but so did thousands of non-members. The LDS church gave not one cent, and still collected tithes from those who lost everything. I was told by a member who called the Stake for help to first turn to immediate family, then extended family, then OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, then the Church. Those other organizations are almost always other churches or religious groups. Needless to say, after these disasters, the church's reputation is not good, especially amongst members who were in real need.

It is almost a universal Church policy to ask members in need to address those needs first from their own capabilities, and when these are inadequate, to go in turn to family, both immediate and extended, then other organizations, such as those which are organized specifically for the purpose (such as the Red Cross), including governmental organizations whose very purpose is to provide assistance, and then and ony then to ask the Church for help. The policy isn't strictly enforced. Individual Bishops, for example, can and often do decide to just help a member in need whose family won't or can't help, for instance. Without requring the person to check other resources first.

But I noticed earlier that you almost proudly crowed about the superiority of your Ozzy system of tax-supported charities, as compared to US attitudes about independence and self-reliance. So why are you suddenly complaining about a policy that asks people to check to see what the government can do for them before asking the Church for help? You can't have it both ways. Pick one.

As far as that goes, I suppose you are aware that the Church's resources are nowhere near as deep as a governments (at least partly because the government can raise taxes to unconcionable levels, where the Church is restsricted to asking for a very voluntary 10%). What makes more sense? For the church with its limited resources to try to meet all the needs of all its members in a disaster, or to ask the members to seek assistance first from those who have a blood-relationship, then from the organizations with very deep pockets, and when these prove inadequate come to the Church? I don't know about you, but I would guess that in the first event the Church would run out of resources right quickly and be unable to help those whose families couldn't help, and whom the Red Cross and the Department of Governmental Charity both told to go suck an egg. Want to bet that those stake members disappointed at the Church's reaction would be REALLY ticked of then?

The thing is, in a disaster, you get help any way you can. Don't turn your nose up if the help happens to be the Salvation Army or the local Anglican congregation.

[Calm]

It is almost a universal Church policy to ask members in need to address those needs first from their own capabilities, and when these are inadequate, to go in turn to family, both immediate and extended, then other organizations, such as those which are organized specifically for the purpose (such as the Red Cross), including governmental organizations whose very purpose is to provide assistance, and then and ony then to ask the Church for help. The policy isn't strictly enforced. Individual Bishops, for example, can and often do decide to just help a member in need whose family won't or can't help, for instance. Without requring the person to check other resources first.

The idea being first to promote self reliance and a sense of family (through appealing to family), then to avoid waste of resources through duplication of other organizations. This allows the Church to use its funds to fill in the gaps that are left rather than using that money to pay for things that the government or other organizations have already provided for (for example, I don't know if this is the same situation now, but when I went to college there was a huge number of scholarship funds that were not being used because no one applied for them and the money just sat there being used only to pay the salaries of those who administered them; if someone appealed to the PEF without attempting these avenues first, that might mean someone else not eligible for a scholarship not being able to receive help from the PEF because of someone who could have chose to appeal to the Church first---one gets an education instead of two...not an efficient use of resources imo).

[Stargazer]

The idea being first to promote self reliance and a sense of family (through appealing to family), then to avoid waste of resources through duplication of other organizations. This allows the Church to use its funds to fill in the gaps that are left rather than using that money to pay for things that the government or other organizations have already provided for (for example, I don't know if this is the same situation now, but when I went to college there was a huge number of scholarship funds that were not being used because no one applied for them and the money just sat there being used only to pay the salaries of those who administered them; if someone appealed to the PEF without attempting these avenues first, that might mean someone else not eligible for a scholarship not being able to receive help from the PEF because of someone who could have chose to appeal to the Church first---one gets an education instead of two...not an efficient use of resources imo).

I could have sworn that's what I said, cal. But you did it possibly a bit more clearly than I did. My wife tells me frequently that I over-explain stuff, so I don't doubt I did it here, too. Sigh.

[frankenstein]

Could a Mormon US President create a US that is happier, fairer, less corrupt, cares for the poor and sick better (as Jesus would), and honest? Might there be any drawbacks to having a Mormon US president - domestic and foreign policy?

No greater chance that Mormon "could" as opposed to a Catholic, Atheist, Satanist, Muslim, Jew, Jehovah Witness or another manner of religion or non religion.

[Calm]

I could have sworn that's what I said, cal. But you did it possibly a bit more clearly than I did. My wife tells me frequently that I over-explain stuff, so I don't doubt I did it here, too. Sigh.

You did. Just being sure the message got through. Some people see that policy as the Church trying to hold on to money, being tightfisted or trying to 'pass the buck' so they can keep their bucks when it is really just using common sense and efficiency in order to make sure that no one ends up falling through the cracks because someone is around to look after those cracks not having expended all their efforts on the other stuff everyone else is already paying attention to.

I have always felt secure because I knew if worse came to worse, I could go to my dad and appeal for help and it would be there...but part of that security came from knowing that I couldn't ask him for just anything, it had to be something I really needed and couldn't get any other way, otherwise his ability to help would have been long gone spent on all the other things myself and my siblings thought were important, but not necessarily essential to survival. OTOH, when he felt he had money to spare, he's been very generous in gifts such as buying a piano for my daughter and giving my son a truck instead of using it as a downpayment when he bought a new one. The Church does much the same, I believe.

[cinepro]

All civilized nations forcefully take money (taxes, levies) from some citizens in order to give it to other people. It seems some Americans believe this should not include caring for the sick if they can't care for themselves. Is it then fair for gay people to be taxed when they technically aren't full citizens in many states? What about childless people who help subsidize education for other people's children through taxation? Is that fair? Sometimes governments take measures that are beneficial to society as a whole. Society does not benefit from having people die from easily curable diseases during their peak working age, or people made homeless due to medical bills that are 10 times what it would cost in any other First World nation.

The US gives foreign aid. That's forcefully taking money from someone (US taxpayers) in order to give it to someone else. I don't understand why some Americans draw the line at the sick and afflicted.

I recognize that if we are to live in a society where we don't allow people to die in the streets of starvation, the government can (as a last resort) try and solve the problem through forceful redistribution of people's money. I agree that the government does many things for the public good with tax money.

I just don't think it's "Christ-like" or "charity" or any sort of benevolence.

If we're walking down the street and a homeless man asks us for money for lunch and I take out my wallet and give him $5, that's charity. But if instead I reach over and forcefully take your wallet from you and remove $10 and give it to the man, what is that?

[Glenn101]

I recognize that if we are to live in a society where we don't allow people to die in the streets of starvation, the government can (as a last resort) try and solve the problem through forceful redistribution of people's money. I agree that the government does many things for the public good with tax money.

I just don't think it's "Christ-like" or "charity" or any sort of benevolence.

If we're walking down the street and a homeless man asks us for money for lunch and I take out my wallet and give him $5, that's charity. But if instead I reach over and forcefully take your wallet from you and remove $10 and give it to the man, what is that?

That is a bought vote. Uh oh, that's political.

Glenn

[Sleeper Cell]

No offence but in many countries Mormons aren't common, and their reputation is not one that demands respect. During and after recent natural disasters in Australia, Buddhist groups, Muslim charities and the Salvation Army offered food, clothing, goods, appliances, even cash. Mormons individually helped, but so did thousands of non-members. The LDS church gave not one cent, and still collected tithes from those who lost everything. I was told by a member who called the Stake for help to first turn to immediate family, then extended family, then OTHER ORGANIZATIONS, then the Church. Those other organizations are almost always other churches or religious groups. Needless to say, after these disasters, the church's reputation is not good, especially amongst members who were in real need.

Why do people who are about to say something offensive often begin their remarks by saying “no offense?”

CFR, that the LDS Church gave not one cent to disaster relief or recovery in Australia.

One of the major challenges faced by disaster response workers is rumor control. Such rumors are typically based on limited evidence (in your case, a conversation with one member) and limited understanding of what is going on behind the scenes.

Another major challenge is to try to coordinate the efforts of the various organizations that are trying to help. Not only is duplication of effort a concern, but sometimes without coordination, one organizations may inadvertently undercut the efforts being made by another. Rumors like “the LDS church gave not one cent” sow mistrust and divisiveness -- the last thing that is needed during a disaster.

If confined to this message board, such a rumor probably does little harm, beyond ruffling a few feathers for a few days. Unfortunately, to the extent that such rumors are circulated in Australia, they could adversely affect the response to your next disaster. After all, who wants to work with an organization whose “reputation does not demand respect?”

[Jeff K.]

All civilized nations forcefully take money (taxes, levies) from some citizens in order to give it to other people. It seems some Americans believe this should not include caring for the sick if they can't care for themselves. Is it then fair for gay people to be taxed when they technically aren't full citizens in many states? What about childless people who help subsidize education for other people's children through taxation? Is that fair? Sometimes governments take measures that are beneficial to society as a whole. Society does not benefit from having people die from easily curable diseases during their peak working age, or people made homeless due to medical bills that are 10 times what it would cost in any other First World nation.

The US gives foreign aid. That's forcefully taking money from someone (US taxpayers) in order to give it to someone else. I don't understand why some Americans draw the line at the sick and afflicted.

The UK Guardian

The UK came eighth on the index and finished joint third, alongside Thailand, in terms of giving money, with 73% of the population having donated to charity. However its former colonial possessions - Australia, New Zealand and the United States - were far more charitable. In Europe only Ireland, Switzerland and Holland fared better.

What people find especially interesting about this, and it's true year after year, that such a high percentage comes from individual donors," Giving USA Chairman Richard Jolly said.

Individuals gave a combined 75.6% of the total. With bequests, that rises to 83.4%.

The biggest chunk of the donations, $96.82 billion or 32.8%, went to religious organizations. The second largest slice, $40.98 billion or 13.9%, went to education, including gifts to colleges, universities and libraries.

About 65% of households with incomes less than $100,000 give to charity, the report showed.

"It tells you something about American culture that is unlike any other country," said Claire Gaudiani, a professor at NYU's Heyman Center for Philanthropy and author of The Greater Good: How Philanthropy Drives the American Economy and Can Save Capitalism. Gaudiani said the willingness of Americans to give cuts across income levels, and their investments go to developing ideas, inventions and people to the benefit of the overall economy.

USA Today

Unlike so many, Americans don't like to be told what to do, and how to do it. It is one reason our nation was founded. Americans do however give, and give generously. More so than many people in nations who seem to think that it is their governments job to take care of the poor, so those compliant people aleviate themeselves of responsibility to care for the poor and wait for the government to do something.

I would suggest a better understanding of the overall American psyche would help avoid some of the complications that come when more compliant peoples in other nations wonder why our nation doesn't necessariy follow in lockstep with US government bureaucracy. We Americans (and as an immigrant I count myself American), like to make our own decisions and help in the way we think is best. One reason I enjoy seeing the UN in New York is because it helps remind us of how wasteful being a "compliant" nation to a government is. The UN cannot even begin to tally its waste due to corruption, featherbedding (easy jobs for relatives and friends) and wasteful misappropriation of funds to almost criminal levels. Many Americans see this and find they prefer donating to something that is more efficient and does greater good. And of course hold the charity accountable if it does not do much good, something almost impossible to do with "government" programs.

[thesometimesaint]

ozpoof:

http://www.ldschurchnews.com/articles/31626/Church-helps-flood-victims-in-Australia.html

and

http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=09c884d4a0a0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

[LeSellers]

If we're walking down the street and a homeless man asks us for money for lunch and I take out my wallet and give him $5, that's charity. But if instead I reach over and forcefully take your wallet from you and remove $10 and give it to the man, what is that?

You're analogy is good, but slightly flawed.

It would be more true-to-life if you were to have said,

"If we're walking down the street and a homeless man asks us for money for lunch and I take out my wallet and give him $5, that's charity. But if instead I reach over and forcefully take your wallet from you and remove $10 and give $2 to the man and keep the other eight for my trouble, what is that?"

[Stargazer]

You're analogy is good, but slightly flawed.

It would be more true-to-life if you were to have said,

"If we're walking down the street and a homeless man asks us for money for lunch and I take out my wallet and give him $5, that's charity. But if instead I reach over and forcefully take your wallet from you and remove $10 and give $2 to the man and keep the other eight for my trouble, what is that?"

Spot on, Lehi. Are you sure about the percentage though? I would have thought the overhead was a little lower -- not even the government could be that brazen, could it?

[LeSellers]

Are you sure about the percentage though? I would have thought the overhead was a little lower -- not even the government could be that brazen, could it?

I've seen estimates as high as 76%, some as low as 30% (but these were from the government, and I believe absolutely nothing government says, ever, about anything, without independent verification).

Brigham Young said, about charity, with regards to education (or better, schools, which have little or nothing to do with education unless it helps fulfill their primary role of indoctrination, that those who would take money from those who have earned it and give it to those who have not created any wealth, that it was 90% waste, fraud, and abuse, that they "pocket nine-tenths themselves". I believe he was very close to correct.

I do not believe in allowing my charities to go through the hands of a set of robbers who pocket nine-tenths themselves, and give one-tenth to the poor. Therein is the difference between us; I am for the real act of doing and not saying.

[Emphasis in the original.]

Journal of Discourses, 18:357).

Lehi

[Paddy]

Paddy:

Why? The Church is well known and respected throughout the world. Until very recently the US ambassador to China was a Mormon(John Huntsman). Harry Reid is the well known Speaker of the US Senate. He is respected throughout the world. He's a Mormon. Mormons come in all types of political persuasions. If you are a Mormon in US politics your first duty and responsibility is to support and defend the Constitution of the US.

thesometimesaint

Unless I was Mormon I probably would not know who John Huntsman or Harry Reid were. If I was a average African or European I would not know who they were either and I certainly would not care if they were Mormon. However if you asked an average person who the President of the US was they probably would be able to tell you. With all the hype in US politics I would suggest that they would also know that he/she was a Mormon. So when an average person across the international community sees an American President engage in the international community as they have been historically, then I don't think that this would fair too well with your average person who would otherwise be interested in the church.

A question for you: Why does being a Mormon in US politics create some imperative to defend the US constitution? Would not a non-Mormon US politician also be interested in defending its country's foundational ideology?

Paddy.

[LeSellers]

Would not a non-Mormon US politician also be interested in defending its country's foundational ideology?

Not much in the past 110 years. Mostly, they've been about growing government—the precise antithesis of the Constitution.

Lehi