Finding Truth in the “Would Not Vote for a Mormon” Polls

RomneyExperience.com ^ | 7/26/07

[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...

[tracer]

"Ah, but the satisfaction of once again demonstrating censorship power at FR is so great!"

Perhaps we would be better off simply talking about the weather. On second thought.... (veteran FReeper inside joke)

[restornu]

Geez, You need to stop using that powder milk on your cereal....

[tracer]

No, I haven’t....

[restornu]

"Are you judging Binger and his “lack of respect?”

Who left you to be the moderator of what is and is not appropriate? What makes you believe that YOU are the arbiter of what is effective in conversation?

This is one of the aggravating things about some Mormons. They believe that they are “holier than thou.”

You and your co-believers are sinners sandude, just like the rest of us, but you can’t see it through your “I’m chosen and contain the knowledge of more truth than YOU” spectacles.....bla bla bla

Sandude what did you do to get such a dress down?

Lets see here..

This is the attitude that seems so prevalent here.

It is no wonder that our posts back and forth accomplish so little.

There is a lack of basic respect in your comment.

Both sides engage in this sort of disparagement and all it does is poison the conversation.

I agree it is not very pleasant or civil!

[colorcountry]

I had coffee this morning....with cream. : D

[sandude]

I drink mine black.

[Religion Moderator]

If the rowdiness of open thread debate is getting you down, you could initiate a new article which contains only LDS doctrine, in the Religion Forum and labeled "LDS Caucus".

A thread like that would be protected from all contrary views and would be a "safe harbor" so you can find rest.

[restornu]

Thank you RM, it is not getting me, but on a personal level I just wanted to support Sandude and let him know I understood where he was coming from!

[restornu]

So do I !:)

[Old Student]

“back to the same tired mantra.”

You aren’t paying much attention, then. I’m not voting for Romney unless he’s running against Clinton in the general election. Maybe not then, depending on what other options there are.

My testimony was only of what I have experienced. If you have a testimony of something else, go with it. I’ve never said mine was better or more important than yours. In fact, it is a tenet of Mormon beliefs that you cannot stretch your testimony to cover someone else. They need to have their own, or they have none.

I will thank you for not saying I should accept yours, however. I’ve had others tell me mine couldn’t be true, because it appears to conflict with theirs.

As for the info on Doyle and Dickens, I think it was just posted to show that some folks who start with negative opinions of Mormons can change their minds, based on reality. My comments on it weren’t intended to tell you to vote for Romney because I wasn’t sure I wanted to, and I’ve since found the info I needed to decide for sure not to. His conversion to pro-life is entirely too recent for me to be comfortable with it. Looks to me like he’s changing his stated stand simply to make himself electable, and for me, that makes him not electable.

[Old Student]

“(Did you see what then happened to the 4wd vehicle??)”

I didn’t dare slow down, at that point, but there were no loud noises behind us, as everyone else had slowed down, as well. Looked like everyone was ok, as they disappeared in the rearview mirror. We did pray for everyone else to be safe there. I know it didn’t make the news, anyway. I asked my family about it when we got home.

[Old Student]

It’s from a joke my MIL tells. She’s not Mormon, btw.

In the PreExistance, when we held the council to determine who was going to do what on Earth, He reminded us that he needed a certain number of people to do things that would not make those people look like jerks. If he didn’t get enough volunteers, he would have to pick some to do those unpleasant but necessary jobs.

Some folks got picked, and some are volunteers.

She did not actually say jerks, btw. You can probably guess which word she did use. ;)

[Old Student]

“You know as well as I do that is not biblcal.”

That is one of the differences between Mormons and everyone else. We know that the Bible does not tell all we need. How many different references to the Holy Ghost are there, that you did not quote? Dozens, hundreds? Just in the Bible alone?

Here’s one that seems to me to indicate that the Holy Ghost witnessed to Peter that what the Lord was saying to him was true. Before he became an apostle.

Acts 11: 15-16 15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

This one doesn’t mention the Holy Ghost specifically, but this is the one my step-father, the Baptist minister, told me to use, and it is also the one cite by Joseph Smith, which led to his vision and everything else that Mormons believe.

James 1: 5
5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

I’ll also add this one, although it doesn’t mention the Holy Ghost, either, as my step-father also told me that the Mormons couldn’t be right because there is nothing in the Bible that mentions baptism for the dead.

1 Cor. 15: 29

29 Else what shall they do which are baptized• for• the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

I know it is true. So is the Book of Mormon. I’m going to ask you to reread this that you posted, and think about it.

John 14

1. “Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God ; trust also in me.
2. In my Father’s house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.
3. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am.
4. You know the way to the place where I am going.”
5. Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?”
6. Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
7. If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.”
8. Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.”
9. Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, `Show us the Father’?
10. Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.
11. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves.
12. I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
13. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father.
14. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
15. “If you love me, you will obey what I command.

[restornu]

CLICK

[Old Student]

“From what I’ve gleaned from some LDS members on these threads; the teaching will come back around again in a few years, so you’ll not be really missing anything.”

There are prepared lessons to guide the teachers, and those recycle, but each time they are presented differently, as the teacher finds things that seem important to them to present. They have a skeleton lesson to work from, but very few follow it exclusively and exactly. There are also talks given by members who have been asked to speak, and by visitors from other wards, or from the stake. This past week, our new mission president and his wife spoke, as did the daughter of one of my friends. Interesting and uplifting talks all, and not something that will be repeated. Fourth Sunday lessons are often on topics of interest to the 1st Presidency, as well. Our bishop did this one, on Morality. Lots of audience participation, and a very good lesson. We will get much of that material again and again, but in different forms, and it very much bears repeating.

Much of our ward is active or retired military, so we have quite a lot to say on morality, from both experience and observation. Makes for interesting lessons. Quite frankly, I've very rarely been bored at our church services.

[Old Student]

“In Colossians 4:6 Paul tells us that we are to present our message with grace, seasoned with salt. This is an interesting illustration for salt does have a tendency to sting when poured into an open wound. When we present Gospel truths into the wound of doctrinal error, it does tend to be uncomfortable. Because of this we must be sensitive to the fact that the Mormon may be especially defensive. However, bear in mind that declaring the truth, in and of itself, is not biblically wrong.”

“Seasoned” means as in flavoring for food, not in treating wounds. Nor inflicting them. You might want to consider that a bit.

[FatherofFive]

So here we are, with a mathematically single God having three “masks.”

You don’t understand the Trinity, and this shows up in your arguments and leads to errors. Believe me, the Trinity it is a difficult concept. You may want to read Frank Sheed’s “Theology and Sanity” for what is perhaps the best discussion of Trinity written.

A single God with three masks is the wrong description. That was an early heresy in Christianity. In the third century, Sabellius claimed there is only one person in the Godhead, so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all one person with different "offices," rather than three persons who are one being in the Godhead. One nature, three distinct persons. We humans are created beings in His image, but are of a different nature from God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are of one nature, none a created being.

I already provided the link to my book on exaltation

I looked at your book, and the error is in the very first paragraphs of the second chapter (Which I opened first.):

“The scriptural teachings that humanity are spirit offspring of God shall be the staging area to arrive at the doctrine of exaltation. Being the offspring of God explains why Heavenly Father would sacrifice Jesus for us.”

This is where your error come in and gets compounded with later proof-texting. We are not ‘spirit offspring’ – rather, we are created beings with a different nature from God. Check with Genesis – it is very clear that we are created. When I ‘create’ a wooden table it still has the nature of wood, not of me.

No righteous Father would sacrifice and torture his Son for the sake of some creatures he made. I would never sacrifice any of my children for the sake of some paperclips, why would Heavenly Father do it with Jesus?

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This is why you are not God, and will never be God.(Me neither!)

Of course, bigotry against someone just because he has different religious views automatically tells me the level of intellectual credibility ...

Please don’t call names. When you point your finger, three are pointing back at you.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

[RobbyS]

Lost in this is the cold fact that (1) 25% of the voters in 1960 were Catholics and (2) more than 80% of them voted for Kennedy. As Danny Thomas the comedian puts it: "I did not vote for Kennedy because he is a Catholic; I voted for him because Iam a Catholic." The Mormons are not a large enough block to make such a difference.

[colorcountry]

You know what I think of Mormon interpretation of Biblical Scriptures, don’t you?