rpn Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Your question presupposes that people will have done enough research and paid enough attention to KNOW the faith of the person they are voting for. Sadly (or maybe thankfully if it is intentional), in our world, there are voters who won't know about this issue or lots of other real things about how the candidate has acted in the past that gives an idea of how they would be as president.
Mudcat Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Probably will eventually get shut down for politics, but any thoughts (non-political, of course) about this?http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspxI wouldn't have a problem voting for an LDS. Primarily because of the similarity between our values.That being said, I think if there were two candidates one Baptist and one LDS. Both had identical platforms and came off equally well in all respects. I would vote for the Baptist because I am a Baptist. I think the only way in such equitable circumstances would be if the LDS candidate seemed to have a greater potential for defeating the opposing party's candidate.I was amazed at the lack of change in that poll over time. I actually think in general the EV community seems more open to the idea than in the past. The reason I suggest that, is the last Presidential run American Family Radio(AFR),one of the media arms of the AFA,was fairly unfavorable to the LDS candidate. However, I have noticed a significant shift of ground in the temperature towards an LDS candidate this time around.
Bernard Gui Posted June 22, 2011 Author Posted June 22, 2011 I was amazed at the lack of change in that poll over time. I actually think in general the EV community seems more open to the idea than in the past. The reason I suggest that, is the last Presidential run American Family Radio(AFR),one of the media arms of the AFA,was fairly unfavorable to the LDS candidate. However, I have noticed a significant shift of ground in the temperature towards an LDS candidate this time around.That lack of change interested me, too. If the EV community (which I assumed made up the bulk of the opposition to a Mormon) is more favorable,who do you think stepped up to fill the void?Bernard
AddamS Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 who do you think stepped up to fill the void?An incredible fear of Barak Obama
Mudcat Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 That lack of change interested me, too. If the EV community (which I assumed made up the bulk of the opposition to a Mormon) is more favorable,who do you think stepped up to fill the void?BernardThe poll only gave the specific group data for this last poll.. it didn't offer group information for past polls so I have no real comparison, only speculation.However, the Midwest offered the highest ratio against voting for an LDS. I was surprised with that. I assumed the South would have been higher, even though sentiments have softened towards LDS a bit.I would venture that the stance on Prop 8 associated with LDS has created a rather polarized group. Just a hunch really.
Lance in TX Posted June 23, 2011 Posted June 23, 2011 That depends on the Mormon!I would not vote for Harry Reid (who is Mormon) and I would not vote for Huntsman (he won't say if he is or not anymore, but he was) and I would vote for Romney (but not because he is Mormon).The person's religion is not much of an issue with me. The PERSON is more important.
herestonewbeginnings Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 The concern is that if a man (such as a Romney or Huntsman) whole heartedly believes in what is taught in Mormon doctrine, it causes many Americans and most Christians to be just a little suspicious of his ability to make rational and logical decisions on behalf of the country. This is meant to be a factual observation, not some form of attack on anyone. For example, if a candidate for President of the United States believes in a faith that:Not only lacks archeological evidence to support the claims made by it's founder, but actually contradicts such claims. Remember when the Smithsonian Institute documented 8 major areas of holes in Mormon history? That was a devistating blow. Also, the founder of the the Archeology Dept. at BYU, Professor Thomas Ferguson, spent 25 years researching topography, history, people, coins, settlements, etc... claimed by mormon history. His conclusion, in his final paper, he said Mormon history is "fictional". Contrast this to the Bible, which continues to be one of the most historicallly accurate books known to man. Just one of the reasons Christians are concerned about Mormonism.White people are preferred over people of color in the eyes of God...that Indians, Blacks are "cursed", etc... (2 Nephi 5:21, Book of Moses 7:8-12, Book of Abraham 1:24, or even Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 7:290, 10:110). That's contrary to the character of the God of the Bible.Believes in many gods, not one true God. Teachings of Joseph Smith #349Polygamy was part of the faith until the U.S. Govt pressured the church, resulting in LDS President Woodruff to conveniently, and suddenly, say he just had a "revelation" that Polygamy should be obstained until the after life.Jesus was/is the brother of Satan. I won't go into his conception....Salvation is by works, not by grace alone as is stated in the Bible. Thus, minimizing Christs work on the cross.Much, much more...Don't want to belabor the point, but want to be candid about just a portion of why many Americans and most Christians have a deep concern about electing a mormon. Thus, you will always see polls reflecting that there is a significant concern in electing a candidate that would believe in the aforementioned, which is the tip of the ice berg.I imagine this post will be deleted, but I hope not. If it is, that will speak volumes.... 1
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) herestonewbeginnings:So many wrong ideas. If that is the quality of information about what the Saints actually believe. I fear for my country. Edited June 24, 2011 by thesometimesaint
zerinus Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 The concern is that if a man (such as a Romney or Huntsman) whole heartedly believes in what is taught in Mormon doctrine, it causes many Americans and most Christians to be just a little suspicious of his ability to make rational and logical decisions on behalf of the country. This is meant to be a factual observation, not some form of attack on anyone. For example, if a candidate for President of the United States believes in a faith that:Not only lacks archeological evidence to support the claims made by it's founder, but actually contradicts such claims. Remember when the Smithsonian Institute documented 8 major areas of holes in Mormon history? That was a devistating blow. Also, the founder of the the Archeology Dept. at BYU, Professor Thomas Ferguson, spent 25 years researching topography, history, people, coins, settlements, etc... claimed by mormon history. His conclusion, in his final paper, he said Mormon history is "fictional". Contrast this to the Bible, which continues to be one of the most historicallly accurate books known to man. Just one of the reasons Christians are concerned about Mormonism.White people are preferred over people of color in the eyes of God...that Indians, Blacks are "cursed", etc... (2 Nephi 5:21, Book of Moses 7:8-12, Book of Abraham 1:24, or even Brigham Young Journal of Discourses 7:290, 10:110). That's contrary to the character of the God of the Bible.Believes in many gods, not one true God. Teachings of Joseph Smith #349Polygamy was part of the faith until the U.S. Govt pressured the church, resulting in LDS President Woodruff to conveniently, and suddenly, say he just had a "revelation" that Polygamy should be obstained until the after life.Jesus was/is the brother of Satan. I won't go into his conception....Salvation is by works, not by grace alone as is stated in the Bible. Thus, minimizing Christs work on the cross.Much, much more...Don't want to belabor the point, but want to be candid about just a portion of why many Americans and most Christians have a deep concern about electing a mormon. Thus, you will always see polls reflecting that there is a significant concern in electing a candidate that would believe in the aforementioned, which is the tip of the ice berg.I imagine this post will be deleted, but I hope not. If it is, that will speak volumes....All religions can be made to look irrational by those who disagree with them. You could draw up a list like that about a Catholic President, a Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, or Evangelical one. But sorry to disappoint you, in all free countries in the world a man's religion is not a bar to a political career. Religion and politics do not mix, and no civilized nation in the world tries to mix them. That is especially true in the US, which is built from the ground up on the idea of the separation of church and state. If you want to live in a country in which a man’s political destiny is shaped by his religion, then you will have to go and live in a place like Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Bahrain, where non-Muslims are effectively barred from politics—and not only non-Muslims, but a particular sect within Islam. In Iran, Sunnis, Baha’is, and other sects are barred from politics, not just Christians or Jews. In Saudi Arabia it is the other way round. The Shi’a and other sects are barred from politics, never mind about Jews or Christians. If you want to live in a country like that, that is where you should go, not try to turn the United States into that kind of a place.
DH Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) herestonewbeginnings,With the exception of bias against people of color, I don't see what any of those beliefs has to do with running the country. And even that is no longer valid, since the Church has long since changed its position on blacks and the priesthood. Honestly, whether one believes in one god or a baker's dozen makes no difference when it comes to serving in public office! Let's get past this religious bigotry nonsense--it's so... 17th century.To answer the original question, yes, I certainly would vote for a Mormon, provided her political values and ideas were similar to mine, and she was a better candidate than those running against her. I'm not terribly excited about either of the current LDS presidential candidates, but would rather have either one of them than the likes of, say, Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, or Sarah Palin (if she decides to run). Edited June 24, 2011 by DH
Messenger Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 A person's religion would be irrelevant to me. I choose the best person for the job.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) DH:Most voters didn't have a problem with voting for a Southern Baptist, dispite its original religious teachings. The reason there IS a Southern Baptist church is because they didn't consider the blacks as even human. Edited June 24, 2011 by thesometimesaint
ELF1024 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 A person's religion would be irrelevant to me. I choose the best person for the job. The best person for the job never runs for President because he doesn't want the job. We get stuck voting for the lesser of the evils.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) ELF1024:Maybe we should put everyones name in the hat, and that person is President only to be released for good behavior. Edited June 24, 2011 by thesometimesaint
Nathair/|\ Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 The best person for the job never runs for President because he doesn't want the job. We get stuck voting for the lesser of the evils. The "best person for the job" served his two terms and died 14 Dec. 1799. He practically had to be drafted to serve in the first place.
ELF1024 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 ELF1024:Maybe we should put everyones name in the hat, and that person is President only to be released for good behavior. Well, I doubt it would yield a result that could do any worse than the current set of clowns. So why not!
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 ELF1024:I'm not about to demean real clowns like that. 1
ELF1024 Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 ELF1024:I'm not about to demean real clowns like that. Ok, you have a point, I apologize to all clowns every where for my offensive remarks.
LeSellers Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Maybe we should put everyones name in the hat, and that person is President only to be released for good behavior.That's essentially the way the ancient Greeks did it. But then, they didn't have government-run, tax-funded schools telling people they were no good, and that they should leave leadership to the professionals.A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.Lehi
Messenger Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 The best person for the job never runs for President because he doesn't want the job. We get stuck voting for the lesser of the evils. Like I said, vote for the best person for the job. What’s the alternative to choosing the best from the choices provided? Choosing the worst? Not choosing at all? The original point of the OP -- Would you choose or not choose based on religion? When people choose a president based on religion, then they are being silly in my opinion. It is true, that religion can make a person better (I suppose that depends on the religion), but ultimately the individual decides on how much religion of that religion to incorporate into their personal life, and yes, even their job. I have lots of family members. That doesn’t mean because they are family, that I trust them all the same. Titles mean nothing - neither in skills or trust. On the job training is good for some careers, but not good for presidents in my personal opinion.
sethpayne Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Probably will eventually get shut down for politics, but any thoughts (non-political, of course) about this?http://www.gallup.com/poll/148100/Hesitant-Support-Mormon-2012.aspxWe Americans are so silly. Why we care about the religion of our President I'll never know.For the record, I'd vote for a Mormon and am likely to support Huntsman in the primary.
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Lehi:Not really. The ancient Greeks limited the pool to wealthy free males. It seems that Socrates got into a bit of trouble for his teachings.
LeSellers Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 The ancient Greeks limited the pool to wealthy free males.The principle remains the same, irrespective of your chronocentrism. The Greeks did not run political campaigns and they did not have a professional class of "leaders". Their choice of leader was by lot, with some limitations. It seems that Socrates got into a bit of trouble for his teachings.Which has nothing to do with the issue at hand.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 Lehi:All I have to do is limit the number of people who can vote to get any result I so desire. Those ancients Greeks knew that darn well. They were no politiocal slauches. With some 310 million people in the US. It would be practically impossible for every citizen to vote on every issue. Ala those ancient Greeks. IIRC you are the one who introduced schools and teaching. Socrates got onto trouble for "Corrupting the youth".
LeSellers Posted June 24, 2011 Posted June 24, 2011 All I have to do is limit the number of people who can vote to get any result I so desire. Those ancients Greeks knew that darn well. They were no politiocal slauches. The point was, there was no "vote": they chose more-or-less at random. With some 310 million people in the US. It would be practically impossible for every citizen to vote on every issue. Ala those ancient Greeks. They didn't either. They had representative assemblies, made up of the appointed. Yours is an argument (which I support) for much smaller governemnt, more local and more responsive to the varied of the people than any monstrous government of an enormous empire, such as we have today.Jimmy Carter could not understand how westerners were put off by his vetoing a water bill (hurray for him—except the feds own all the water in the west), because, as he put it, "Where I come from, 'water' is just another word." IIRC you are the one who introduced schools and teaching. Socrates got onto trouble for "Corrupting the youth".See, private education is more responsive to the needs of the parents: don't like your kids' teachers? Give 'em hemlock. Lehi
Recommended Posts