Would You Vote for Someone Just Because They're Mormon?

Lds Living ^ | Jan. 10, 2011 | Ashley Evanson

[Colofornian]

Buzz about the 2012 presidential election is already in full swing. But with no real Republican front-runner, really, anyone is game. We’ve been hearing Mitt Romney’s name tossed around as a potential for a while now, but two weeks ago we started hearing another familiar name: Jon Huntsman.

While Huntsman doesn’t have the same national profile as Romney, he has gained status as the ambassador to China and might become more of a threat in the upcoming year. Can you imagine—TWO Mormons (gasp) both running for president?

Now, I understand my next thought doesn’t apply to every Mormon, BUT, I know of a lot of members who vote for politicians based on the fact that they, too, are LDS. And honestly, I know that I’ve been unjustifiably biased toward LDS politicians for the sole reason that we share a religion.

But what if Romney and Huntsman go head to head in 2012? Who will the Mormons vote for?! If their only choice was Romney, I bet a fair number of Mormons wouldn’t really give the other candidates a second thought. But throw Huntsman into the picture and we might actually have to do more research on each candidate’s stances. If they both end up running, it will be interesting to see how members react to the situation over the next two years. Do I sense a hint of BYU vs. Utah-style rivalry in the air?

[Chunga]

Voting FOR someone because of religion or race is just as bad as voting AGAINST someone because of religion or race.

It isn't necessarily bad to vote against someone because of their religion.

I would vote against any Sharia-advocating Muslim for any office in the land on the basis of his religion alone. If you wouldn't, you're either a Sharia-advocating Muslim, a deluded leftist or an idiot.

[Vendome]

Difference between me and writerdumd is my values are not changeable he has obviously had an opinionectomy and suffering root rot.

[Tennessee Nana]

When Mitt Romney appeared on the debates I dont think I had ever heard of him ...

In the 1st or 2nd he was asked about abortion...

With a sob in his voice he told the soul wrenching story of his relative dying from an abortion about 1970 and my heart went out to him...

I thought he was next going to say he was against abortion ...

But no I was stunned and sickened to hear him not only say he had been FOR abortion ever since then..

but to go on and explain that the relatives death was one of the reasons Romney own mother Lenore Romney had run for the US Senate from Michigan in 1970 on a PRO-ABORTION platform, and that he was proud of her for doing so...

None of that made any moral sense to me ...it was a mindblower...and I was motivated to research Mitt’s background...

His awful history of pro-abortion including trying to outdo Teddy Kennedy in which one of them was more pro-abortion in a 1994 debate for the US Senate from MASS

and again in 2002 trying to be the worst pro-abortion candidate in the debate for Gov of MASS...

A guy like that is not interested in the votes of pro-lifers..

and not interested in the lives of innocent unborn babies...

but rather will willing snuff out their tiny lives for his own political expediency...

Williard Mitt Romney is an unrepentant ghoul with the blood of millions of innocent unborn babies on his hands..

[SaxxonWoods]

Thanks. I thought I had read that if Roe v Wade was taken down, the three places that might vote to outlaw abortion would be Louisiana, Guam and Utah. Other than Guam, it wouldn’t matter, as a fairly short drive would get a woman to an abortion clinic, and they would spring up all around the borders of L and U if the vote in those states went against abortion.

[SaxxonWoods]

“Tell me, as a pro-lifer would you vote for some who was not and had never been pro-life just because he was the same religion as you ???”

I know you didn’t ask me, but that’s an interesting question. My answer would be no.

I’m pro-life, but I don’t vote for or against politicans depending on their abortion position since I think it is meaningless at this time as no politician can affect the abortion situation, even by nominating pro-life Supreme Court Judges. Almost every state would keep abortion legal if Roe v Wade was taken down.

The only way to end abortion in the USA is to change the hearts and minds of tens of millions of Americans who are pro-abortion. We don’t have the votes (not even close) to end abortion in the USA, and I suspect we are currently headed in the wrong direction as far as voter’s position on the issue. We will win eventually, but it’s likely to be a very long time from now, long after I’m gone.

I’m open to disagreement and ideas on this, as I would be very happy if abortion was extremely restricted.

[sasportas]

Here’s my take on this. I don’t want the one who sits in the oval office to be void of right judgment. How then could I possibly vote for a Mormon for president?

Mormons believe in one of the biggest liars and shysters in the history of this country, Joe Smith. In Mormon doctrine, everything from the golden plates, Lamanites, etc. who supposedly inhabited this country - of which there is not a shred of evidence for, God the Father a man from the planet Kolob, and they are in the process of becoming God themselves, and a hundred more lies of which anybody with an ounce of discernment should know is utterly false.

Why on earth would I want something like that in charge of this country’s affairs? Anybody that dense has no business running this country! A president must exercise right judgment all the time, how could it be possible for a follower of the false prophet Joe Smith to excercise judgment? He has failed at the starting block.

One many’s opinion.

[sasportas]

I failed to mention, as if I needed to, Romney’s Rino record. That alone is enough for him not to get my vote...besides his belief that he is in the process of becoming a god, etc.

[Colofornian]

Here’s my take on this. I don’t want the one who sits in the oval office to be void of right judgment. How then could I possibly vote for a Mormon for president? [sasportas]

Well, I've asked 5 questions before on another post...and your comment here is relevant to most of them.

In fact, other of your comments was also relevant to the 4th & 5th questions below -- and I inserted you relevant comments right before it!

Question #1 at hand: Is it important to have a POTUS whose God is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
Principle #1 that addresses this: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]

Question #2 at hand: Who rejected who?
Principle #2 that addresses this: DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?

Question series #3 at hand: Don't candidates already inject 'religion' into their campaigns? And so we as voters are supposed to ignore that? Or other sub-blocks of voters? Don't they often favor a candidate because of religious alignment -- yet they are not criticized for it? Why is it seemingly 'OK' to vote for a candidate for primarily or only because of his faith; but the reverse is often frowned upon?
Principle #3 that addresses this: NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT

Mormons believe in one of the biggest liars and shysters in the history of this country, Joe Smith. In Mormon doctrine, everything from the golden plates, Lamanites, etc. who supposedly inhabited this country - of which there is not a shred of evidence for, God the Father a man from the planet Kolob, and they are in the process of becoming God themselves, and a hundred more lies of which anybody with an ounce of discernment should know is utterly false. Why on earth would I want something like that in charge of this country’s affairs? Anybody that dense has no business running this country! A president must exercise right judgment all the time, how could it be possible for a follower of the false prophet Joe Smith to excercise judgment? He has failed at the starting block. [Sasportas]

Excellent way of putting it Sasportas. The way I framed it was similar:

Question #4 at hand: Is there a transcendent-yet practical-issue beyond faith under consideration here?
Principle #4 that addresses this: WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)

Question #5 at hand: Is true faith and misdirected faith part of our character? And if yes, why wouldn't "character" ever NOT therefore be an issue upon which to seriously evaluate a candidate?
Principle #5 that addresses this: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!

Principle #1: THE 'BATPHONE' PRINCIPLE DURING A JACK BAUER-TYPE OF '24' CRISIS [LET'S HAVE A 'COMMISSIONER GORDON' WHO ACTUALLY HAS A 'BATPHONE' DIRECT LINE TO THE GOD OF THIS WORLD IN THE MIDST OF CRISES SITUATIONS!]

Say what? Obviously God hears the prayers of all people. But we know from reading the Bible that God seemingly responds more favorably to those He is in an actual relationship with...versus examples like Pharisaical religious legalists whom Jesus said were of their father, the devil (John 8). You mean religionists who might prefer having a POTUS in the White House who actually knows the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in order to call on that Living God during a Jack Bauer-like crisis is NEVER to be preferred over voting for an atheist candidate on faith grounds??? (Otherwise, that "weakens the religious foundation" of our country? How does that make any sense?)

Principle #2 - SOME PEOPLE TURN ON ITS HEAD WHO REJECTED WHOM! [DID THE BASE LEAVE THE CANDIDATE BECAUSE OF HIS CULT? OR, DID THE BASE FINALLY REALIZE THAT THE CANDIDATE'S CULT WAS LESS-THAN-INSPIRING DUE TO ITS LABELS OF THE BASE AS 'APOSTATES,' 'CORRUPT' AND CREEDALLY ABOMINABLE?]

Were we to discuss candidates representing a broad range of alternative religions, I would guestimate that 60-80% of them do not necessarily go out of their way to slam Christianity or badly slander the spiritual reputation of Christian adherents for chunks of 170-180 years at a time. That can't be said about true-believing LDS candidates (in distinction from Jack Mormon candidates).

Simply put, the true-believing Mormon candidate who approaches us historic Christians is saying:
"You are an apostate; I am a restorationist built upon the complete ashes of your faith. Your creeds--all of them--are an 'abomination' before God. Your professing believers are 'corrupt.' Can I count on your vote then?" [See below for chapter & verse]

Conclusion: When a candidate mislabels 75-90% of his voting base's primary faith tenets and claims & reduces them to mere "apostate" status--Note that LDS "Scripture" specifically labels the entire Christian church as "apostate" and Note that 75% of people claim to be "Christians" in the more mainline/Protestant/Catholic sense--& frankly, this % is higher in the Republican party)...
...Then...
...he not only shows open disdain for his voting base, but betrays his ability to inspire confidence in his ability to accurately define a major world religion.

If he cannot even accurately define a major world religion, what confidence does he inspire re: his ability to handle national security issues, terrorist issues, & negotiation issues pertaining to another world religion like Islam?

Specific citation to above: Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-19: I asked the personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right — and which I should join. I was answered that I must join NONE of them, for they were ALL wrong, and the personage who addressed me said that ALL their creeds were an abomination in His sight: that those professors were ALL corrupt... " LDS cannot just take or leave for this is authoritative "Scripture"; this verse originated as the supposed description of the very foundation of the Lds church--the First Vision of Joseph Smith. They claim that this is their "god's" judgment of Christians and their church bodies; they have since translated this into over 100 languages and circulated this nonsense world-wide with millions of copies.

Principle #3:

(Backdrop to this principle): NUMEROUS REASONS EXIST AS TO WHY THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF A CANDIDATE ARE RELEVANT.

Additional Points of Considerations:

Principle #4 - WE MUST WEIGH A CANDIDATE'S LEVEL OF VULNERABILITY TO DECEPTION - FOR THAT TRANSCENDS RELIGIOUS CONSIDERATIONS (And a candidate's level to deception in the most important area of his life, his faith, is an excellent indicator of potential other gullibilities)

We all have blinders to truth. Nobody has a monopoly on it. (But I would say the Bible has the best snapshot of God & humanity and the interaction between the two). Deception exists in the world, and when compared to trustworthy sources of truth (the Bible), deception exists as a continuum. If we agreed that a candidate belongs to the most deceptive cult in the world, then certainly that candidate's vulnerability to deception in the most important area of his life--his faith--serves as an indicator that he/she might be more easily deceived in public policy issues. "Vulnerability to deception" belongs on a character checklist! Even one 2007 poll indicated that 54% of Americans would not vote for an atheist.

Principle #5: OTHER-WORLDLY COMMITMENTS (FAITH, WHETHER IT'S TRUE FAITH OR MISDIRECTED FAITH) IS A CHARACTER ISSUE!

There's no way around this realization! To try to extract such other-worldly commitments from character is simply not possible. Time & time again folks try to hermetically seal "faith" & "religion" away from the public square as if folks checked their faith at the door or as if folks were neatly cut-up pie pieces. (Just try telling any voter that he should never weigh "character" into his/her voting-decision considerations).

[magritte]

Interesting. So you would NOT vote for: Jews, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, Buddhists? If Eric Cantor is running for President, is he out of your consideration?

By the same token, should members of said list not vote for Christians under the same criteria? ...magritte

[MHGinTN]

Mitt Romney is such a two-faced (read liar of the political order) slug that it seems unfair to categorize voting for him as voting for a Mormon. The Mormons I know apart from FreeRepublic apologists are honest to their core, except for their blind spot for their religion, which they adhere to almost mindlessly, as if questioning the heresies would damn them to hell instantly with no recourse left to them. So Romney seems to be an anomoly, dishonest, yet professing to be a Mormon whom we perhaps mistakenly believe is devout to the bone. In view of his father, I would say Jon HUntsman is more the jib of a true Mormon. I suspect he is honest beyond anything Romney could muster.

[Colofornian]

From my small exposure to Mormons I would think they would be pro-life, but maybe they are content to simply live that way as opposed to being activist about it. They are certainly more insular than typical Christians, though I have some relatives who are fundamentalist Christians and they avoid most social contact with anyone “outside” of their church.

Excellent way of framing Mormon cultural reality.

From my experience with Mormons, yes, they are preferentially "pro-life" -- but a young Mormon lady suddenly pregnant outside of wedlock might easily become preferentially "pro-death"...and the Mormon statements on abortion allow enough manueverability (by referencing abortionists as "competent medical authorities" and by "praying to God" to see if the Mormon god personally approves dismembering the baby).

IOW, Lds are the kind of "pro-life folk" who if the issue was freeing slaves, wouldn't go to the Civil War to liberate blacks.

You're framing it that "they are content to simply live that way as opposed to being activist about it" is a good way to describe the situation. And, BTW, that describes a large % of Protestants, Catholics & Orthodox as well -- so it's not only true in the Lds ghetto.

What is distinct is that the Catholic & many Protestant denomination statements on abortion don't allow for the "wiggle room" on abortion as compared to the statements they've made on abortion. Many mainline Protestant positions are, frankly, pro-abortion.

[reaganaut]

I would never vote for a Mormon, simple because I have been one and know that they take vows in the temple that places their Church (not God) over everything.

A great book specifically on this topic is Rocky Hulse’s “When Salt Lake City Calls”.

http://www.amazon.com/When-Salt-Lake-City-Calls/dp/1604772204

[metmom]

D) None of the above.

I do recognize that the religion plays a role in shaping one’s values and morals.

I was thinking about all the people who voted for bammy just because he was black. Didn’t matter that someone much more qualified was running.

Or the women who voted for Hillary because she was a woman, qualifications notwithstanding.

Islam does fall into its own category. I don’t trust them.

My point was, which I guess I didn’t get across clear enough, is that people are criticized for voting against someone because of their race or religion (with islam aside) with the pejorative of *racist*. But it’s just as much racism to vote based on race (or religion) as voting against.

If that still didn’t get the point across, I’ll just stop digging.

[SZonian]

All of the con “reviewers” sound just like some of the protaganists on FR we ex-mo’s contend with from time to time.

Hmmm...

[sasportas]

Jews, Hindus, Muslims, agnostics, Buddhists.

Muslims have beliefs that are very similar to Mormonism. Both are based on a lying false prophet, both have substituted their false prophets books for the Bible. Oh, and I assure you I will not be voting for Muslims either.

[greyfoxx39]

Mitt Romney

January 12, 2011 5:43 P.M.

By Kathryn Jean Lopez      

has resigned from the board of Marriott. His spokesman explained: “He felt he no longer has the time to devote to the position.”  

J. Willard Marriott was a friend of George Romney (and the younger Romney’s first name, Willard, was given to him in Marriott’s honor).

Mitt Romney’s position on the board did become a little bit of an issue in some circles during the Republican primaries, because Marriott hotels are among those that offer pornography in their rooms. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/257035/mitt-romney-kathryn-jean-lopez

Lopez still shilling for Romney.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Mormons=> Largely own Marriot=> one of nations largest porn distributers=> 80% of in-room profits from porn=> Directors’ paycheck in Mitt$ pocket=> Hypocrite guy who is a mormon

... but he wears the magic underwear!!!

[piytar]

I’d consider it, but a Mormon who would “encourage business growth, keep our country safe, limit political correctness, discourage abortion and reduce the size of government” is one who I could vote for. One who would try to overthrow the government, put LDS before the Constitution, etc. wouldn’t do those things.

A Mormon who established MittCare is RIGHT OUT!

The islam angle is a red herring — we’ve already elected one (or at least an islamist sympathizer, which is just as bad). And no, I didn’t vote for him, but not just because of that. I didn’t vote for him because I — and most of Freeper Nation — knew who he was and what he’d do to this nation. And we we’re unfortunately correct...

[Raider Sam]

I dont see how you can call someone who was a small state gov and now Ambassador to China, so he has no current US presence, any type of threat.

[magritte]

Yes, I have heard the Muslim-Mormon connection made by the antis a number of times...Jews okay with you for President?...magritte