why me Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Mormonism will be getting much publicity with two Mormons seeking the Republican nomination. I found the debate in this section of the NYT interesting. What do you think?http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/07/04/are-republicans-ready-now-for-a-mormon-president?ref=sunday
Nominee Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 I think at what level one chooses to stand by his/her faith is a true sign of his/her character. I would hope that if one or the other of these two were voted in that it would be the one who best remembers and respects the covenants they have made with God. They have both made a committment to be representative of Jesus Christ in every aspect of their lives. Being Christlike is being Christlike. I am concerned about anyone taking office from any walk of life, any religious background, that feels comfortable dismissing their beliefs to meet the demands of a political career.
Mariner Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Thanks for posting this. Reading through the various contributions to the debate leaves one with a new appreciation of the poliical and sectarian minefield that must be negotiated by the Mormon candidates. I found the passage below from Damon Linker to be particularly disturbing, and unfortunately, exactly on point.The trouble for Mr. Huntsman and Mr. Romney is that the expressions of religion that evangelicals demand must derive from what evangelicals consider to be the right kind of piety. And that points to the problem of injecting religious considerations into the political realm — namely, that political contests begin to take on the character of sectarian squabbles.In this case, evangelicals stack the deck in such a way that a Mormon, whether deeply devout or selectively observant, is unlikely to receive the G.O.P. nomination, regardless of the policies he or she supports. For either man to become the party’s nominee for president, he will have to break out of this theological dynamic.These fate of these Mormon candidates in the present election cycle is likely to demonstrate clearly to the LDS Church that their attempts at sectarian appeasement with the Evangelicals and their fellow fundamentalists has all been for naught, and that there is just no reasoning with true believers.
KevinG Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 Fortunately for the LDS candidates Southern Christians are not a monolithic group. Many of my Baptist and Evengelical neighbors are supporters of Romney, while ironically many of my Mormon friends and I favor some non-Mormon candidates at this point.This is one of those media games that ends with someone being surprised at how many (fill in the religious, gender or ethnic group) actually voted for (fill in the candidate that wasnt supposed to appeal to said religious, gender or ethnic group).Real life examples: Blonde reporter: "I'm surprised at the 43% hispanics that voted for George W Bush" or "Obama did surprisingly well among white soccer moms".
CQUIRK Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 These fate of these Mormon candidates in the present election cycle is likely to demonstrate clearly to the LDS Church that their attempts at sectarian appeasement with the Evangelicals and their fellow fundamentalists has all been for naught, and that there is just no reasoning with true believers. Uh, why do you think Mitt isn't campaigning much in the South and lower Midwest at all? He's well aware of that matter.Fortunately for the LDS candidates Southern Christians are not a monolithic group. Many of my Baptist and Evengelical neighbors are supporters of Romney, while ironically many of my Mormon friends and I favor some non-Mormon candidates at this point. Yeah, I'm going for Ron Paul.
Calm Posted November 19, 2011 Posted November 19, 2011 the LDS Church that their attempts at sectarian appeasement with the Evangelicals and their fellow fundamentalists has all been for naught...What actions do you see the LDS Church has taken for "sectarian appeasement"?
noel00 Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 If Romney wins he will be seen as the saviour of the economy. if the economy tanks, it will be Obama's fault, if if booms to Romneys credit.. If Obama wins he will still be called a secret muslim and a socialist. If under Obama the economy booms the credit will go to the the GOP in congress. Foxnews will get high ratings for conspiracies, Glen Beck will say the second coming is around the corner,
CQUIRK Posted November 20, 2011 Posted November 20, 2011 HERETIC!!! I know Ezra Taft Benson would support Paul over Romney, as would Cleon too.
KevinG Posted November 21, 2011 Posted November 21, 2011 I know Ezra Taft Benson would support Paul over Romney, as would Cleon too.Just teasing you brother!
Stargazer Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Resurrecting this moribund topic for a moment to mention something my wife told me today.She cleans house and acts as a caretaker for an elderly woman heading into dementia, whose husband can't quite handle it physically any longer himself, and today he told her out of the blue: "I'm going to vote for the Mormon."I thought this was interesting, inasmuch as she doesn't talk politics with any of her clients, nor religion (except for one of them who likes getting into philosophical discussions). Of course the fact that she is LDS must have come up at some point with this gentleman. I guess it isn't because of Mitt's religion, but still, to identify whom you're going to vote for by religion. I'm going to vote for the Catholic. Or maybe the Pentacostal. I wish a Jehovah's Witness would run so I could vote for him or her.Oh well.
Calm Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 It's late and I haven't slept much the past couple of days, but my memory says JWs don't do oaths so I am not sure how they would manage taking office....would the oath be waived?addon: PoliticsBased on their interpretation of the Bible and their expectation of the coming theocracy, Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in politics or secular wars. They do not salute the flag, support one politician or nation over another, or enlist in the military. This has often resulted in persecution by governments who views these stances as anti-nationalistic. However, Witnesses also recognize the need for secular governments and authority, and abide by this authority fully except "on those rare occasions when a government demands what is in direct conflict with what God commands."http://www.religionfacts.com/jehovahs_witnesses/practices.htm
Stargazer Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 It's late and I haven't slept much the past couple of days, but my memory says JWs don't do oaths so I am not sure how they would manage taking office....would the oath be waived?addon:http://www.religionf...s/practices.htmUh, I was joking, actually. But we have had a Quaker president, you know. Pacifists they might be, but Nixon hardly fit the bill.
Calm Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Uh, I was joking, actually.Well......I did say I needed some sleep.
Jeff K. Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Uh, I was joking, actually. But we have had a Quaker president, you know. Pacifists they might be, but Nixon hardly fit the bill.Nixon to Quakers as Huntsman to LDS?
Avatar4321 Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 You know, maybe we should stop hoping people will get interested in the Gospel because some famous Mormon is seen by them and start opening our own mouths and sharing the Gospel. Just a thought...
thesometimesaint Posted January 4, 2012 Posted January 4, 2012 Actually we've had two Quaker Presidents. Herbert Hoover, and Richard Nixon.
BCSpace Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Undoubtedly, the percent of voters who would not vote for a Mormon candidate would go up if the candidate played up his Mormonism because these voters would draw the conclusion that he would be promoting his faith as president. However, it is also true that the percentage of these people who would vote against a Mormon candidate would probably go up if he tried to play down or de-emphasize his faith. Why? A significant percentage of these voters are religious and their objections are for religious reasons, and they would have less respect for a candidate who seemed to be downplaying his religious convictions.I agree with this. A Mormon is not going to get any traction with obvious religious values. Unfortunate because other candidates are.
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 JeffK.:Nixon opened China to the west.
LeSellers Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 Nixon opened China to the west.China was open to the West under Hoover.Nixon opened Communist China. Hoover's China was a totalitarian state, but it was not under the likes of Mao Tse Dung.Lehi
thesometimesaint Posted January 5, 2012 Posted January 5, 2012 China has had numerous periods of time when it was more or less open to the west. As few of us were alive during the presidency of Hoover. The Nixon trip is a good reference point for us living today. About 20 years ago I said that in 50 years the average chinese would say Mao Who? I appear to be ahead of schedual.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.