I have to confess that I tend to find myself generalizing Mormons in terms of OSC's , and other Mormons like him, attitudes towards certain things. I realize this is not terribly logical, but then again, as I'm sure the forum has noted, I'm not a terribly logical fellow.
In my defense, I think there are many denominations where people really do tend to fall into one type of outlook on life. So, I think my belief has some basis in fact. For instance, Calvary Assemblies of God churches tend to be overwhelmingly conservative. Unitarian churches are not. Thus, I don't think it's unreasonable to pigeonhole someone based on their religion. It just means that you're going to miss the mark at times.
I think part of the problem is that I have never met any Mormons in Florida and my opinions of them are based entirely on the ones I meet off of this site. And by and large, it seems to me that they tend to agree with OSC, if not in the particulars, then certainly in attitude and the broad picture.
I guess I'm just so used to hearing about Mormons like Orrin Hatch and OSC--socially conservative, 'pro-US', pro-military industrial complex type people--that I forget that there *are* Mormons with different ideological slants out there. This is not to say, by the way, that I don't recognize that they exist. Rabbit is a fine example of a Mormon progressive. It's just that I tend to think of Mormons as overwhelmingly conservative.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:It's just that I tend to think of Mormons as overwhelmingly conservative.
You say that like its a bad thing.
Okay, I just followed the link. Stormy, your surprise is a classic fallacy - "All good qualities belong to my group only." It's like being shocked that cowboys can be good poets.
[ August 28, 2003, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Pardon, but where did I imply that being conservative was bad?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
The funny thing is that Mormons are so often seen as mindless minions marching in lockstep to the tune of a charismatic prophet. Closer to the truth is the leadership of the church trying to herd cats. Mormons have a very broad range of political, social and religious ideals. WHat binds us together is a shared belief in the most important and fundamental gospel basics.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
OSC used to be much more progressive, but then he fell out of love with the democratic party and shortly thereafter started touting the virtues of country music. Orrin Hatch is a political whore who opposes the president's ban on stem cell research because he knows the baby boomers want it. Something you should know about "Mormons" is that from inside here, we see OSC and OH as being on opposite ends of the pool.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
So, Jacare, if I looked at the voting practices of Mormons, would I find that they were all over the political spectrum?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: So, Jacare, if I looked at the voting practices of Mormons, would I find that they were all over the political spectrum?
I think that as a general rule, yes, they would. The exception is Utah which is always a very conservative state. However, I think that it is more due to culture than to religion in particular, much as California is generally mighty liberal.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*blink* mighty?
Posted by docmagik (Member # 1131) on :
You actually would.
The state of Utah cast the final vote that repealed prohibition, this despite overwhelming pressure from church leadership on how to vote on that issue.
The church rarely takes a definite political stand, except when it involves what they percieve to be a moral issue, which they did in that case.
I'm from Southern California, and what you have to remember is, here, lots of Mormons weren't born Mormon--they converted. And they formed all thier political ideals long before they became LDS. Probably the same with those Florida folks.
Besides, the church is worldwide--lots of the church leadership in Brazil, where I served my mission, is VERY liberal--Che Guevara, Chico Mendes types.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I just love "conservative" and "progressive" being used as if they were two sides of the same coin. That's where you'll get bristling about "conservative" sounding negative. As if being conservative was stagnant.
I think Mormons distinguish themselves differently than politicians do. There are the Mormons who don't question and "doubt" everything the Church leaders say, and the Mormons who do. Call it conservative and progressive if you want. *shrug*
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*thwaps Kat*
You leave Jacare alone, you big meanie.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Mormons, in Utah especially, are politically conservative (Republican) enough that, 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.
It didn't do any good. The Utah Republicans didn't believe them, and were shocked and offended that the Church would say such things. 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."
UofUlawguy
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
Kat- you would prefer a different adjective?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
From a presidential elections standpoint, Utah has been won by the Republicans every time since 1960, except for in 1964 when the Dems won with LBJ.
Edit to say: That in no way, however, means that all Mormons are conservatives. Utah voters, however, have historically voted more toward the conservative side. Which isn't a bad thing, necessarily.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
You know, I never said anything about church leaders. I didn't say anything about them because I almost never hear Mormons reference them. So, if you guys think that the world looks at you as sycophantic pawns of some kind of religious imams, I do not.
I explained that my view of Mormons came, by and large, from those I had met on this site.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, I love it. It sounds like you've been reading Porter Rockwall's autobiography.
Or like a cowboy speaking of a mighty thirst after a day on the range.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"So, if you guys think that the world looks at you as sycophantic pawns of some kind of religious imams, I do not."
I've never thought that. Actually, that's the first time I've heard "sycophantic," "pawns," and "imams" used in a discussion about the Church. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
There are a few doctrinal matters, but these are always tempered by the fundamental belief in agency and free will in the church. Take Abortion. 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). So I used to think Choice was a greater reflection of the doctrine than Pro life, due to our belief in agency. But when I was about 19, I decided that Pro Life made more sense for me because if we teach the rising generation that something is acceptable, "agency" makes us accountable in part if they sin.
The church headquarters is regularly picketed by Pro LIFE advocates, by the way, because they disagree with the Church supporting abortion as a medical procedure for instances of rape, incest, threat to life of mother, and even for some cases of the baby being nonviable.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote: "All good qualities belong to my group only."
Kat, oh the irony to have that statement followed shortly by . . .
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."
Apparently, the church need to teach more memebers about logical fallicy, huh?
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote:No, I love it. It sounds like you've been reading Porter Rockwall's autobiography.
Or like a cowboy speaking of a mighty thirst after a day on the range.
Every now and then a meme for sounding folksy kind of takes over my mind.
Either than or my thin veneer of wanna-be intellectual English cracks and my Utah roots start to show.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Kayla, look at your attitude. He was contradicting the church.
I just think that's funny because on one side there are those who blame Mormons for being lockstep, and then on this hand, blaming the church for them not being lockstep enough.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:12 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
It is funny. I'm sure it happens to other groups. People criticize our church for our beliefs and practices, but often in the same breath condemn us for not living them perfectly all the time. Not that this happens here, but I've seen it elsewhere.
Posted by Jacare Sorridente (Member # 1906) on :
quote: You know, I never said anything about church leaders. I didn't say anything about them because I almost never hear Mormons reference them. So, if you guys think that the world looks at you as sycophantic pawns of some kind of religious imams, I do not.
I'd say Hatrackers in general don't take that view, but nevertheless it is a widely prevalent one. Whenever you read a something in the press about the church see if the author doesn't show through the article that they really believe what I said about the church.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I just think that's funny because on one side there are those who blame Mormons for being lockstep, and then on this hand, blaming the church for them not being lockstep enough.
*thwaps afr*
I've seen sentiments like this at least a couple times in this thread. You know what I"m trying to say.
By the way, on your grumbling about my labels. *shrug* No label is perfect. I recognize this. We does the best we can. Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
No dissembling or hedging. Careful delineation of boundaries. Clearly, boldly stated. That's good pr, although, sadly, I'm sure many 'conservative' Mormons still think there's a hidden agenda and any LDS who join are semi-apostates.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I like this. I wonder what else I can say that will get afr thwapped.
I have seen this attitude, btw. Once in a boyfriend. Not much fun.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
*thwaps SS*
Ya used kat's quote and thwapped me. That's OK, I said the same thing.
The term "progressive" used in opposition to "conservative" will always make me flinch and react. As if by being conservative in some of my views I am anti-progress. Not the wording I would have chosen.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: I've never thought that. Actually, that's the first time I've heard "sycophantic," "pawns," and "imams" used in a discussion about the Church.
I was responding to this. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Kat, your first post was critisizing Stormy's "logical fallicy" because LDS can be all kinds of different in the political arena. Then, along comes a post saying that they church was trying to tell Utah voters that it wasn't a sin to be a democrat, but they still voted overwhelmingly Republican and had a Rep. (Republican or Representative?) make the statement that "good" Mormons knew which party had the the "correct" values. Certainly, he wasn't implying that Republicans have cornered the market on goodness and correct values and that all Demorcrats are "bad" and "incorrect" was he? He was guilty of the same logical fallicy you accused Stormy of, which I think, means the Chruch should probably spend a bit more time on logical fallicy.
The timing of it was ironic. I don't know what attitude you are talking about.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Of course there is a difference between democrat and progressive. And republican and conservative. That's why I've been sticking to issues.
So I'll dredge up the dreaded homosexuality. (That is, the topic is dreaded because it is so divisive). Is it more important to allow people their agency or not support their sinning? When legislation about this has arisen, the church has been very active in taking a stance that does not support it. The church does not , however, ally with a political party over it.
The point I most definitely do not go "right" on is second amendment rights, or gun marketing as I think of it. Also capital punishment.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What labels would you use, afr?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:He was guilty of the same logical fallicy you accused Stormy of, which I think, means the Chruch should probably spend a bit more time on logical fallicy.
This means you are holding the Church and only the Church responsible for this man's education - even when he is using his lack of it to contradict the church.
Why aren't you blaming his college? Or his elementary teacher? Or his wife? Or do you want to return to the days when religion was the only source of any kind education?
There are a million things in this world to learn - and you can't cram everything into three hours a week. That's why the prophets (old and new) keep reinforcing the basic principles and then telll the members to read good books and seek wisdom.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
"Right" and "Wrong"
I'd still use "conservative," drab as it sounds. In place of "progressive," maybe something like "liquid" or "fluid." That describes the stance each one is on when they are trying to make progress.
Good thing they're not paying me to come up with terms.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
A lot of the political conservatism in the Church can be traced back to Ezra Taft Benson. He was very conservative, and outspoken about it. It is easy to find page after page of his public expressions of his political views.
The problem is that many Mormons seem unable to fathom that a prominent LDS leader (who, in this case, later became the Prophet) can have and express personal opinions. Everything they believe and everything they say must be the Word of God.
So, when Benson opined that it was impossible to be a liberal Democrat and a good Mormon (or something to that effect) it had a big impact. When he railed on the national welfare program, ditto. Likewise, many conservative Mormons' views on such issues as the United Nations, the Constitution and gun control can be directly or indirectly traced to such publicly expressed, personal views.
The Church has attempted to remedy this in various ways, but it is hard to turn this horse.
UofUlawguy
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: You know, I never said anything about church leaders. I didn't say anything about them because I almost never hear Mormons reference them. So, if you guys think that the world looks at you as sycophantic pawns of some kind of religious imams, I do not.
quote: I'd say Hatrackers in general don't take that view, but nevertheless it is a widely prevalent one.
I certainly don't believe you were like that as much as I did before coming to Hatrack. In the more conservative churches of Christ--and to some degree in the liberal ones--anyone who claimed to believe in modern prophets tends to be looked at that way, but it certainly isn't the case in regard to the people I've met here.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
afr, I think I'll stick with my terms for now and hope that, in conjunction with the link, people understand what I am trying to say.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
UofU, you've given some really interesting information. Thanks.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:That's why the prophets (old and new) keep reinforcing the basic principles and then telll the members to read good books and seek wisdom.
This is true, kat. But then there's a whole layer of non-church, but loosely-affiliated discourse that sets up hedges about what 'good books' should be read and what 'wisdom' should be sought. Whether they're willing to admit it or not, the policies of Deseret Book and BYU, and the writings of all your second-tier GA's and BYU profs have a considerable influence on the average Mormon's ideas about what is and isn't acceptable.
I'm not saying that the discourses produced by this layer of authority are all bad. And it does seem that many Mormons are all too happy to set these hedges up. And I do understand that these discourses have to be careful because there's just too many who are willing to take (what may appear to be) one little opening and run with it.
But I still maintain that the 'subisidiary Mormon discourses' (i.e. everything that's not the basic principles/scripture), aren't doing a very good job of promoting and supporting and engaging in tolerance, pluralism, critical thinking and civility.
That said, I also detest the so-called 'dissident' branch of Mormon discourse (your hardcore, anti-brethren Sunstone intellectuals). Talk about narrow and predictable.
We need more of a rigorous, messy, pluralistic but well-crafted happy medium.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wonder if that statement by Jim Hansen was why he ended his political career recently. Since it would be construed as criticizing James E. Faust, a member of the first presidency as well as Elder Jensen. Criticizing your superiors in the church does happen to be a serious sin.
Actually, according to the 2002 Swallow (R) campaign, as long as Democrat Matheson represents Utah it's like we only have one rep and not three. So maybe Jim Hansen doesn't even exist.
And I think the main reason Matheson retained his seat is because voters resented the attempt of the Republican controlled legislature to gerrymander the districts. That is, they took the county that Matheson carried in 2000 and split it to put parts in all three congressional districts.
Anyway, Utah politics is far from characteristic of church "progressivism" or lack thereof. Of about 11,000, 000 members, only 1,000,000 are involved in Utah politics. I think. Since the whole state population is 2,000,000 including children and the state is about 70% "Mormon". Sorry for all the quotes, but I think they are legitimate given these are titles specifically under discussion. Also sorry my issue based posts are too boring to engage ya'll.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: That said, I also detest the so-called 'dissident' branch of Mormon discourse (your hardcore, anti-brethren Sunstone intellectuals). Talk about narrow and predictable.
*raises eyebrow*
Can you elaborate on this a little? Who they are? Why they dissented?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Also sorry my issue based posts are too boring to engage ya'll.
*thwaps pooka*
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
Whoa. If it were just this one particular guy who felt that way, I'd agree. However, when the majority of the membership of a particular state all feel the same way, then it becomes the Church's responsiblity to teach it's members.
I love hypothethcials, so let's try one of those. Let's say there are 100 kids down at the local elementary school. Let's say that of those kids, 50 of them are members at a local LDS church. (Or all live in the same ward, or whatever.) Now, let's say there's an outbreak of strep throat at the school. Half the kids in school have it. Now, if that is distributed evenly among the kids, 25 members, 25 non-members, then it would be likely that it is just something that's going around and the kids and their parents need to be instructed how to take care of the problem and how to keep it from happening again. And I don't think that the Church should be in charge of that. However, if half the kids in class get it and all of them are LDS members, then there seems to be a problem at the church. One that should be looked into. Is it something that they are doing at chruch? (Do they pass a jolly rancher around the classroom during Sunday school?) Are the so isolated from the rest of the community that even though it has spread throughout the church, no non-memeber has gotten it? That doesn't seem healthy either.
Anyway, my point is, if it is a problem among the general population of a particular community, then the leaders of that community need to get a little more invovled. Are their teachings leading to members beliving that they, being Republicans, are "right" and "good" and others are "bad" and "wrong"? If so, then the church needs to work on that. It seems like a pervasive problem among members, since "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." After all, they don't generally make statements to the press that have no relevance, do they?
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Hey, I'll discuss any issue ya want! Just beware if you see me frothing at the mouth... Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Zal, that makes sense. I do know a girl who refuses to read anything but church books. That's annoying, but at least she's reading something. If it weren't for those, she wouldn't read recreationally at all.
I do not read LDS fiction or any of what you called the "second tier" of LDS discourse at all. I never have - I hate it. Maybe there's too much of the culture for me to take. Whatever it is, the only books from Deseret Books I've read are the missionary library and a couple of Kathy Kidd's (I swear this isn't a tushy-smooching moment). Reading a book on the gospel instead of the scriptures is like reading a cookbook instead of eating.
Also... I get a bit squeamish at the whole commerical aspect of it. It's a little too close to the "Jesus of Nazareth Hair and Nail Salon" near our apartment in Detroit.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
D*oh. Man, I really need to remember to hit refresh on the secondary hatrack page before hitting submit. Lots of other people already made my point and did it a lot better because they weren't using hypotheticals!
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
quote: It's a little too close to the "Jesus of Nazareth Hair and Nail Salon" near our apartment in Detroit.
Please tell me you're joking? Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:when the majority of the membership of a particular state all feel the same way
How do you know?
Kayla, you're still taking the wrong organization to task. They saw a problem, tried to do something about, met (predictably) with a manifestation of the afore-seen problem, and now it's the church's fault?
Remember - three hours a week! With lots of things to cover.
Mac: Sadly, no. Not joking. There was an accompanying mural.
[ August 28, 2003, 01:59 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
It's really not that interesting. And I painted with a rather broad brush. And there are non-dissident Mormons who participate in Sunstone, which is a journal/symposium series that inquires intellectually into aspects of Mormon theology and culture.
But basically, what I mean by dissidents is those Mormons who have decided that certain policies, doctrines, and culture attitudes of the church and (most of its) members are wrong and need to be changed and that the leaders of the LDS church are just a bunch of autocratic old men. It's the kind of stuff that you'd get from your normal semi-rabid, rather-pc, liberal academic.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Apostle Jeffrey Holland (junior member of the third highest ruling body of the church after the president and then the first presidency of three) gave an interesting talk at the last conference about the danger of cynicism and skepticism Let's see, linkage... A prayer for the Children I originally was going to say open mindedness, but I guess he never actually says that. A talk by an apostle at conference is pretty much considered scripture, except where contradicting the president/prophet.
I think another form of this apostasy is letting your political life become your church life. It was Rush Limbaugh who said a Christian would oppose both abortion and capital punishment.
An example of the contradiction: Apostle Nelson preaches the virtues of peace at last October Conference. Pro peace expressions proliferate at BYU. In April the prophet affirms, in a personal opinion, loyalty to the US government and support of the war on terror which he opines the action in Iraq to be.
[ August 28, 2003, 02:08 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Like that guy in the news a year ago who was trying as hard as he possibly could to be publicly excomunicated - including issuing a press release saying "They are going to excommunicate me for this; I just know it."
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Pooka, that article gives me the creeps...
*meanwhile struggles not to agree with Limbaugh...gives in*
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Or the "oxymormon," as he calls himself. Kirby? Or the UofU professor who seems to tell anyone who will listen that he doesn't pay tithing.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
quote:I do not read LDS fiction.
Well now that's just going to have to change.
But seriously, you're not at all alone in this --and it's why the few, the brave who are trying to do this whole 'middle' well-crafted fiction thing are having such a hard time.
The LDS bookstores are geared towards the modeled-after-Christian-fiction schlock. And the Mormon writers who make it in the literary world (and thus get grants, writers-in-residences, etc.) are only allowed to write if they're writing about Mormons who are on their way (or already are) to being of the non-orthodox variety.
This is exactly why there are so many Mormon speculative fiction writers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Zal, I will read your book. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
Robert Kirby rules!
(He's the guy who, when asked if he wasn't afraid of the Prophet's reaction to his column, said (roughly) "No, the Prophet's a little, old guy. I could take him.")
UofUlawguy
[ August 28, 2003, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: UofUlawguy ]
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Kat, Do you live in Detroit, Michigan? I thought at one point you were in Utah and then at another you were in TX. Or have you just been traveling lots of places? I'm totally confused!
(If you do live in Detroit, Michigan I'll have to drop by and say hi sometime when I'm out there!)
AJ
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that would be cool! Sadly, no - I do live in Dallas. I went on my mission to Detroit.
I love it there. I know it's an imperfect city, but I had close to a perfect mission, and Detroit is the promised land. It was wonderful.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Uh, pooka? Doesn't that link kind of paint a picture that doing anything, being anything, other than what the church and church leaders say is o.k. will lead to your children suffering dire consequences? Doesn't it actually lend itself to conservativism and a monolithic church body?
quote: Parents simply cannot flirt with skepticism or cynicism, then be surprised when their children expand that flirtation into full-blown romance.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
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.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
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.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
<---- completely spoiled by living in the Bay Area
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I live in Bush-lovin' Dallas, and I've found members of all politics here.
[ August 28, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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 by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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.
[ August 28, 2003, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
-- Where are you getting your quotes?
[ August 28, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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."
[ August 28, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Kayla ]
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
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.
UofUlawguy
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
The main difference: Hansen is a twit, and widely recognized as such. As far as I can see, Kat is not.
UofUlawguy
Posted by dangermom (Member # 1676) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
quote:The main difference: Hansen is a twit, and widely recognized as such.
Yet the voters of Utah elected him for 22 years. Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
Congress is full of twits. SOMEBODY's got to elect them. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*feels warm and fuzzy at, uh, compliment*
(*grin*)
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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
Here is the picture of the May day social in my kitchen. The Rabbit's kitchen Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
You always look the same in your pics, Rabbit, with that big cheesy grin. It's way cute. Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Every time I see this thread title, I think of students at BYU going from room to room in a dorm doing jello shots. With jello.
Sorry, please continue.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
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.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And add sour cream.
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
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. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jello isn't jello unless you get in the cube form from Luby's Cafeteria. *dreams of childhood treats*
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Heretics.
If you renounce your jello-perverting ways, I'll let you become charter members of the Jello Liberation Front.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*a loudspeaker whines into life*
Don't eat the brown jello. I repeat. Do not eat the brown jello.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
I see. Ya'll are the Sierra Club of the Mormon progressive moment, while the JLF is the Earth First!
<-----goes off to create gelatin bombs.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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 by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
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.
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
Stormy is Southern? Like, with an accent and everything?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Zal, don't make me drive the General Lee over to your house and shoot an exploding arrow in your butt, you deviant.
[ August 29, 2003, 06:08 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I try to keep my mullet clean and my muttonchops bushy, ma'am.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
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.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
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.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Hey, man. I got your low-riden' hoopty and 9mm right here. Come on over.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
But seriously...
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.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
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?
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
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.
Posted by Rohan (Member # 5141) on :
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.
Posted by Kayla (Member # 2403) on :
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.
Posted by Zalmoxis (Member # 2327) on :
Rohan:
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.
Posted by popatr (Member # 1334) on :
My 2 cents:
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.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
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. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
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!!
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
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.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)