posted
SS> Thank you for saying what I was trying to say. *looks over his shoulder for Lissande before recalling she's been missing lately* I've been overly cautious when discussing religion lately.
Posts: 1041 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rep. Jim Hansen gave a public statement refuting what the Church had said, and stating that, when it comes to political parties, good Mormons know "where the correct principles are."
I've heard that one before. I was once "informed" by someone in my ward who discovered that I am a registered Democrat that I couldn't possibly be a good Mormon because I am not a Reagan Republican. Excuse me?
The thing is, Utah is not the only place where they have "Utah Mormons." A great number of LDS here in Central California seem to spend a lot of time trying to "out-Utah" the Utah Mormons. You can't be too conservative here, and trying to find a progressive (for want of a better term) Mormon around here is kind of like trying to find a glacier in the Amazon Basin. And when you do find one, they make it very clear that they don't want it to be common knowledge that they aren't good conservatives. I think that's kind of sad.
Posts: 2454 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: (He's the guy who, when asked if he wasn't afraid of the Prophet's reaction to his column, said (roughly) "No, the Propet's a little, old guy. I could take him.")
posted
Kat, they need to keep working, then. And yes, if, as UofU guy says, it can be traced to one particular "head honcho" in the church, then the chruch needs to continue to tell members on a regular basis that Democrats aren't evil and wrong. Especially when the origianal damaging statements came from a Prophet! Nevermind that in the meantime, it has been forgotten that he was speaking of personal opinions and not divine revelations.
The Democrats seem to be so disliked that in 1992 Bill Clinton came in 3rd place in the Presidential race! 3rd! Behind Bush and Perot! You can't tell me that the Church hasn't influenced it's members. Well, you can tell me that, but I won't believe it.
Utah population 2,233,169 Of Voting age 1,465,000 Registered to vote in 2000 elections 1,123,238 Voted in 2000 784,582 Voted Bush/Cheney 66.83% Voted Gore/Lieberman 26.34%
LDS population 2000 57% of population.
When surveyed in April 2000 about upcoming elections Bush and Gore were in a dead heat nationwide. However, LDS members were in favor of Bush 65% to Gore's 34%. Looks up at actual election numbers for Utah's Presidential race. Yup. Seems like that's the way it turned out to me.
I'm not the one saying that LDS members can't be of any political stripe they want to be. It seems to me that a large portion of the membership thinks that, though. If it is a "culture" thing and not a "doctrine" thing, it still would behoove the church to spend some of its "only 3 hours" teaching that being Republican doesn't make one "good" and "correct" and being anything else "bad" and "wrong." I wonder if that type of thinking bleeds over into other areas of life. Like, is there only one correct and good way of doing things for members?
quote: Congressman Jim Hansen, a former stake president, actually said at a Republican party gathering that faithful Saints should not be Democrats. He publicly disagreed on this matter with Elder Marlin Jensen, a Democrat, in an interview with the BYU paper. Elder Jensen claimed he was representing the church officially when he said it is perfectly acceptable to be a Mormon and a Democrat. Hansen said he didn't think so. But no definitive statement was forthcoming from any higher authorities, and when President Hinckley was asked recently by a reporter if church members could be Democrats, he said weakly: "I think so…it depends on what you believe."
Wow, now that was written by a very biased person, but if the quote by Hinckley is correct, even without the "weakly" part, it seems bad.
Okay, here is a direct quote.
quote: Q. Given the platform and positions taken by the Democratic Party, can you be a good church member and a Democrat? A. Yes, I think so. I don't know why you couldn't. It depends on what you believe as a Democrat in terms of some things. There are some things we don't subscribe to. We've got lots of Democrats in the church, lots of them, and they are good people. I don't worry about that too much.
Hm. Doesn't seem as bad, but still. . . I wonder what his definition of "lots" is.
quote:When surveyed in April 2000 about upcoming elections Bush and Gore were in a dead heat nationwide. However, LDS members were in favor of Bush 65% to Gore's 34%.
There is still a severe fallacy here. Look up to see how well Gore did in West Texas. Or Alaska. Or Wyoming. Or east Oregon.
There are more factors at work in a group's political tendencies. The church is just a target because it is organized. In other words, you can point and say "It's their fault." in Utah, but you can't point the same way for, say, Montana.
quote:it still would behoove the church to spend some of its "only 3 hours" teaching that being Republican doesn't make one "good" and "correct"
So now you are telling a religon what it should teach and spend limited time resources on?
Besides, where's your activism? It's easy to complain that other people aren't promoting your ideas. What are you doing about your ideas? *twinkle* Hatrack doesn't count.
quote:Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance.
I think this is a rule that holds true regardless of what the parents are being cynical about. I remember my mom saying some snide remark about a politician, and that opinion stayed with me for years.
You know, I just don't find that much in the Church to be skeptical about. The Church leaders (they're not a "ruling body") really do not come out and say lots of things that are hard for most Church members to swallow. Seriously. If you listen to General Conference looking for controversial statements, you'll be bored to death. When the Church leaders do step up and make a statement in the press about something, lots of the time the statement involves the Church's involvement in the community, which is a different thing than the Church's core doctrine. The Church is a large physical and corporate entity as well as a church. It rubs shoulders with other businesses, organizations, and governments in SLC and around the world. Of course it has positions on many things that don't directly involve its core teachings. It takes care of itself and doesn't roll over and show its belly whenever something comes up.
If you ARE skeptical about the doctrine, you usually are having a problem following some of the admittedly high standards the Church sets. And when you loudly proclaim your skepticism, what good are you doing anyone? I am not against being skeptical and working through it quietly. I am against making your skepticism your livelihood and claim to fame.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Kat, you know what? I don't care what y'all do. I was merely pointing out the irony of you telling Stormy about logical fallacies and then having the quote from an LDS U. S. Congressman saying, basically, that good people are Republicans and bad people are democrats was a hoot.
Whether or not you church feels the need to discuss the fact that others aren't "bad" for being democrats or not is totally up to you, however, I will contiue to make fun ignorant statements like the one made by Hansen which is preceded nicely by a comment from you which sets up the whole thing.
You don't want people to condem members for being lockstep, and then condem the church for not being lockstep enough, but I disagree with why you said it. Hansen might have been disagreeing with the "official" church position, but it's rather obvious that the church members themselves (and even Hinckley) seem to all believe the roughly the same thing. So, there is no dissent between the one hand and the other.
However, I don't think LDS members should complain about being shut out of American culture (as was discussed the other day where several members expressed how there was nothing on TV for them to watch)while saying, "Oh, we want to be part of society, but not with you people. You're bad and wrong."
But hey, I know you have more important things to discuss during those three hours than how to get along in a world of bad people who won't let you into mainstream culture. Obviously, you're plotting the overthrow of liberals everywhere. No wonder you don't have time to discuss "pretending" to get along with "those people."
posted
Hansen, although he has somehow managed to get elected to Congress many times, is not necessarily representative of the majority of Mormons (or even Utah Mormons) on political issues. His response to the Church's statement was shocking at the time, because of who he was responding to.
However, Hinckley (who keeps his personal political leanings pretty quiet) sits right next to Pres. Faust (a Democrat and his Second Counsellor) every day. He assigned Marlin Jensen (a Democrat) to make an official statement of a political nature to the press. He refrained from condemning Pres. Clinton directly when given the opportunity by Larry King. He explicitly left it up to individual members whether to support Pres. Bush on the Iraq war, while giving a personal opinion (and emphasizing that it was in fact only a personal opinion) that the war might be justified.
Bill Orton, a former congressman from Utah and a Mormon, is a Democrat. Wayne Owens, a former congressman from Utah and a Mormon, was a Democrat. Harry Reid, a Senator from Nevada and a Mormon, is quite a powerful Democrat. Scott Howell, former minority leader of the Utah legislature and a Mormon, is a Democrat. Ted Wilson, former Major of Salt Lake City and director of the Hinckley (!!!) center for politics at the University of Utah, and a Mormon, is a Democrat.
Scott Matheson, one of Utah's most popular and longest-serving governors ever, though not a Mormon, was a Democrat and managed to be elected over and over again at a time when Utah was even more overwhelmingly LDS than it is now. His son, Jim Matheson, also not a Mormon, has managed to get elected to congress twice by Utahns even though the Republicans tried to gerrymander him out of it. Scott Matheson, Jr., the dean of the University of Utah law school and a Democrat, is considered one of the frontrunners for the next governor's race, although he is not Mormon.
Every year at election times, the Church has its local leaders read from the pulpit an official letter reiterating the Church's political neutrality and urging the members to be politically involved and to vote their consciences.
The members should have gotten the message by now. If they haven't, it's because they don't want to.
quote: I was merely pointing out the irony of you telling Stormy about logical fallacies and then having the quote from an LDS U. S. Congressman saying, basically, that good people are Republicans and bad people are democrats was a hoot.
Kayla, I'm just quibbling here, and if I'm driving you crazy, just ignore me, but how is this ironic?
It would be ironic if I then said the next comment, but (1) a logical fallacy was (perhaps) pointed out, and then (2) someone posted a quote where a total stranger made another logical fallacy. Wearisome? Maybe. Ironic? Not really.
Unless you consider me and whatshisname to be equivelent - which is, I think, the point of UofUlawguy's post - that we aren't.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kat, it was ironic in the sense that you, as an LDS member, were telling a non-member that LDS members come in all different political brands. Then, UofU posted a very prominent LDS member saying that LDS members know what the "right" political brand is. His point, it would be surprising if a cowboy was a good poet. It was in direct contrast to what you said. The fact that you are both "prominent" LDS members (he in congress, you here) makes it ironic. And I use the word irony in it's secondary definition of "2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually occurs." You said one thing and a Republican Congressman who is also a LDS member said something that completely contradicted what you said. And yes, I do equate the two of you. You are both publically LDS members. You are both prominent in social group. Your point is well taken. And his statements pretty much proved your point. LDS do come in all kinds. I just don't think they come in as many kinds in Utah. But that is neither here nor there, nor does it lessen the irony that amused me.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer not to 'pick' either political party. I can't see one as better or more correct than the other; they are both corrupt, and usually far more interested in maintaining power than in improving the country. Republican and Democrat each claim some ideals that agree with the gospel, and each have ideas that are terrible. I think that's where we get into a lot of trouble--hoping that one party will be more 'righteous' than another, or thinking that party affiliation is a reflection of personal righteousness. When asked to choose, I have to say no to both.
I'm a bit more to the left than the right, and my husband is pretty Republican. We have a lot of the same ideas, just different opinions on how to get to the goals. I usually vote for whoever I think will do better, not according to a party lineup. And since I lived in the Bay Area for a long time, I know a lot of very liberal Mormons. (I can usually see a familiar name in every issue of Sunstone or Dialogue!)
Utah's political leanings, I think, have more to do with the fact that it's in a part of the US that tends to be Republican than with Church teachings. I hear that in Sweden, the members tend to feel that socialism is more righteous than US-style capitalism and would never dream of agreeing with the Republican party.
Posts: 335 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow, MESJ (pronounced "message") makes its way to hatrack. I'm currently secretary treasure of the organization. If you are interested, but can't make Storm Saxon's link work, try www.mesj.org
posted
Papa Moose, You will notice that there is no jello visible in any of the pictures on the MESJ website. This is not because we ate it all before taking pictures.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oddly enough, progressive dinners are a staple activity of some LDS wards.
---
Rabbit: What? Jello isn't part of the progressive program? I don't know how I feel about that.
If anything, I think jello needs to be rescued from the tyrannical Mormon matriarchy who ruin it by pumping it full of carrot shreds, fruit cocktail, and mandarin orange slices. Or worse, who mix it with cottage cheese or cool-wip.
Don't try to force the jello to be something it's not. Just let it be.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
To make jello truly wonderful - without adding anything to it - after removing the ice cubes, whip it with a mixer - it makes it all foamy. Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jello isn't jello unless you get in the cube form from Luby's Cafeteria. *dreams of childhood treats*
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
If you renounce your jello-perverting ways, I'll let you become charter members of the Jello Liberation Front.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow Kat, I didn't realize that Jello could inspire such a murderous rage. 23 people killed. If this is what makes up your dreams from childhood, we must find you help. ASAP
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What? Jello isn't part of the progressive program?
Mormon's for Equality and Social Justice (MESJ) has yet to adopt a resolution on Jello and therefore has no official stance either for or against Jello. Any comments I make on the subject must therefore be interpreted as the opinion of one lagomorph, who happens to be a MESJ member and not representative of MESJ as an organization.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ya'll are the Sierra Club of the Mormon progressive moment
As a southerner on this forum, I feel compelled to mention that 'ya'll' is incorrect. As a contraction of 'you' and 'all', it should be spelled 'y'all'.
posted
Nope. ya'll as used in my previous post is a contraction of 'ya' (as in see ya') and 'all.' It's the modern West coast form of the second person plural and is not the same as the southern version.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Zal, I'm afraid that's incorrect, too. "Ya'll" is a contraction of "ya" (as in you) and "will" -- a colloquial form of "you'll." It's usually used incorrectly. My favorite contraction is "y'all'd've," but it seems nobody uses it anymore.
Posts: 6213 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, afr, I'm trying to think of a polite way to let you know that your interpretation of that article doesn't really gibe with what I'm reading.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I stand by my comments on the faq. Spot on. Very nice. Please forward my compliments to whoever wrote it, Rabbit -- and feel free to inflate the importance of my opinion.
And if you have the time, I'd love to hear a brief report on how things are going so far with MESJ.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Zal, Although the web-site contains the work of a number of people, John-Charles Duffy is the one in charge of it and does most of the writing.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
hey, UofUlawguy, can you get me a link about the Church's statement? this one?
quote: in the late 1990's, the Church leadership found it necessary to make official statements in the Utah press to the effect that it is perfectly possible to be both a good Mormon and a Democrat. They lamented the fact that Utah is such a one-party state. They assigned one General Authority, Marlin K. Jensen, to give a newspaper interview to explain all this. They let it be known that certain key leaders, including Jensen and James E. Faust, are in fact Democrats.
and pooka, is there a link for this?
quote: The church teaches it is not murder, but still a heinous sin. (There is an official statement of no stand on stem cell research, by the way).
can y'all help me out and be more specific? We have been talking in terms of liberal and conservative, Repubs and Dems and I have always wondered how people make that designation. Is it a "51% of my total beliefs are Democrat, so I'm a Democrat" kind of thing, or "Socially 10% of my beliefs are Democrat, economically 80%, so I'm Democrat" or "there's one issue that, for me, trumps all the others, and on that issue, I'm with the Republicans, so I guess that makes me a Republican regardless of my other beliefs." I personally think it's the third more often that the other two, although the second and third could just be different phrasings of the same thing. in any case, how does that apply to Mormons? Do you think if economics didn't play a part, Mormons would be more or less politically heterogeneous? If social issues were taken out of the equation? Personally, I am not sure how to define myself (and really, fail to see a reason I should have to) but as I talk with Democrats who are Mormons I find myself agreeing with everything they say about some aspect of the political spectrum and then, we'll disagree on one little issue, and BOOM, according to them we're on opposite sides of the political aisle.
p.s. who decided that aisle should be spelled like that? What the diddly?
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
You can read about it in the 5th paragraph, but I couldn't find anything else about it. Like I said, that is from a biased source, though the one of those other links up there (I think the first link in that group of 4) is a quote from an interview with the Deseret News.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Are you sure this came from a BYU newspaper? I would guess that this was published somewhere else. I believe that this portion of his statement was about his BYU years, not that it was published in the BYU paper.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
ok, one last quick question. do most Mormons view themselves as Mormons who are also (Democrats, Republicans), or (Democrats, Republicans) who are also Mormon? Do other religions make the same distinction? I am curious.
Posts: 196 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right. The original article on which he was basing his opinions was printed in the BYU paper. However, since they don't have it online, it is kind of hard to track down. Like I said, that is the reference I found to it and it comes from a biased source. And while it is biased, I don't think he'd lie about an article as it would be too easy for others to disprove and therefore dismiss the rest of what he has to say. Just my opinion, of course, I could be wrong.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
It depends on the Mormon. As has already been alluded to some Mormons think that there's no difference between their political and religious personas -- in other words that to be Mormon is to be Republican.
Others -- and I think it's probably safe to say that this group is comprised of Republicans, Democrats and independents -- see it as more of a slight overlapping thing. They're Mormons who are also Democrats etc. and while their consonance between their political and religious beliefs, there's also room for 'other' considerations to come into play.
Finally, relating to an earlier post, as it is for many evangelical Christians, abortion is a huge sticking point for many Mormons. I understand that, but I don't think that it should be a breaking point for every single candidate (and for some Mormons it isn't) -- I think that more Mormons should vote for a candidate if they support every other plank of his platform than abortion. I can see how the abortion litmus test could be be seen as important for some elections, but not for every single one at every single level. I don't think that you should not vote for a moderate (or even a liberal) mayoral candidate, for example, just because he or she supports abortion. While I recognize that there can be local pressures and decisions to make, but it seems to me that fundamentally abortion is a national issue, and even then I'm not sure how much (beyond access -- which is important and should be part of your decision-making equation although I'm not sure it should be a candidate breaker) influence politicians have on that other than presidents -- and even that's an indirect one involving the appointment of supreme court justices.
Posts: 3423 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
Either party may sometimes be at odds with church standards. But IMO, the dems more often have statistically prevalent views which are pretty bad by LDS standards. That doesn't mean that you can't be a democrat and a good mormon--you would just have to be one that stuck with the mormons on certain key points. (This is the same for reps when rep views are out of line)
The question is, are you a "good democrat" if you don't line up well with several of the statistical views? Maybe, maybe not, depends on how you define it.
Posts: 554 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I'm a jatraquero who is also a Mormon.
Rabbit, I want to join and be a member in absentia. I signed up on Yahoo and am currently reading all the messages.
This is cool! I want to start a Birmingham chapter and hold meetings here. Maybe I can do them on Monday nights simultaneously with my family home evenings, since both the union and the intersection of the membership of those two groups is one. Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent Anne Kate. All you need to form a local chapter are four members, including a contact person and a treasurer. Send an e-mail to the link on the web site.
Woo! Hoo!
MESJ is going to have a Birmingham Chapter!!! Yeah!!
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It would be so cool if we actually could. I'll ask at RS and see if anyone else wants to join. I think my problem will be coming up with 3 more. LDS are very rare here and progressives even more so! I'm afraid the intersection of those two groups in Birmingham may be me.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
