Evangelical Prof Poses 10 Questions For Mitt Romney

[thesometimesaint]

Smac:

Agreed.

[BCSpace]

Sure. But they have every reason to mistrust us as our official doctrine is indeed that we are the only true Church and they are part of apostate Christianity. Nature of the game.

Wow. Then nobody can trust anybody if believing that your religion is the right one is the criteria.

In general no. Only true Church is not a fast way to make friends. Theologically, we are not friends with other religions but we do generally respect them and sometime cooperate on common interests.

Not to mention their beliefs are even more restrictive than ours.

Depends on the sect and whether or not you're talking about theological restrictions (who can be saved), or moral restrictions (watch TV or not).

[juliann]

Depends on the sect and whether or not you're talking about theological restrictions (who can be saved), or moral restrictions (watch TV or not).

The topic was not being trusted because of a belief that your religion is right and the others are not. I'm not sure where TV comes into that. Evangelicals do not think of themselves as a "sect". And it is a little strange to even be debating this when conservative EVs most certainly believe that they are the real Christians....and being Christian determines not only your future but your present. Mormons have no codified belief that the nation should be "Mormon" only with Mormon based law. In fact, we don't even put that into the millennium. This insistence on being regarded as the only true religion really comes to the fore when they deal with nonChristian religions.... although they are a bit more forgiving of Jews.

[Stargazer]

Interesting that most of you seem to have an aversion to answering yes or no questions about your personal beliefs.

I presume that comes from your desire that mormons be allowed to fit in?

My answers would be:

1. No.

2. Yes.

3. Yes.

4. No.

5. NA

6. no.

7. No. No.

8. No.

9. no.

10. no.

I have one question for you: Have you stopped beating your wife? I will accept only a Yes or No answer.

If a question is designed to elicit a yes/no, but such a simple response will leave an incorrect or misleading impression, then the question is itself dishonest. And must be answered with background, if at all.

[Bernard Gui]

Great questions, for the most part. I am guessing that most evangelicals would give you a straight answer, without the dodge that most of you demonstrate.

Mr. Candidate, does your religion teach that true believers will be "raptured" into heaven in the near future, and then terrible things will happen in our country? Do you believe you will be "raptured" and wouldn't that be abandoning your country and it's people in their greatest hour of need? If this is true, why should people vote for you?

Edited January 5, 2012 by Bernard Gui

[Jaybear]

I would be surprised if the person who asked the question desired a yes or no answer.

Really? Because I assume when someone asks a question intended to elicit a yes or no answer, that they in fact do want a yes or no answer.

In many of SMAC's "answers", he did not answer the question. He merely expanding upon the premise of the question, using the question as a tool to offer more about what the LDS Church teaches. The individual who asked the question wasnt asking for more information about LDS Church doctrine, he wanted to know about Mitt Romney's personal beliefs.

They don't have to be. The people asking them the questions are already members of their 'church' for the most part. They WANT people to use their religious beliefs as a test to determine their worthiness. They put their beliefs out there specificially because they believe it will help them get elected.

I agree. The undisputable fact is, people vote their values. People want to know if a candidate share their values. In many respects our values our shaped by our pesonal beliefs.

I don't think its unreasonable to seek to elicit more information about their personal beliefs, which .. as Huntsman makes evident, is not necessiry the same thing as the core doctrines taught in the Church they attend.

Sarah Palin's pastor conducted exorcisims. That doesn't mean she personally believes in exerorsism.

Oh for heaven's sake. Have you ever heard an evangelical politician asked? I'd be interested in your examples of them openly talking about their stranger beliefs if you can even find them being questioned in a mainstream public forum. The closest was Bachman's slip up about the biblical necessity of obeying her husband and she did not give a straight answer. She also had the benefit of the questioner being booed.

Can you be more specific. What did she say, specifically, that leads you to that conclusion. I think you may have a point, but I don't remember enough about what she said about her personal beliefs when addressing the issue.

I have one question for you: Have you stopped beating your wife? I will accept only a Yes or No answer.

If a question is designed to elicit a yes/no, but such a simple response will leave an incorrect or misleading impression, then the question is itself dishonest. And must be answered with background, if at all.

The question you ask is premised on a false assumption.

By contrast, I don't see that any of the questions presented in the OP fit that category.

Mr. Candidate, does your religion teach that true believers will be "raptured" into heaven in the near future, and then terrible things will happen in our country? Do you believe you will be "raptured" and wouldn't that be abandoning your country and it's people in their greatest hour of need? If this is true, why should people vote for you?

You touch on a very important point, but your questioning is flawed. An evangelical could honestly answer your questions, no, no, yes, no and n/a. Then ask for your vote. If pressed he could say:

No, my religion does not teach that the rapture is imminent.

No, because for all practical purposes the country will cease to exist.

Yes, I believe I will be if I am around when that occurs.

No, that would not constitute abandoning the country.

The point you are trying to raise by asking the question is an important one, because as a voter, I want to know if a politician:

1. Believes the rapture/second comming is imminent; and

2. If so, how will that belief would impact his/her decisions regarding long term interest of the country, ie social security solvency, environment.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think the point that the EV professor is trying to make by asking the questions? Based on the suggested answers, I don't think any of you have figured the point he was trying to make.

[Sevenbak]

I just returned from covering the Caucuses in Iowa, and the Santorum supporters I talked to out in the rural areas were pretty harshly anti Mormon. Some more open than others, but upon deep questioning, the faith issue seems to be the bottom line, no matter how politically correct they try to be on the surface. Santorum's Catholicism doesn't matter to the Evangelicals. It's largely a anti Mitt vote, not a pro Santorum vote.

In related news, there was a lot of evidence of Democrat crossover voters going to Paul. He also has the youth vote this time around, as opposed to Obama. Very interesting dynamics.

[Lightbearer]

Here are the 10 questions, with how I would respond if I they were presented to me as a political candidate. How would you respond?

1. When people ask you honest questions about your Mormon faith, you tell them to go read the official websites of the LDS Church. Do you believe everything the LDS officially teaches?

Of course, I am a Mormon in good standing and believe everything that the Lord has revealed and will reveal through His servants. I do not waffle on the teachings of my faith or pick and choose like a buffet. The Church does not lie or hide the truth about our belief; in fact that is why we send out unpaid Missionaries who volunteer their own time, money, and talents to spreading of the message of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.

.

2. When asked whether Mormonism is Christian, BYU professor Dr. Stephen Robinson in his book How Wide the Divide? writes, “Latter-day Saints do not seek to be accepted as historically orthodox Christians or as Evangelicals. We are neither.” Do you agree with Dr. Robinson?

Professor Robinson is not a general authority of the Church, but is entitled to his own opinions. I have not read his book and do not consider it an authorized doctrinal source for the Church. As far as LDS being Christians, that should be obvious to anyone who looks at the official name of the Church: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The Church does not seek to be accepted or received into fellowship of any other Christian faith because we believe we are a restoration of the original Christian Church as taught by the original twelve apostles after Christ’s crucifixion. So it is the same Christianity that Peter, James, and John had, the same that Paul preached. We are not a reformation, but a new dispensation of the Gospel that was proclaimed by angels to a living prophet.

So yes, we testify that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh, that He was the literal Son of God the Father and that He gave Himself as a ransom for our sins. He broke the bands of death and was resurrected that first Easter morning and made eternal life possible for all who would follow Him, the way the truth and the life.

3. The official teaching of the LDS Church is that the Mormon Church is “the one and only true church on earth.” Do you also believe that all non-denominational and denominational churches are not true churches?

The Lord Jesus Christ told the Prophet Joseph Smith in his First Vision that all the Churches existent at that time “that they were all wrong,” and that He (Jesus Christ) would restore His own Church, the true church to the earth and authorize His servants to spread the Gospel just as He did anciently. Just as all faiths believe they are the only correct or true way, so does Mormonism. But that does not mean there are no truths or value contained in other faiths. The Prophet taught the following:

"Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true "Mormons." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith-Section Six 1843-44, p.316)

More importantly in the context of a presidential election are the following principles taught in Mormonism:

Joseph Smith also taught the importance of reaching out to defend the rights of those not of our faith:

If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a Mormon, I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholic or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves." (Documentary History of the Church Vol.5, p. 498.)

These sentiments have been recently emphasized by former President Gordon B. Hinckley, who stated:

"We can respect other religions, and must do so. We must recognize the great good they accomplish. We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith. We can and do work with those of other religions in the defense of those values which have made our civilization great and our society distinctive."

4.

The LDS Church believes that all humans were living as spirit people on another planet before they were born in a body on earth. Do you believe you lived before you were born on earth?

Of course I believe I lived before I was born on earth, all of us, the whole human family, are the children of God. We were born as spirit children to heavenly parents. We were raised in the royal courts of heaven and prepared to come to this earth to serve our Heavenly Father. That is why we call God our Heavenly Father. Why try to make it sound so odd or foreign when it is the most glorious of doctrines of the Gospel of Christ. As for another planet, if you call the Celestial World where God dwells “another planet” then I suppose it was. Why would anyone try to demean our royal heritage by referring to it in that way? We are so loved of God because we are not mere creations, but we are His children.

5.

The LDS Church believes that all humans were the spirit children of God the Father, and his wife, in a pre-mortal life. Is this what you meant when in your Faith in America speech you said, “We believe that every single human being is a child of God”?

Again, yes, of course and it is so obvious even a child can understand it. When has there ever been a Father without a Mother also? Paul declared in the New Testament that we are the “offspring of God” (Acts 17:29) If the scriptures have any meaning when they declare God as Our Father, then these ideas should be evident to anyone having faith in the Bible. If the scriptures says man was created in the image and likeness of God, then who’s likeness is woman created in?

In 1995, the LDS Church published "The Family: A Proclamation to the World," which included the following:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

An LDS hymn, "O, My Father," includes the following language:

“In the heavens are parents single?

No, the thought makes reason stare.Truth is reason: truth eternal tells me I've a mother there.

When I leave this frail existence,

When I lay this mortal by,

Father, Mother, may I meet you

in your royal courts on high?”

While Latter-day Saints believe in the existence of Heavenly Mother, we do not pray to Her, nor do we have much information about Her in scripture.

6.

The LDS Church teaches that humans as worthy Mormons can become gods after they die. Do you believe you are a worthy Mormon that will become a god one day?

Latter-day Saints believe that, through the grace of Jesus Christ, we can obey His commandment to "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5:48). The Bible further states, in Romans 8, that "[t]he Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God," and that "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ."

Jesus declared to John on the Isle of Patmos: “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.” (Revelation 3:21)

How then can you sit down in the throne of God without becoming as He is?

As for myself I only hope that I am worthy of that high honor when the time comes.

7.

Not all Mormons can go into a LDS temple because they are not found worthy. Are you a temple Mormon? Do you practice the sacred rituals inside Mormon temples?

"Temple Mormon" is a phrase foreign to the Latter-day Saints. All members of the LDS Church have access to the temple if they prepare themselves for it. And yes, I attend the temple as often as I can. It is a wonderful experience.

8.

Do you believe people can convert to Mormonism after they die?

Yes, but only if they choose to do so. Just as we believe that our souls existed prior to our birth, we also believe that our soulds will continue to exist after our death. The ability to grow and learn and make choices will continue after we die. This is why Jesus Christ, after his crucifixion and death, "went and preached unto the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19), and why "the gospel [was] preached also to them that are dead" (1 Peter 4:6).

9.

We know that Mormons are baptized for the dead in a LDS temple. Have you ever been baptized for your dead ancestors? Have you ever baptized others for the dead?

Yes and yes. Baptism for the dead, the religious practice of baptizing a living person on behalf of one who is dead, with the living person acting as the deceased person's proxy, is specifically referenced in the Bible (1 Corinthians 15:29) and more extensively in other LDS scriptures. While most modern Christians do not adhere to this practice, numerous scholars have acknowledged its practice in the early days of Christianity. However, whether the baptism is accepted by the person on whose behalf it is performed is entirely up to that person.

10.

The Mormon Church believes that the Bible has errors in it. If you become the next president of the United States, are you going to request to be sworn in with the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible?

Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr., a former president of the LDS Church, addressed this issue well:

We are all aware that there are errors in the Bible due to faulty translations and ignorance on the part of the translators, but the hand of the Lord has been over this volume of Scripture nevertheless, and it is remarkable that it has come down to us in the excellent condition in which we find it. (Doctrines of Salvation, 3:191)

Latter-day Saints are aware of, but certainly do not dwell on or emphasize, man-made errors in the Bible. We read from and study the Bible regularly, and we try to apply its precepts in our daily lives.

As for being “sworn in”, I am not so sure that a true Christian should be, at least according to Christ: “Again, ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths: But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” (Matthew 5:33 - 37)

Edited January 5, 2012 by Lightbearer

[bluebell]

The individual who asked the question wasnt asking for more information about LDS Church doctrine, he wanted to know about Mitt Romney's personal beliefs.

If that were true, then he would welcome answers that went beyond yes and no.

I agree. The undisputable fact is, people vote their values. People want to know if a candidate share their values. In many respects our values our shaped by our pesonal beliefs.

If that were true then there would be much less anti-mormonism in politics among evangelicals since they largely share the same values as LDS.

[Jaybear]

If that were true, then he would welcome answers that went beyond yes and no.

Perhaps, but not necessarily. If someone wants to know more, they will ask why.

If that were true then there would be much less anti-mormonism in politics among evangelicals since they largely share the same values as LDS.

What statement did I make that you dispute?:

(1) people vote their values;

(2) People prefer candidates that share their values; or

(3) Our values are shaped by our personal beliefs.

BTW, as much as mormons complain about anti-mormonism in politics among evangelicals, which I wholeheartedly agree exists, I not so sure that its exists to a greater extent than anti-evangelicalism exists among mormon voters.

If you disagree, give me the name of a single active mormon who when given a choice voted agaisnt Romney in favor of any EV candidate, whether Huckabee, Perry or Bachman.

Just one person.

[LeSellers]

give me the name of a single active mormon who when given a choice voted agaisnt Romney in favor of any EV candidate, whether Huckabee, Perry or Bachman.

Just one person.

Well, that would be me. I would have chosen Bachman or Santorum (if he's still around when Colorado caucuses in a few weeks) over Brother Romney. Huckabee, no; nor Perry, but Bachman would have been a good president. As would Sarah Palin, another Evangelical.

Of course, in reality, I'll be supporting Ron Paul, who isn't a public Evangelical (although a Baptist), like the others, but who closely matches my political preferences.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2012 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

.

Edited January 5, 2012 by LeSellers

[Sevenbak]

The Tea-vangelicals will coalesce around whomever they see beating Romney. I predict a brokered convention, no matter what the primary results are.

[Jaybear]

Well, that would be me. I would have chosen Bachman or Santorum (if he's still around when Colorado caucuses in a few weeks) over Brother Romney. Huckabee, no; nor Perry, but Bachman would have been a good president. As would Sarah Palin, another Evangelical.

Of course, in reality, I'll be supporting Ron Paul, who isn't a public Evangelical (although a Baptist), like the others, but who closely matches my political preferences.

Lehi

I didn't ask for a name of an active mormon would be willing to SAY he WOULD VOTE for an EV candidate over Romney. In 2008, Romney got 89.5 % of the vote in the Utah republican primary. Assuming that the nonmormon Utah republicans voted consistent with national numbers, only a few mormons voted actually voted agaisnt Romney.

Mormons have no right to complain that most conservative evangelical voters would prefer to vote for a conservate evangelical politician over Romney, especially since Romney is not even a social conservative. Well, not really.

[LeSellers]

I didn't ask for a name of an active mormon would be willing to SAY he WOULD VOTE for an EV candidate over Romney. In 2008, Romney got 89.5 % of the vote in the Utah republican primary. Assuming that the nonmormon Utah republicans voted consistent with national numbers, only a few mormons voted actually voted agaisnt Romney.

Is your shift key stuck?

You're making an assumption based on no facts at all, as best I can tell.

By your own admission, "a few Mormons [sic] voted actually voted against Romney" (spelling and capitalization standardized), and your exact words were:

"give me the name of a single active mormon [sic] who when given a choice voted agaisnt Romney in favor of any EV candidate, whether Huckabee, Perry or Bachman.

"Just one person."

So it's hard for me to figure out what it is you are asking for. On the one hand you ask that we provide the name of a single Saint who voted for an Evangelical (and thus, against Romney), and on the other hand, you say a few did, negating your implication that we Saints are just as bad as the Iowan Evangelicals who voted against Romney based solely on his religion. Which is it?

I have voted for candidates of a wide variety of religious backgrounds given that we don't have a lot of Saints who've run in the elections I was involved with. I've voted in favor of them over a Saint on occasion. I would vote for Bachman or Santorum (but have not had the chance to do so at this point) if Paul (also a non-LDS candidate) is not in the running when we get to choose. If it comes to Romney or O'bama, it'll be Romney for me (unless I do as I have done consistently since 1980, and vote Libertarian) because the policies of the current president leave me absolutely cold. But Romney is not my first choice, and will be my last choice only if no other viable option exists.

Mormons [sic] have no right to complain that most conservative evangelical voters would prefer to vote for a conservate evangelical politician over Romney, especially since Romney is not even a social conservative. Well, not really.

I voted in the 2008 Colorado caucus against Romney. As it turned out, however, Mitt had dropped out before the delegates were actually chosen, so it didn't matter, and M^cCain took the GOP delegates with him to the convention, but it was not what I'd have chosen.

Lehi

Edited January 5, 2012 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

Actually Palin does believe in exorcisms, just not the Catholic type.

Edited January 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Jaybear]

You're making an assumption based on no facts at all, as best I can tell.

As best you can tell? What did I say that was ambigous?

I expressed my opinion that in a race between an EV and a Mormon, the percentage of EV voters supporting the Mormon would likely exceed the percentage of Mormon votes supporing the EV.

In a recent CNN poll, 16% of EV voters in Iowa said that they would vote for Romney. Do you think that 16% or more of the Mormon voters in Iowa voted for Santorum, Bachman or Perry? I don't have any data, but I don't believe especially since Romney pulled in almost all Mormon votes in his utah primary.

Here is the poll:

A CNN/TIME/ORC poll last week found that Romney had the support of 16% of likely evangelical caucus-goers in Iowa, compared to 22% for Santorum, 18% for Ron Paul and 14% for Gingrich, who had much higher evangelical support in earlier Iowa polls.

I asked if anyone disagreed, to provide a singe name of a mormon who voted for an EV candidate over Romney.

I am not assuming there are no such mormons. If fact, for all all I know, there might be someone out there.

By your own admission, "a few Mormons [sic] voted actually voted against Romney" (spelling and capitalization standardized), and your exact words were:

"give me the name of a single active mormon [sic] who when given a choice voted agaisnt Romney in favor of any EV candidate, whether Huckabee, Perry or Bachman.

Voting agaisnt Romney is not the same as voting for an evangelical, as Paul and McCain are not evangelical candidates.

"Just one person."

So it's hard for me to figure out what it is you are asking for. On the one hand you ask that we provide the name of a single Saint who voted for an Evangelical (and thus, against Romney), and on the other hand, you say a few did, negating your implication that we Saints are just as bad as the Iowan Evangelicals who voted against Romney based solely on his religion. Which is it?

Again, what is so complicated? I asked for the name of a single active mormon who voted for an EV candidate over Romney. How is that request not crystal clear?

Here is another simpel request for somoene who disagrees. There is a website out there called EvangelicalsforMitt.com. Is there a website set up by Mormons for Mormons who support Perry or Bachman or even Santorum?

I voted in the 2008 Colorado caucus against Romney. As it turned out, however, Mitt had dropped out before the delegates were actually chosen, so it didn't matter, and M^cCain took the GOP delegates with him to the convention, but it was not what I'd have chosen.

You said you supported Paul. So what. This is about Mormons antipathy towards EVs, not mormon antipaty towards Libertarians. Lot of mormons like to claim that they are libertarians.

[Lost in Ohio]

I have one question for you: Have you stopped beating your wife? I will accept only a Yes or No answer.

If a question is designed to elicit a yes/no, but such a simple response will leave an incorrect or misleading impression, then the question is itself dishonest. And must be answered with background, if at all.

Indeed, but isn't that a common tactic by the enemies of the church? It goes something like this:

Step 1. Assume a pious, interested expression as though you really are interested in the truth.

Step 2. Ask a leading, simplistic appearing question without any background or context.

Step 3. When the person being asked the question tries to do so with more than a simple yes/no by providing the context and foundation for the belief, claim they are being "evasive, and not answering the question in a straight forward way". Follow up by claiming that you know the truth about what they "really" believe.

Step 4. Follow-up on step 3 with a claim of:

a. The poor sap is clearly deceived and doesn't or isn't capable of knowing what he or she believes because it disagrees with your interpretation, or,

b. Claim that they are acting with devious intent in order to steal souls for their false and evil belief system.

Step 5. Congratulate yourself.

The tactic is designed to immediately but the person being asked on the defesnsive if they fail to conform to your expectations regaridng simplicity of answer. To suggest that questions like these, whose answers are rooted within a complex theology, with a simple "give me a yes or a no" is condescending and indicates no real desire to know the answer, but rather a desire to reaffirm your own anti-mormon talking points.

[Sevenbak]

If anyone still wonders about the underlying dynamics of this whole thing.

Rick Santorum - "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column, Dec. 20, 2007)

[juliann]

Can you be more specific. What did she say, specifically, that leads you to that conclusion. I think you may have a point, but I don't remember enough about what she said about her personal beliefs when addressing the issue.

She made a statement that she didn't want to be a tax attorney but her husband wanted her to. So she obeyed her husband as the Bible says to do or some such thing she made it a religious value. This was thrown at her in a debate question and she dodged it by claiming wives were to respect their husbands. The audience booed and the moderator quickly moved on.

BTW, as much as mormons complain about anti-mormonism in politics among evangelicals, which I wholeheartedly agree exists, I not so sure that its exists to a greater extent than anti-evangelicalism exists among mormon voters.

If you disagree, give me the name of a single active mormon who when given a choice voted agaisnt Romney in favor of any EV candidate, whether Huckabee, Perry or Bachman.

Just one person.

Straw man. This isn't about being faced with a choice. It is about refusing to ever vote for a Mormon. So the equivalent question would have to be the same as it is on the polls that show EV bigotry. Poll Mormons if they would vote for an EV, Catholic or whatever. Since this is the first time we have had an option it is a silly question. Of course Mormons don't refuse to vote for a candidate based on their religion. The only thing close to matching your unequivolent set of questions is the Mormon refusal to vote for Huckabee. But that was because he made an appalling anti-Mormon comment not because of his religion. And Santorum is going to be in the same situation as his appalling 2007 comment gets publicity.

[Jaybear]

Straw man. This isn't about being faced with a choice. It is about refusing to ever vote for a Mormon. So the equivalent question would have to be the same as it is on the polls that show EV bigotry. Poll Mormons if they would vote for an EV, Catholic or whatever. Since this is the first time we have had an option it is a silly question. Of course Mormons don't refuse to vote for a candidate based on their religion. The only thing close to matching your unequivolent set of questions is the Mormon refusal to vote for Huckabee. But that was because he made an appalling anti-Mormon comment not because of his religion. And Santorum is going to be in the same situation as his appalling 2007 comment gets publicity.

Elections are always about a choice regarding which candiate is more acceptable or least detestable. Those EVs that you are calling bigots would vote for a Mormon if the choice was Romney/Obama.

In this recent poll, EVs are more likely to vote for Romney than Perry vs. Obama:

As for your blanket statement, accoring to a 1990 survey:

Here are the percentages of people saying they would refuse to vote for "a generally well-qualified person for president" on the basis of some characteristic; in parenthesis are the figures for earlier years:

• 
  Catholic: 4% (1937: 30%)
  Black: 5% (1958: 63%, 1987: 21%)
  Jewish: 6% (1937: 47%)
  Baptist: 6%
  Woman: 8%
  Mormon: 17%
  Muslim: 38%
  Gay: 37% (1978: 74%)
  Atheist: 48%
  

Are you really suggesting that if the survey was directed at mormons, the numbers wouild all be zero?

[Scott Lloyd]

I've notice the odd label "temple Mormon" in other contexts. Must be the new talking point.

Not so new. It's a Deckerism, toxic fallout from the "God Makers"

Edited January 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Interesting that most of you seem to have an aversion to answering yes or no questions about your personal beliefs.

I presume that comes from your desire that mormons be allowed to fit in?

It is predatory to insist on yes or no answers when a more nuanced response is required to arrive at the truth. Surely Jaybear, as an attorney must understand this.

[Scott Lloyd]

If anyone still wonders about the underlying dynamics of this whole thing.

Rick Santorum - "Would the potential attraction to Mormonism by simply having a Mormon in the White House threaten traditional Christianity by leading more Americans to a church that some Christians believe misleadingly calls itself Christian, is an active missionary church, and a dangerous cult?" (Santorum's Philadelphia Inquirer column, Dec. 20, 2007)

Santorum said that?

That seals it. If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama gets my vote. And Jaybear, it's not because of his Evangelicalism, it's because of his apparent anti-Mormon bigotry.

Edited January 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[ChristKnight]

Santorum said that?

That seals it. If Santorum gets the nomination, Obama gets my vote. And Jaybear, it's not because of his Evangelicalism, it's because of his apparent anti-Mormon bigotry.

I thought Santorum is Catholic, not Evangelical.