| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 08/03/2007 6:34:01 AM PDT by Religion Moderator, reason:
Poor behavior |
Posted on 07/26/2007 5:03:33 PM PDT by tantiboh
Democratic political consultant Mark Mellman has a very good piece up today at The Hill on the baffling and illegitimate opposition among voters to Mitt Romney due to his religion. I liked his closing paragraphs:
In July of 1958, 24 percent of respondents told Gallup they would not vote for a Catholic for president, almost identical to Gallup’s reading on Mormons today. Two years later, John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic to assume the oath of office. Within eight months, the number refusing to vote for a Catholic was cut almost in half.
[snip]
Mellman also discusses an interesting poll he helped construct, in which the pollsters asked half of their respondents whether they would support a candidate with certain characteristics, and asked the other half about another candidate with the exact same characteristics, with one difference. The first candidate was Baptist, the second candidate was Mormon. The Baptist had a huge advantage over the Mormon candidate, by about 20 points.
[snip]
However, more recent polls have attempted to fix the anonymity problem. A recent Time Magazine poll (read the original report here), for example, got to the heart of the question by asking respondents if they are less likely to vote for Mitt Romney specifically because he is a Mormon. The result is not as bad as some reporting on the poll has suggested. For example, while 30% of Republicans say they are less likely to vote for Romney because of his religion, fully 15% of other Republicans say that characteristic makes them more likely to vote for him. And while many have reported the finding that 23% of Republicans are “worried” by Romney’s Mormonism, the more important (but less-reported) number is that 73% say they hold no such reservations...
(Excerpt) Read more at romneyexperience.com ...
I’m leaving it in news for at this time for the candidate to have a wider exposure, but may move it later.
Excellent series of posts from you.
Ping for some like-minded folks.
My lack of a response over the next few days is that I’m traveling to a wedding and will be without a computer. But I will respond.
Congratulations on the five boys - I managed to get one girl along the way.
Thank you for your honest, reasoned question. It's refreshing to hear such a thing on FR.
I believe the best way I can explain my approach to this mystery is to describe an event from my own life.
When I was in elementary school, I rode the bus with other kids of all ages. Some of them were in high school, and I looked upon them with great interest. They talked about classes that sounded much more advanced than what I had learned so far.
One day, after boarding the bus to return home, I happened to sit across the aisle from a high school aged girl who was taking algebra. She opened her book as the bus drove away and worked on her homework assignment.
I watched her work with great curiosity, because I had no idea what "algebra" even meant, though I deduced that it must be some sort of math. The cover of the book, as well as the open pages, did have numbers on them that appeared to be math problems.
But, as I looked more closely at the pages of her open book, I was increasingly and more thoroughly confused. This girl was doing math with letters! I couldn't fathom how this could be. Math had everything to do with numbers. I knew that much!
I remember wondering for a long time afterward just how letters could ever be used in math. I didn't understand, because that subject was beyond my learning.
I have since had many similar experiences, hearing things or seeing things that simply baffle me. But those experiences have also taught me to be less concerned about the phenomenon. In every case, when I have waited patiently and progressively gained the necessary knowledge and understanding, those mysteries have eventually become clear.
Today, algebra is no mystery, and the odd symbols of calculus aren't either. It was just a matter of learning.
Another analogy: flight. The law of gravity had for all time declared that man could not fly, prior to the Wright brothers. At least, that was the best understanding of mankind.
Wilbur and Orville demonstrated an important principle. There are laws of physics that are more powerful than other laws of physics. The laws of aerodynamics are able to overcome the law of gravity, at least for a time. It is a higher law.
Spiritual learning and principles are exactly the same in those ways. There are matters that are profoundly mysterious and confusing for precisely the same reason as algebra was to my young mind. Also, there are some spiritual principles that are higher, more powerful than others.
If the high school girl's algebra homework had been a religious doctrine instead, and if I were of the nature to do so, I might have mocked her. I might have laughed out loud and ridiculed the preposterous idea that you could use letters to do math. All manner of persecutions could be leveled against the girl, all because of my ignorance.
Many treated the Wright brothers with contempt as well.
Now, I fully realize that contempt and ridicule do not prove that the subjects of it are actually true. It's only to illustrate the usual consequences of close-minded ignorance.
Providing a satisfactory explanation for the apparent contradiction between these two LDS doctrines, which you have described more or less accurately, would be a difficult thing to do. Until you have a foundation of understanding of many underlying doctrines and principles involved, it would remain just as unpersuasive as ever.
I have "bumped up against" troubling doctrines and other stuff in my life in the LDS Church. I have learned that never is the problem permanent. As I grow and learn and study the Holy Scriptures, every one of those walls has melted away.
My faith in the Lord and His prophets, both living and dead, has grown sufficiently that I simply don't worry about things I don't yet understand. I note my lack of understanding, then I let it go for the time being. I hold to those things I do know for certain, and let the rest wait. In time, I invariably reach a level of knowledge that explains that particular mystery.
Among the things that I do know for certain is that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God. He did actually see the Father and the Son and speak with them. I know for certain that the Book of Mormon is holy scripture, written by ancient prophets and translated by the power and gift of God. I have read it many times, as well as much of the Bible (I haven't gotten through the Old Testament from start to finish yet...) I am very, very comfortable with both volumes of scripture. They support, harmonize with and reinforce each other, as they both contain eternal truth.
I have had far too many deeply sacred experiences personally to ever deny what I know. The apparent contradictions and mysteries that crop up here and there no longer cause me any difficulty, because I know they will be clear in time.
If you're truly interested in learning and growing in LDS doctrine, you'll need to start in a lower gear. Milk before meat, and all that. God reveals and explains more truth as we accept and live up to the truths we have been given. That's how we progress.
I know that, and I graciously tell missionaries that I'm not interested, and wish them a good day. I know they get a lot of nasty treatment out there.
But you use the word 'aggressively', and it does apply to the way that a lot of people feel about proselytizing in general. In the modern American nation, the vast majority of religious traditions are very subtle with efforts to reach out to those of other faiths, or with no faith, and that makes those who do use more active techniques stand out. Even more to the point, the door-to-door salesperson (i.e., Fuller Brush or Avon) has become an anachronism, that makes LDS members and Jehovah's Witnesses stand out even more. Again, I apologize for the comparison, I understand that your faith tradition says that a nonbeliever has a chance to accept your religion even after death, whereas I doubt I'm going to do what it takes to be in the top 144,000 JW's!
I hope that you’re right, but Mormons seem to be treated differently in many other ways. I suppose it remains to be seen if this will be one of them.
I saw the PBS two-parter on the Mormons a couple of months ago, and it focused on how they have gone from the fringes of American society to a more mainstream part of our nation's life. Certainly, Governor Romney's campaign will be the first to seriously test if that assimilation is complete, but it might be like Al Smith in 1928, where the nation was not yet ready to elect him as President, while the history of anti-Catholic prejudice was still fresh in the American mind. Fortunately for Governor Romney, he does not have to fight issues that are directly tied with his religion, like Smith did with Prohibition.
Another dimension that must be considered is that anti-Mormonism is quite a lucrative business; pamphlets, books, tapes, speeches are all sold.
Well, my feeling is that it is merely a cottage industry at best, but I'm not confronted with it as frequently as you might be, so I have a different perspective of it. Know that it is offensive to many of your fellow Americans, as offensive as racial hate 'literature' was to people forty or fifty years ago during the rise of the civil rights movement. Yes, there were those 'buying' the racial bigotry, but there's a much smaller market for it now.
Please understand that the worst of it is to come. The movie "September Dawn" will inspire a lot of questions from your fellow Americans, and not just the political junkies from FR that you have been dealing with so far. In fact, you should consider it your good fortune to have the anti-Mormon bigotry displayed here to be able to have honed your skills and abilities before this film came out. There are some attitudes that your neighbors and co-workers will not display to your face, but you now have an awareness of. Governor Romney's candidacy has already done some good for LDS FReepers.
Even though I was only a four year old kid during JFK's Presidential campaign, I was at least minimally aware of the anti-Catholic prejudices that my parents and grandparents generations whispered about during family gatherings. It meant a lot to my family to have a Catholic President, and I remember being called to my knees by a nun in parochial school on that fateful afternoon when we were all fearing the worst in November, 1963. Even though the reasons for JFK's assassination were not religious in nature, many Catholics felt like it was an attack on our faith. JFK became a martyr-saint in the homes of many Catholics who hung his portrait like a religious icon in their homes. The outpouring of national grief helped to heal the old wounds between Catholics and non-Catholics, and it was only through recovery from this trauma that many of us finally felt equality.
I must admit that some of my excitement over Romney is generated by the anticipation I have for the deeply satisfying sense of schadenfreude I would experience for these people if Romney were to be president.
It's good that you recognize that; if you telegraph it, it just lowers you to the level of those you oppose. The most important thing to keep in mind with this election is not whether Mitt Romney can be nominated and become President, but will the way his LDS supporters act reflect well on their faith, and their Americanism. Judging by the way that Mormon FReepers here have acted, I feel that the people of your faith tradition will continue on the path towards greater acceptance by all Americans.
Thank you for your reasoned discourse homeschoolmom. I agree with your every post. And thank you greyfoxx for the ping.
I too will not vote for Romney based upon his religion. I will not get into a theological debate on this thread, I’m simply recording my vote here.
I will vote third party if Romney is the Republican nominee.
Would you be so kind to explain what you mean?
Yes, I’ll explain. I believe that Romney as Pres. would not only make people curious about Mormonism, but his presidency would help to promote it.
As a born-again Christian, I believe what the Bible teaches about salvation. Mormonism does not teach the Gospel message according to Scripture. Without the knowledge and acceptance of the Gospel, one can not go to Heaven. Instead, they go to Hell for eternity.
Someone searching for meaning and spirituality might be more inclined to turn to Mormonism if it’s legitimized by the most powerful man in the world.
I believe the problems with that are much more serious than any harm Hillary could do. As I said to another poster, Hillary is for 4 - 8 yrs. Hell is forever.
Adn just what are the doctrine taught in the Book of Mormon you object too?
Thank you very much!
I do want to make it clear that I do not say these things with any feeling of superiority over Mormons who frequent the board. I say them from a heart-felt conviction that Mormonism is a false religion that will lead its followers away from God - not toward Him.
My beliefs are not based on my own reasoning, but according to the teachings found on Scripture. The Bible is my absolute authority on any matter.
tant,
I know the evangelical mind. I believe Romney,
who I do not view as exciting, but more like
paint drying (maybe that’s me), will not capture
the number of voters in this block that bush did.
His total, in my estimation will be 5-15% less.
NOR WILL THE ONES WHO VOTE FOR HIM BE EXCITED
ENOUGH TO WORK, GIVE, SACRIFICE, ETC. That is
an even bigger issue in my own mind.
best,
tant
a. 5-15% SWAG
b. No. I know my own voting block well.
best,
ampu
Agreed!
“I appears, then, that you are faced with a Hobson’s choice, assuming that Clinton and Romney are the nominees:
A.) Support the Mormon at the risk that more people will go to Hell due to the heresies that his faith teaches them.
B.) Support the secular-humanist at the risk that her policies will result in a further deterioration of family and social values, thereby condemning more people to Hell due to increase levels of sin and reduced levels of acceptance of Christ’s Gospel.”
I feel as if I’m repeating myself ad nauseum, but I don’t want you to think I’m ignoring the question.
I feel that secular humanism and Mormonism are equally dangerous. They both teach a false religion. Therefore, I could not cast my vote for a candidate who espoused either view.
You dismiss my choice to vote for a third party as a vote for Hillary. It it not. I do not control the outcome of elections. I must stand before a Holy God and some day give account for the choices I make. I will not stand before Him and be ashamed of voting out of fear of the Republicans losing an election.
In the entire scheme of things, salvation is so much more important than any election. Elections are temporal matters, but eternity is not.
Reconciliation with God takes precedence over elections. That’s all I’m trying to say.
I might consider Romney, despite his lack of good judgment on spiritual matters, if he wasn’t a weasel who will say anything to anyone at any time to get votes. His pandering and flip-flopping show he is not trustworthy.
LOL, I love the smoking cigarettes and drinking beer image from a mormon who doesn't smoke cigarettes and drink beer because their religion proscribes them. This whole paragraph smacks of "vote for MY candidate, or else."
I don't think that argument is going to win many converts.
“So, according to you, a recollection by Oliver Huntingdon of a statement allegedly given by Joseph Smith FORTY years earlier, corroborated by no other contemporary (or later) witness, in a place and time Joseph Smith was NOT known to be; is OFFICIAL MORMON DOCTRINE - regardless of the fact NO Mormon I know believes it????”
No, you misunderstand. It isn’t official doctrine. It shows
he is a kook.
“As for Galatians saying the Book of Mormon is from Satan,”
I do not believe I said that Edward.
Kooks make statements like that. In this case, you have
many kooks who have said such things - who mormonism
treats as prophets and lds leaders. It is simply more
evidence of the quality of individual mormons must affirm
as a prophet in order to get a temple recommendation - or
not spend eternity in the presence of God.
ampu
“I have a question that I’ve been giving some thought to and I’d like your opinion. Let’s say that Romney wins the nomination and faces Hillary in the general election. Let’s also say that Romney loses a close election based on his inability to get evangelicals to vote for him. Do you think that evangelicals are in danger of becoming marginalized within the party if they will not support a qualified candidate?”
I have no idea if it would marginalize the evangelicals in the party. However, that is a matter left to God. I remember a country preacher saying to us once, “If the stars fall from the sky, do what’s right.”
So, it really is of no eternal consequence if evangelicals lose influence in a political party. As I just said to the OP, I must stand before God and give account for my vote. That is so much more important in the grand scheme of things, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.