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...

[Elsie]

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

Of course, bigotry is what some of us LDS organization members say is anything that does not totally agree with what we say is our beliefs.

There IS no middle ground!

--MormonDude

[Elsie]

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.

Which also means: "There is a lack of basic respect in LDS organizatuion members comments as well."

--MormonDude(Didn't wanna be left out.)

[Elsie]

No, it really doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary. The problem, Elsie, is that the conversation was rapidly diving into the mud.

Oh???

It sure did not appear much different than the previous 750 posts!

---

I’d far rather bear my testimony of the truth of the LDS Church face-to-face.

Is this why no one has responded to the fact that your Temple ceremonies have no basis found in your Scripture?

[Elsie]

I've tried to engage you in a meaningful conversation before and for whatever reason it never really seems to be able to get a real start.

Oh it starts just find. When you find your feet in the fire, you abandon the thread.

---

Many times your questions and comments are worded in an insulting manner.

That's because you feel that any in depth questioning is insulting.

[Elsie]

Why do you think the Mormons here are so stupid?

Dang!

I don't know!

(Things that make ya go... HMMmm...)

[Elsie]

INSULT Alert!!

 

 

Thanks for making my point.

 

 

INSULT Alert!!

 

 

 

 

No, wait!  It's a hyperbole alert!!

[Elsie]

Ouch!

She better put some ice on that!

[Elsie]

You can probably guess which word she did use. ;)

Yeah, I probably could, but that stuff is verbotten now that we are playing nice.

[Old Student]

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

Not much, obviously. How about Baptist? Or Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, or 7th-Day Adventist?

I must be really stretching the meaning of “seasoned” when I suggest it refers to flavor in context. Do you own a dictionary? If not, might I suggest http://www.dictionary.com?

[Elsie]

We know that the Bible does not tell all we need.

 

 

We disagree then.

 

You may not have all your questions answered - you never will, but we know that it DOES contain 'all you need'.

 

2 Corinthians 9:8-12
  8.  And God is able to make all grace abound to you, so that in all things at all times, having all that you need, you will abound in every good work.
  9.  As it is written: "He has scattered abroad his gifts to the poor; his righteousness endures forever."
 10.  Now he who supplies seed to the sower and bread for food will also supply and increase your store of seed and will enlarge the harvest of your righteousness.
 11.  You will be made rich in every way so that you can be generous on every occasion, and through us your generosity will result in thanksgiving to God.
 12.  This service that you perform is not only supplying the needs of God's people but is also overflowing in many expressions of thanks to God.

 

Philippians 4:19
   And my God will meet all your needs according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus.

 

 

 

 

 

[Elsie]

Quite frankly, I've very rarely been bored at our church services.

Sounds like you get a lot of teaching and it's not all cut and dried.

Like others have noted before; it's not the 99% that separates us, but the 1%.

[colorcountry]

Why don’t you just give me an example of a message, first plain and then seasoned with salt so I can understand where you are coming from. Okay?

[Old Student]

“That was an early heresy in Christianity.”

So the folks who came later, and did not actually talk to Jesus, had a better feel for what he said than the folks who did talk to him, or at least to those who did?

Who gets to define heresy is kind of key to the issue of how scripture is interpreted, isn’t it?

Oh well, God will set us all straight one of these days.

[Old Student]

“Why don’t you just give me an example of a message, first plain and then seasoned with salt so I can understand where you are coming from. Okay?”

Perhaps after you tell my why you chose to interpret it to mean rubbing salt in wounds.

[Old Student]

“We disagree then.

You may not have all your questions answered - you never will, but we know that it DOES contain ‘all you need’.”

We disagree, then. If the Bible is all you have, it can lead you to salvation. That is a point I won’t argue. Supplementing it with the Book of Mormon and our other scriptures does help. There are things that I have believed all my life that are confirmed in various Mormon scripture that you might disagree with because all you have is the Bible, and it does not directly address those things. I’d like for you to believe those things, but I’m not going to try to force you to it. I am content to tell you what I believe, and let you test it as you will. God will sort it all out later.

[colorcountry]

Perhaps after you tell my why you chose to interpret it to mean rubbing salt in wounds.

I never did interpret it that way, I said salt burns in open wounds, if you didn't have any wounds it would not burn. Have you ever has a salt sea scrub - - they are fantastic unless you have an open wound somewhere, then it burns and stings like all get-out. Now please give me an example of a plain message, and then the message seasoned with salt. Not honey, mind you, but salt.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

30% - 61% Say they won’t vote for a mormon Placemarker

[ComeUpHigher]

Run, Forrest, run!!

[colorcountry]

Yesterday there was a poll posted on FR that said Romney’s support with Evangelicals is in the single digits. I wonder how low?

Did anyone catch that poll.

[Old Student]

“I never did interpret it that way, I said salt burns in open wounds, if you didn’t have any wounds it would not burn. Have you ever has a salt sea scrub - - they are fantastic unless you have an open wound somewhere, then it burns and stings like all get-out.”

Must be one of those wild swings in thought that can happen then, since you cited Paul thusly:

“In Colossians 4:6 Paul tells us that we are to present our message with grace, seasoned with salt.”

I’ve never had a salt scrub, but I lived near the sea for much of my early life, so I have had salt in wounds before. Walking on the beach, in Southern Cal, you can cut yourself on a lot of stuff. Walking in the water cleaned out the cuts, and (at that time, anyway) prevented infection.

“Now please give me an example of a plain message, and then the message seasoned with salt. Not honey, mind you, but salt.”

For examples:

Unseasoned
“I’m right, and you’re wrong, get used to it. The Book of Mormon is scripture, and is as important as the Bible.”

Pretty blunt, and liable to annoy someone into ignoring everything else you ever say, even if what you say is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I’ve heard a bit of that myself, and put those folks on ignore. That is one of the reasons I was 40 before I joined the Church.

Seasoned
“The Book of Mormon is true. Read it, study it, compare it to the Bible, and pray to know the truth about it, like I did, and see for yourself.

Much more savory, and not nearly so blunt. Much more likely to at least leave the person willing to listen to you in the future.

I spent a year of 12-hour work shifts with one of the unseasoned ones, back in the early 80’s at Diyarbakir AS, Turkey. The guy who actually got to baptize me was a lot better at telling me how it affected him, and how it could affect me if I would try. So I did, and the rest is history.

I don’t do Honey very well, so I wouldn’t even try. I just try not to be the blunt SOB I used to be. Funny thing about the guy in Diyarbakir was that our personalities and social skills were about on par with one another back then.