Democrats Have Bigger Anti-Mormon Problem Than Republicans

[thesometimesaint]

While I'm not a democrat. I am a moderately conservative liberal. I don't see me voting for Romney because of his positions on the issues, if he could hold onto them beyond the ten second sound bite. His religion is of no political concern of mine, even though we both are LDS. Further I'd say that as most LDS live outside the US they have little to no concern about our partisan politics beyond what the US will do to their countries.

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

My reading of the Scriptures has Christ, and his servants, talking a lot more about how to treat the poor than about abortion, or pushing Prop 8.

[Cobalt-70]

I don't know if I necessarily agree that American Democrats are substantially less religious than American Republicans. But I think the difference between religious liberal and religious conservatives is that to the former, religion is more of a private matter, whereas to the latter, religion is a public matter. Thus, the main problem that liberals will have with Romney is to the extent that Romney wants to legislate Mormonism or Christianity, thus exporting his personal religious codes upon the nation as a whole. Liberals will worry more about his religion-based political views about LGBT people, women, blacks, and hispanics, and less about whether he is a true Christian or a cultist, which was the main Evangelical concern during the primaries.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Scott Lloyd]

Sure. Feel free to list them and lets compare with LDS doctrine.

I'm not an apologist for the Democratic Party. I've accurately quoted what the First Presidency has said in reaffirming its partisan neutrality.

[Nathair/|\]

When the appeal from the First Presidency was read recently from Church pulpits in Utah for Latter-day Saints to attend the political caucuses for the party of their choice, the point was made that values compatible with LDS beliefs can be found within both major political parties.

What about the minor ones?

[Scott Lloyd]

What about the minor ones?

I was paraphrasing from memory when I made that post. If you had noticed my follow-up post, you would have seen my direct quotation of the First Presidency statement, which contains the phrasing "the various political parties." If it bothers you that much, I'll go back and change my earlier post.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[epiginosko]

I reject the fundamentals of this poll. The reason is because these Democrats are, presumably, being polled about Mitt Romney. Because he doesn't match up with their political ideology, they are more likely to cast him in a negative light. My hunch is that if polled about Senator Reed, his Mormonism would be a non-issue.

I am not a fan of politics. But one thing which distresses me is the assumption across the political divide is that ALL Democrats are "liberal" and ALL Republicans are "conservative." While liberal ideology is pervasive within the Democratic party, similar to how conservative ideology is pervasive within the Republican party, it's a mistake to stereotype all Democrats as having far left-leaning social agendas and all Republicans as having far right-leaning social agendas. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans sit somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, despite of how the media likes to portray the situation (perhaps moderates don't get the ratings). There are religious Democrats. There are Mormon Democrats. There are Democrats who do not support gay marriage (a shocker, I know).

I learned a long time ago that members of both parties want essentially the same thing: jobs, freedom, access to good healthcare, quality education, safety, etc. They just have a different perspective on how to reach these desired goals.

[Scott Lloyd]

I reject the fundamentals of this poll. The reason is because these Democrats are, presumably, being polled about Mitt Romney. Because he doesn't match up with their political ideology, they are more likely to cast him in a negative light. My hunch is that if polled about Senator Reed, his Mormonism would be a non-issue.

I am not a fan of politics. But one thing which distresses me is the assumption across the political divide is that ALL Democrats are "liberal" and ALL Republicans are "conservative." While liberal ideology is pervasive within the Democratic party, similar to how conservative ideology is pervasive within the Republican party, it's a mistake to stereotype all Democrats as having far left-leaning social agendas and all Republicans as having far right-leaning social agendas. The reality is that the vast majority of Americans sit somewhere in the middle of the two extremes, despite of how the media likes to portray the situation (perhaps moderates don't get the ratings). There are religious Democrats. There are Mormon Democrats. There are Democrats who do not support gay marriage (a shocker, I know).

I learned a long time ago that members of both parties want essentially the same thing: jobs, freedom, access to good healthcare, quality education, safety, etc. They just have a different perspective on how to reach these desired goals.

Obedient to the First Presidency's urging, I went to my neighborhood precinct caucus in Utah. I had to pick a party, so I attended the Republican meeting. That party is probably closer aligned with my political outlook, but it is far enough removed, that I felt out-of-place and uncomfortable there. The experience reminded me of why I haven't attended a precinct caucus since 1972, when I was among the first crop of 18-year-olds in the United States eligible to vote.

Back then, I affiliated with the Democratic Party. I was a member of Young Democrats at BYU, edited the club newsletter, and even sat at a table on campus handing out anti-war literature (Vietnam was raging then).

I guess my point here is that partisan politics in the entire cosmic scheme of things are not the big deal we make them out to be.

I am bothered, though, by anti-Mormonism in any political party. In this supposedly enlightened age, we should be beyond that.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[BCSpace]

I am bothered, though, by anti-Mormonism in any political party. In this supposedly enlightened age, we should be beyond that.

I disagree. We should be standing for something, preferably the doctrine we claim to believe. The prophecy is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a divider and while it would be nice if everyone were on the same page, something not prophesied to happen before Christ comes, the fact of the matter is that antiMormonism tells us we are on the right track.

While liberal ideology is pervasive within the Democratic party, similar to how conservative ideology is pervasive within the Republican party, it's a mistake to stereotype all Democrats as having far left-leaning social agendas and all Republicans as having far right-leaning social agendas.

There is also an overarching concept and that is lending support to policies contrary to the gospel doctrine even when we don't specifically mean to. we should not support the organizations that are against us.

My reading of the Scriptures has Christ, and his servants, talking a lot more about how to treat the poor

Amen But the Lord's way as described in the Law of Consecration has as it's fundamental principle, private property and the free use of it as well as a condemnation of forcible wealth redistribution and communal living. Government is not involved.

than about abortion, or pushing Prop 8.

So you feel justified in disobeying because the scriptures don't talk about it much? Quantity is meaningless here. There is injunction against murder (and captial punishment prescribed for it) in the scriptures and the official doctrine has placed abortion in a position of like unto it. There are also several scriptural injunctions against homosexuality and the official doctrine includes the same against homosexual marriage.

The bottom line remains that the primary reason for Democratic antiMormonism is our primary doctrine being antithetical to their primary philosophies. Republican antiMormonism is quite different.

Edited April 24, 2012 by BCSpace

[Calm]

In this supposedly enlightened age, we should be beyond that.

This assumes that people are getting better and better in general as decent human beings. Greater knowledge unfortunately doesn't equate to greater kindness, compassion and humanity. I think there are some things like knowledge that we can build on the foundations our predecessors left us. Others we have to learn for ourselves almost from scratch....how to treat others is one of those, imo.

Personally I am kind of partial to CS Lewis' perspective given in his Screwtape Proposes a Toast mentioned by volgadon the other day.

See here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2wYIyq7O07sJ:staff.tuhsd.k12.az.us/medel/screwtape.pdf+screwtape+proposes+a+toast+pdf&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4KrsHg0-0weDWXFG3Wf5S9CVqPMo5YcJXb5l-q59v_Sf7Ch0qKdC-D56MPNwifbsh3kgZiJjgJVk6YVL8wsKuYmaYZROAS06xX_uNXlKGRLZwJr3I1mhO2hX4o20YVL3grs0l&sig=AHIEtbR5PlqJc3P8OfhlNczLKv82jgklzw

[Bikeemikey]

BC space,

The church is a form of government. To say that the church process of redistribution does not involve government exposes a fundamental misunderstanding about the functioning of an organization that administers over 12 million members.

12 million members is 4 times the population of my country. The churches annual operating budget will be bigger than some countries. Government may be primarily discussed in terms o countries. However, any entity the size of our church has both it's own "politics" and "government" issues to deal with.

(null)

[inquiringmind]

I disagree. We should be standing for something, preferably the doctrine we claim to believe. The prophecy is that the gospel of Jesus Christ is a divider and while it would be nice if everyone were on the same page, something not prophesied to happen before Christ comes, the fact of the matter is that antiMormonism tells us we are on the right track.

There is also an overarching concept and that is lending support to policies contrary to the gospel doctrine even when we don't specifically mean to. we should not support the organizations that are against us.

Amen But the Lord's way as described in the Law of Consecration has as it's fundamental principle, private property and the free use of it as well as a condemnation of forcible wealth redistribution and communal living. Government is not involved.

So you feel justified in disobeying because the scriptures don't talk about it much? Quantity is meaningless here. There is injunction against murder (and captial punishment prescribed for it) in the scriptures and the official doctrine has placed abortion in a position of like unto it. There are also several scriptural injunctions against homosexuality and the official doctrine includes the same against homosexual marriage.

The bottom line remains that the primary reason for Democratic antiMormonism is our primary doctrine being antithetical to their primary philosophies. Republican antiMormonism is quite different.

Interesting.

I'm a social and national security conservative, and I've only been a registered Republican since Nancy Palosi became speaker of the house.

It always confused me that there wasn't more of an ideological divide between the two parties (after all, why even have two parties if you can't tell the difference between them), but I don't really think that's a problem any more.

I also think Democrats will attack the LDS Church for two reasons.

They'll think they can use the pre-1978 priesthood ban to paint the Church and Romney as Racist , and they'll think they can demoralize the evangelical Republican base by reminding them that Romney is a Mormon.

The goal will be to get Liberals out to vote, and to get Conservatives to stay home, but I don't think it will work.

[Nathair/|\]

I was paraphrasing from memory when I made that post. If you had noticed my follow-up post, you would have seen my direct quotation of the First Presidency statement, which contains the phrasing "the various political parties." If it bothers you that much, I'll go back and change my earlier post.

It's not that big of a deal. I was just having a little fun because the other parties usually don't get mentioned. I should have included a or a to be clear.

[Scott Lloyd]

This assumes that people are getting better and better in general as decent human beings. Greater knowledge unfortunately doesn't equate to greater kindness, compassion and humanity. I think there are some things like knowledge that we can build on the foundations our predecessors left us. Others we have to learn for ourselves almost from scratch....how to treat others is one of those, imo.

Personally I am kind of partial to CS Lewis' perspective given in his Screwtape Proposes a Toast mentioned by volgadon the other day.

See here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:2wYIyq7O07sJ:staff.tuhsd.k12.az.us/medel/screwtape.pdf+screwtape+proposes+a+toast+pdf&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESi4KrsHg0-0weDWXFG3Wf5S9CVqPMo5YcJXb5l-q59v_Sf7Ch0qKdC-D56MPNwifbsh3kgZiJjgJVk6YVL8wsKuYmaYZROAS06xX_uNXlKGRLZwJr3I1mhO2hX4o20YVL3grs0l&sig=AHIEtbR5PlqJc3P8OfhlNczLKv82jgklzw

I agree.

Mainly I was twitting left-leaning politicians who regard themselves as so tolerant, enlightened and politically correct, when some of them are apt to be bigots themselves as pertaining to organized religion and Mormonism in particular.

[Damien the Leper]

What do the Log Cabin Republicans have to say on this issue?

[zerinus]

Democrats have bigger anti-Mormon problem than Republicans

I think that Mormons have an anti-Democrat problem.

[Whiskeypete]

There is a difference beween the party platforms and the positions of the various candidates, even when they are a member of that party. In other words, not every candidate agrees with every plank of their party platform.

That being said, while there are good and honorable men and women in various political parties - and I have voted for Democrats, Republican and Libertarians - I am a member of my political party for the following reason:

• There are planks in the opposition party platforms that I just can't support.
  
• There are not planks in my party platform that I do not support.
  

There are candidates in my party that I don't support. There are positions held by candidates in my party that I don't support. But there aren't any planks in the party platform that I don't support (which tend to be a little more general principles than specific legislations)

In those cases where I find myself supporting a candidate of an opposing party, it is because they are voting out of line with their party and more in line with mine. And my party candidate either is out of step with my party platform, or else has been there so long that they just need to go (term limits anyone?)

But that becomes a problem when it gets time for them to vote for leadership positions. If I vote for the opposition party candidate, because I think they are a good honorable person, they then HAVE TO support their party when it comes to voting for Speaker of the House, Committee chairmen, etc.

[rameumptom]

Let's just bottom-line it. Lefties couldn't have cared less about us until Prop 8.

Actually, they were attacking Romney in 2007, before Prop 8 occurred. Lawrence O'Donnell had his first raging attack against Mormonism on PBS' McLaughlin Hour, where he called us every bad word in the book. So Prop 8 may have a part in it, but it is deeper than that.

[rameumptom]

BCSpace:

My reading of the Scriptures has Christ, and his servants, talking a lot more about how to treat the poor than about abortion, or pushing Prop 8.

That is a strawman. I read in the scriptures Jesus and his servants calling people to repentance. Jesus noted we would always have the poor with us, but it was okay for the woman to pour expensive oils on his feet to wash them, or for the young man to not say goodbye to his family/dead father, but to follow him.

There's nothing in the Bible about government taking care of the poor. Just warnings that the princes and wealthy not steal from the poor, and we are to give freely to the Church (tithing/storehouse/Malachi), so that it can care for the poor. The Good Samaritan did not pay the government to take care of the injured man.

That sexual sin and killing are addressed in the scriptures, we must then suggest that abortion and Prop 8 may have a scriptural foundation. Although I will admit that such efforts are often ran very poorly and are unhelpful.

[rameumptom]

BC space,

The church is a form of government. To say that the church process of redistribution does not involve government exposes a fundamental misunderstanding about the functioning of an organization that administers over 12 million members.

12 million members is 4 times the population of my country. The churches annual operating budget will be bigger than some countries. Government may be primarily discussed in terms o countries. However, any entity the size of our church has both it's own "politics" and "government" issues to deal with.

(null)

There are major differences between a Church and a national government. First, if I disobey the Church, the most they can do is kick me out of the organization. If I disobey the government, they have the power to imprison, fine, or even execute me. The Church can ask for tithes and donations. The government can forcibly take my money, property, and freedom. Church lay members are tasked with managing the finances of the organization, which are appropriated through donations. Government hires people who have no spiritual or personal involvement in order to get the best and most honest service (see GSA or Secret Service as examples). The Church pays as it goes. The federal government is almost $16 Trillion in debt, which we will be forced to pay for in some manner or another.

So, your attempt to compare government and Church are just a straw man.

[thesometimesaint]

That is a strawman. I read in the scriptures Jesus and his servants calling people to repentance. Jesus noted we would always have the poor with us, but it was okay for the woman to pour expensive oils on his feet to wash them, or for the young man to not say goodbye to his family/dead father, but to follow him.

There's nothing in the Bible about government taking care of the poor. Just warnings that the princes and wealthy not steal from the poor, and we are to give freely to the Church (tithing/storehouse/Malachi), so that it can care for the poor. The Good Samaritan did not pay the government to take care of the injured man.

That sexual sin and killing are addressed in the scriptures, we must then suggest that abortion and Prop 8 may have a scriptural foundation. Although I will admit that such efforts are often ran very poorly and are unhelpful.

If the Scriptures don't address an issue it is kinda hard to claim they do. Christ in the Scriptures said not one word about abortion or Prop 8. Further modern Prophet have said that under rare conditions abortion is permissable, and outside of the definition of marriage itself we support many of the goals of our LGBT members.

Government is just the collective will of its citizens. You know "We the People". Are you suggesting that people can't join together in common cause? That it must be all just individual effort?

I seem to remember the story about the rich young man being asked to give up all that he had. Nothing in that story was about stealing. I also seem to remember Jesus as saying render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, AND unto God that which is Gods'. So we are to do both.

I believe the Church has taken the right stance on both issues. However in a pluralistic society such as ours mine shouldn't be the only belief allowed.

[Zakuska]

If the Scriptures don't address an issue it is kinda hard to claim they do. Christ in the Scriptures said not one word about abortion or Prop 8. Further modern Prophet have said that under rare conditions abortion is permissable, and outside of the definition of marriage itself we support many of the goals of our LGBT members.

Government is just the collective will of its citizens. You know "We the People". Are you suggesting that people can't join together in common cause? That it must be all just individual effort?

I seem to remember the story about the rich young man being asked to give up all that he had. Nothing in that story was about stealing. I also seem to remember Jesus as saying render unto Caesar that which is Caesars, AND unto God that which is Gods'. So we are to do both.

I believe the Church has taken the right stance on both issues. However in a pluralistic society such as ours mine shouldn't be the only belief allowed.

Well he did condemn his ancestors for their post-birth abortions when they passed their children through the fires of Molek. A case could be made that this would include a child in the womb.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Zakuska

[cinepro]

Perhaps in the sense that Democrats are more likely to vote against the Republican, whether he is Mormon or not, than Republicans are, and thus Republicans are apt to be more discriminating (or discriminatory) in this particular race.

Is that what you mean?

Yes. An anti-Mormon Democrat isn't really a lost vote, so who cares? I'm much more concerned about any Republicans that might not vote for Romney because of their anti-Mormonism when they otherwise would have. But I suspect that when the rubber hits the road, most Republicans are going to vote Republican.

The biggest concern are the "independent" voters! "Indpendent" meaning there is a chance they could vote Republican or Democrat depending on the candidates. If it turns out there are many anti-Mormon independents, then that could be most concerning....

[Scott Lloyd]

If the Scriptures don't address an issue it is kinda hard to claim they do.

There is nothing inherently wrong with using fundamental scriptural principles to extrapolate an application to a particular topic or issue. One could argue that the application is misguided, but the fact of the matter is the scriptures cannot address each and every issue that comes up, so we are left with the necessity of drawing applications. Hopefully, the applications are wise and are informed by divine inspiration. But just because the scriptures do not address "Prop 8" with that specific term is not a reason not to look to the scriptures for guidance in formulating one's opinion on that or other issues.

Edited April 24, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes. An anti-Mormon Democrat isn't really a lost vote, so who cares?

I care, not because of any difference it might make in the election, but because an anti-Mormon Democrat might use Romney's candidacy as an occasion to defame the Church. I could do without Larry O'Donnell's ranting or Bill Mahr's cheap shots.