I find myself in agreement with you on most all of this post. So, I think, if we are still disagreeing, we must have wandered off on our point of disagreement. If there still is one.
I believe the point, or question, is: Would you disqualify - rule out voting for - a member of the Church of LDS for political office based on this membership alone?
Not whether religion and religious values are important or are a valid consideration, etc.
Thanks for your courteous discussion.
First of all...in some of the principles I have highlighted on FR over the past five years, I have distinguished between generic political office and POTUS -- THE leader of the free world.
Beyond that, let's focus on that word "disqualify" -- 'cause I've already addressed this question: I already said: Religion IS NOT a qualification or disqualification for public office; but it's certainly one quality of voter discernment among many others...namely, voting record, present position statements & rampant inconsistency of past position statements, social issues' stances, character, viability, scandal-free past, etc.
I've also said numerous times: "Qualifications" have to do with what gets a man on a ballot. "Qualities" has to do with who gets elected.
Therefore, the focus needs to be kept on candidate qualities -- and qualities include...character, beliefs, other-dimensionly commitments, and spiritual discernment.
Now, if you asked me: Do you think most Mormon political leaders have the qualities, the character, the beliefs, the other-dimensionly commitments, and the spiritual discernment to be THE leader of the Free world...my answer is, "I don't think so. I could be proven wrong re: a very specific individual, but somebody who perhaps can't even discern the difference between 'Christian' and an 'apostate' hasn't 'inspired' me that he can handle foreign policy decisions that occasionally involve Christians around the world."
Another key issue is that a temple Mormon (15-20% of all Mormons) -- vs. a less "institutional" Mormon -- is more likely to be beholden as a "puppet" to the "prophet" in Salt Lake City. So some Mormon candidates have a greater potential for puppet fodder than other Mormon candidates. (And it's not enough to merely say that Mormons have refrained from allowing SLC to overly influence them at the guv or Congressional level...there simply is NO comparison to those levels vs. what can be done from the White House)
You see, the issue here then isn't even primarily the Mormon candidate; it's the potential Mormon "prophet" who can overreach...And I've already included many quotes on other threads -- and a link on a post earlier on this thread -- showing the Mormon leader capacity for political overreach.
Does that disqualify the Mormon? (No) Is that a "quality" -- Mormon puppetry -- I want embraced within the White House? (No)