General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRomney's Mormon Church fiercely attacked California's LGBT community with support of Prop 8.
but some here ask us to lay off his church and his beliefs.<snip>
But the Mormon church drew special attention after its top leaders issued a letter in June read in every congregation in California, asking members to "do all you can to support" the proposition by donating "your means and time." The church's position, the letter said, was that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and the formation of families is central to the Creator's plan for His children."
During the campaign, a Web site created by Proposition 8 opponents using campaign-finance data and other public records estimated that members of the LDS church had given more than $20 million, according to the Los Angeles Times. That amount is difficult to confirm, though, since the state does not track the religious affiliation of donors, the newspaper said.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008371441_protest10m.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)There are far better ways to oppose Mitt Romney than dragging his religion into it.
trumad
(41,692 posts)so you want to play nice? You want to go after some things and not others?
You do realize that his religion is despised by Right Wing Christian voters?
You do realize there is a good chance they will sit home on election day because of it?
You do realize that there are 4 Supreme Court justices over the age of 70.
You do realize that if Romney is elected we're screwed because of that.
Fuck playing nice and fuck those who want to.
Champion Jack
(5,378 posts)Fuck playing nice and fuck those who want to.
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Playing nice with Romney could finish off what democracy we can still lay claim to.
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)Is that ALL we have to run on? We have no positive accomplishments? We're going to play right into the opposition's main campaign argument of hiding from the record/issues (as if there's a reason to hide).
I have my deep-seated concerns about Obama's conduct with regards to continuing the War of error. However, the economy is stabilizing and that's the first sign of true recovery. Health care reform is due to take full effect in 2014. Civil rights are moving to the forefront.
SUCCESS SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. Let's not drown what successes we have with pointless vitriol.
Hatred and bigotry etc is supposedly what we're fighting against. How can we speak for greater tolerance for Muslim Americans when you're screaming anti-Mormon diatribes from the other side of your face. How do we say, "everyone deserves equality in the eyes of the law and inclusion in society -- except *those* people over there who are different from us."
You won't win more votes for Obama. You won't deter people from voting for Romney. All you'll manage is to add to the shrieking acrimony. Don't bother regaling me with stories about how EE-ville the other side is supposed to be. I'm more interested in how MY side is supposed to be and I refuse to add to the prejudice and intolerance.
All those nasty stories we here about people proposing armed revolution if they're thwarted at the polls, that's how insecure losers talk. Don't be that guy.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)about Romney being a Mormon. If they see us doing it, it will just drive them towards him.
Yes, I know that we're screwn if Mittens wins, I just think there are way better ways to fight him, including dealing with his economics.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)Say, like the Crusades have nothing whatsoever to do with the clash of religions in the Middle East? Or the Inquisition was never something that happened? Or the Taliban don't influence politics in Afghanistan? Or Catholicism wasn't ever a part of the native genocidal decimation of the Americas, specifically in Central and South America?
If you see religion as benign you haven't learned anything from history, even the modern history of the Religious Right.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)As an atheist, I'm full aware of the harm that religion has done to human society. However, attacking a particular religion always causes the wagons to circle, and I don't want to see the fundies being pulled into that circle, too.
Attacking a person for being a member of a religion is never a good idea. It was the reich-wing attacks on Obama's pastor that rallied many American religious people to his side, I don't want the other side using that to their benefit.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)And Mitt Romney is not a Catholic.
And the Catholic church didn't spend $20 million dollars in California on Prop 8.
Your shipment of fail has arrived.
<insert pic here>
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)And this is what he did as bishop
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/mitt-romney-mormon-bishop_n_1386592.html
trumad
(41,692 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)But I wanted something quick to say
THE GUY WAS A CHURCH LEADER.
the other article I will try to find.
daaron
(763 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)He should resign immediately!
He wants to be the leader of the entire country, yet he won't step down from his position in the church!
Well, that just ain't right.
FreeState
(10,570 posts)That and he was over 300 people when he was. Really, he's not that important.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Because they don't step down from that high level of a position very often.
But, someone should ask him on the record if he is still an active Bishop in the Mormon church to see what he says about it.
FreeState
(10,570 posts)My Dad (was) a Bishop - its a volunteer position for 3-5 years over one congregation of 300-500 people max. Once your time is done the members refer to you as Bishop as a sign of respect, but there is no power or control that comes with it. He has not authority as a Bishop any longer.
Romney is not currently a Bishop.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)They call them "soldiers for Christ" or something like that. Being a Mormon bishop has nothing to do with policymaking. It's less significant than either Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson being ministers.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Obama is not a Catholic, and Romney is not a Catholic.
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Some of the most liberal people I have known were Catholics, they just ignore their Church on the really stupid crap and focus on helping the poor and such. Mormons don't seem to do that, they seem to pretty much march in lock-step with their church, at least most of them. In that way I find them pretty scary, just as I do the Fundamentalist Christians. A whole block of people who would donate to remove the rights of others, even in another state is frightening. That's not a state's rights Republican by any means.
danjohn
(5 posts)It was that kind of thinking that caused people to murder masacre women and children and persecute the church in early days just affraid or jelous of people working together for thier common good. That is why the church does not preach hate of any kind or descrimination of peoples or other churches from the pulpit ect. Everyone is given free agency to choose even sin it your choice and they do not walk in lock step like robots read my post on the churches position on neutrality on politics.
Most of us members do not like Romney he is a lier who would do or say anything to be president tottally detached from real people an low and middle class values and needs. I doubt is a current bishop in the church and individuals do not determine make any religion bad or good there are good people and bad. Sometimes we will joke among us that the church is true in spite of its members?
get the red out
(13,461 posts)Just curious. You happened to have started posting quite recently (Monday, May 14, 2012) since it says 5 posts after your handle. I've always been extremely interested if people of various special interests worked the internet to see if anyone was "bashing" their interest, in their opinion, and try to plug the hole, so to speak. It is just fascinating to me.
On your post, I can only go by Mormon and Catholic people I have met, and the Mormon people I have known were ruled by their church right down to which Mormon Church in town they were supposed to attend. Catholic folks I have known weren't controlled, they were all over the place in their political opinions and other opinions.
I can only speak for my own experience with people, since obviously no one knows everyone.
fishwax
(29,149 posts)
HillWilliam
(3,310 posts)The LDS Church was not only the biggest contributor to pro-Prop H8 operatives, it was also the biggest organizer of money and manpower from out-of-state. The biggest anti-gay phone banks were run by the LDS church. Church treasure was expended.
You wanna back up and try that "LDS Church does not preach hate of any kind or descrimination (sic) of peoples(sic)..." etc bullshit again? I'm not buying what you're trying to unload here.
The church may talk about being politically neutral, but its documented actions are anything but.
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)and to get the real story behind Mormons, one need only read the restrictions on getting into their special temples. Discrimination doesn't even begin to cover it. Not exactly The Vatican.
"The ordinances at the approximately 68 Mormon temples worldwide are not open to the general public. An LDS church manual called Preparing to Enter the Holy Temple explains that Latter-day Saints "do not discuss the temple ordinances outside the temples." Further, the manual states:
"It was never intended that knowledge of these temple ceremonies would be limited to a select few who would be obliged to ensure that others never learn of them. It is quite the opposite, in fact. With great effort the church urges every soul to qualify and prepare for the temple experience." (thus the requirement for a 2 year door-to-door missionary stint to proselytize and recruit)
Rule # 1...must be recommended by a Bishop, say Mitt Romney. Thinking a gay person is not likely to get the invite.
arbusto_baboso
(7,162 posts)And mormons DO march in lockstep, for the most part. The church and its culture punish any deviation from the course it sets out, and reward the sociopathy of people like Mittens.
And while he is NOt a current bishop, he is and will always be a High Priest in that faith.
Scared yet? You SHOULD be...
Iggo
(47,546 posts)Huh.
Learn something new every day.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)"Everyone is given free agency to choose even sin it your choice"
That's not true. The dogma also indicates that the only acceptable state for an adult Mormon is to be married to an opposite sex partner (or celibate I presume) or you cannot be in the presence of god.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)consider how "involved" in the religion the candidate is. There are a lot of reasons Mitt should not be president and we need to look at ALL of them.
And I dont give Kerry a pass for being Catholic. I hold him to the same standards I hold Mitt.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)hold religions accountable for what they do officially in society, including homophobia and sexism, it looks petty to belittle a member of a particular faith for that religion's tenets.
There's so very much more to go on with Romney's record, and his current stands on issues (if you can pin them down).
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)church unless you are actively trying to reform that church. If Mitt doesnt say otherwise, then he can be held accountable for the actions of the church. The same is true for Pres Obama and Sen Kerry.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)where a President, or even a Presidential candidate tried to reform the church that they were a member of. Not even the Kennedys tried that.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)People nominally belong to religions that they tout when running for public office. That doesn't always mean they back every tenet of those religions. Also, it deeply disturbs independent voters when partisans attack a candidate for nominally belonging to a religion.
There are more than enough things to go after Romney on besides being a Mormon.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They do so because they were raised to follow a specific religion most likely w/o being given a choice. Many do so because of family pressure or society pressure. Being religious is more acceptable than being non-religious.
I accept that but dont approve.
As far as a politician "touting" a religion, that's a completely different story. Touting means it isnt "nominal". Touting means he or she is making a point of believing and following the religion. How a candidate feels about specific a religion is very important as to who they are.
The Mormon religion is a very controversial religion and Romney makes no bones about following it more than "nominally".
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)is one of the strict ones, they're well known for making their members stay in line. There are Jack Mormons who don't really have anything to do with that church, but there are no "Cafeteria Mormons" like there are with the Catholic church.
That's another thing: There are millions of Americans out there who have had to face the prospect of turning their backs on the family religion, some have switched, some have not, and there's an understanding of why someone would feel very compelled to keep within the religion they were brought up in, even though they disagree with significant parts of it. Slamming a man for doing something that many independent voters have had to struggle with is not a way to win them over.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)upbringing in a strict religion will definitely affect his actions as president. Why pretend otherwise? Why try to fool the "independents". Hope they wont notice that his religion has a significant impact on his life.
Yes there are millions of Americans that have stuck to their principles and turned their backs on the religions that they were bombarded with from their youth. We need to stop enabling these religions whose principles cant keep up.
Not all Mormons are bad people but they at minimum enable a religion that is bigoted and racist.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)How did that impact his presidency?
Most people know that politicians pay lip service to a religion. Clearly, Romney was able to repudiate that religion in his desire to be Senator or Governor of Massachusetts. Some here would say that he'd been given a pass to "lie for the Lord" in order to get elected to those positions. However, while in the position as Governor, he governed as a relative moderate, compared to what you'd think a Mormon would do. That's what Romney's running on to convince the independents that his religion is no big deal.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)"paid lip service to a religion". You say that "most people know" that politicians pay lip service to a religion". I would change that to "most people think". They/you dont know what he will do re. his religion. And the reason he is touting his religion, is because he believes it will win him votes which means people think it makes a difference.
While governor he was a moderate, but now he says he is repudiating that behavior. I dont think his behavior as governor can be used to predict how he will act.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I dont give Pres Kennedy a pass either.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)You were brought up in a (name a religion) family, and you want to appear genuine by keeping nominally within that faith tradition. Sometimes, people change religions, and they want to identify with the new faith tradition, to show they've gone off in a different direction than their family has raised them to be.
As an atheist, I don't identify with any faith, yet I understand why people might publically espouse a belief system, yet not allow their official or political decisions to be based on that identity. Many Democratic Catholic politicians have been fully capable of doing this, including JFK.
spanone
(135,815 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)which are counter to the teachings of that Church. Kerry is pro-choice, RCC is anti-choice for example. Kerry and others have been publicly criticized by other Catholics, Bishops, Arch and otherwise, media spokes people, you name it. Here is a link to an article about some Bishops and Archbishops threatening Kerry with a denial of communion for his political and social actions. http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-610547.html
Mitt IS a Bishop of his Church. Kerry is chided by Bishops of his Church. And here is a piece showing that it was Ratzinger now Pope who called for Kerry and others to get the boot.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2005/04/20/684/83575
Secondly, John Kerry and generations of American Catholic politicians have spoken clearly about their faith, it's relationship to their work in politics, and said openly that these are separate things. The first Catholic to contend for President, JFK, gave a famous and historic speech regarding his Church which left no qualm unanswered. Obama had to do the same because his Church was not white, I guess, but he certainly did do a 'my faith and my work' speech. It was, like Kennedy's a really great speech. Like Kennedy, that speech helped get him elected.
With Bishop Romney, we get the idea that his faith and it's relationship to his secular work is the last thing he wants to talk about- and frankly, most of us have met many Mormons who always come to the door and nearly beg to speak of their faith. Bishop Romney is the fist Mormon I have encountered who avoids speaking of his faith. Thus his reticence seems intentional and self serving.
HillWilliam
(3,310 posts)His "religion" made a big deal out of attacking us and taking rights away first.
That lays his "religion" out as fair game for the freakish fucking hate-cult that it is.
I guess we're not supposed to "drag his religion into it" because it wasn't your rights and dignity being taken away. I'd bet a nickel against a bucket of crap you'd feel differently in our shoes.
They made the big deal of it. We're just not backing down this time.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)And they deserve plenty of blame for homophobia. But the one thing that will unify the fundies around Romney is if he can paint this as a "war against religion". All he's got to say to the snake handlers is, "If Obama wins, you're next."
Religious people are professional victims, Mormons usually don't identify with that. However, I would hate to see them make common cause over a Democratic-led bash of Mormonism.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Nor, I would imagine, did he donate to Prop H8 as an individual.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)KamaAina
(78,249 posts)exactly?
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Romney pays his ten percent to get the backing of the Mormons, who have substantial experience knocking on people's doors for what they want. It doesn't mean he believes everything they say or do. I didn't see him working terribly hard to stop the MA Supreme Court when they were the first state to go for marriage equality.
Trying to tie a man who was governor of the first state to have same-gender marriage (at the time they got that) to Prop H8 is bound to fail.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)and he did so by invoking an old statute originally intended to void interracial marriages performed in other states!
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)Las Vegas is a place that ordinary Americans associate with multiple forms of excess, including drive-through marriage ceremonies. No other place in America is the Los Vegas of anything, it's just simply not possible to duplicate the extremeness of that place. Saying you prevented Des Moines, Iowa from becoming the Las Vegas of gambling, for instance, is a meaningless statement.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Because it would have helped the gays in California to access 1000 federal civil rights that they are blocked from now, that's why!!
Civil rights are not up for a vote!!
Mitt the Moron is!!
Response to trumad (Original post)
oxymoron This message was self-deleted by its author.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)leading the support for the anti-marriage equality amendment that will be before the voters in November. The hierarchy of the RCC in Minnesota is sending out letters and even a DVD on the subject to all parishioners. The church is the main proponent, and that's the group we have to fight the hardest to get this voted down.
A number of Democratic legislators here who oppose the amendment are Catholics. It makes for an interesting contradiction.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The St Paul diocese is the largest contributor, yes, but NOM is also a 6 figure donor and of course Mitt contributed to NOM on Prop 8.
This link goes to a financial disclosure from Minnesota For Marriage showing this to be the fact.
http://www.theuptake.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/MNforMarriage.pdf
This link reviews Bishop Romney's furtive donation to NOM.
http://www.towleroad.com/2012/03/mitt-romney-snuck-donation-to-nom-proposition-8-through-obscure-alabama-pac.html
So is a partial truth really the truth? Is one group guilty and the other innocent due to the first giving more hundreds of thousands than the second, which still gave six figures to oppose equality?
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)it's not just the LDS church that is in the wrong here. Whoever is supporting the amendment, we have to fight to get enough NO votes to defeat it.
My point was that, despite the diocese's support for it, many Catholics will be voting against it. I have no feedback from Minnesota Mormons, so I don't know how many Mormons will be voting NO. I do know a number of Catholics who will be.
Money is not the only thing that will decide this in Minnesota. But, you're right, all the usual suspects are donating to the Yes side. It's going to take a lot of work to defeat it, but I'm confident that Minnesota will do just that.
I oppose NOM, the RCC in Minnesota, the fundamentalist churches that are donating, and the LDS in Minnesota for donating in support of this amendment. Personally, I'd like to see the IRS look into this and take action. Right now, the most influential religious group is the Catholic church in Minnesota on this issue, so that's the one I mentioned.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The OP you responded to says :
'Romney's Mormon Church fiercely attacked California's LGBT community with support of Prop 8.
but some here ask us to lay off his church and his beliefs."
To which you said :
"In Minnesota, it's the Roman Catholic Church."
Fact is that in MN, it is the same old set of haters that did Prop 8 that are doing MN now. Not 'It's the Catholic Church'. It is the anti-gay religious right. This includes Bishop Romney and the LDS, it does not exclude them.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)was ridiculing things like the Mormon "underwear" as a way to attack Romney. That doesn't work. Romney has already said that he opposes marriage equality, and there's nothing wrong with linking that to the LDS church's support for anti-LGBT legislation. I wrote that thread because someone started a "magic underwear" thread. I think that's counter-productive in the extreme, since it has nothing to do with issues.
Both Romney and the LDS church oppose marriage equality. We can attack both of them on that score. We can even link Romney's Mormon beliefs to the church's funding of anti-LGBT legislation. That's a fair thing to do. The "magic underwear" thing isn't. In the OP for that thread, I mentioned using ridicule as the wrong way to do this. It's a weak kind of argument that pisses people off.
But, there's nothing at all wrong with pointing out that both Romney and his church oppose marriage equality and other serious issues. That's fair. That makes sense. Now, I'm not sure that it will change anyone's mind, really. Romney opposes marriage equality. Obama supports it. That's a clear difference between the two candidates, and everyone knows it. So, people will decide who to vote for based on that if that's a primary issue for them.
What doesn't work is focusing on things like the stupid "magic underwear" argument or the fact that Romney's great-grandfather was a polygamist. Those are non-issues for this election, and won't play any part in people's decisions. So, in my opinion, there's no point in such things, and they might even piss some people off enough to change their minds in the wrong way.
There are real issues separating Romney from Obama. Those are the issues that people will be deciding on. And there aren't many. Jobs, economy, military, and other broad issues, are the ones that will make the difference. Marriage equality is probably a wash. A poll today (I don't know which one...I just heard it on the radio news) demonstrated that the marriage equality issue wasn't likely to change most people's tendency to vote for either candidate. By election time, it will be one of the minor issues for most voters. Basically, most people already have an opinion on that right now, and it's not one of the things they're thinking about for the General Election. Right or wrong, that's the truth.
Obama did the right thing by stating his support for marriage equality. It will help bring people to his support, and he needs that badly. Besides, it's just the right thing to do. It won't change many people's votes, though. It may bring more voters to the polls, which will be wonderful, but it's not going to be a major factor in this election. I support marriage equality strongly, but I would have voted for Obama even if he hadn't stated his support directly. My efforts on the marriage equality issue will be to help defeat the amendment in Minnesota. Other issues will be primary when talking about Obama v. Romney for most people I talk to, though.
Anyhow, what I was talking about in that other OP was the use of ridicule of other elements of Mormonism as a way to attack Romney. It won't work, and it's a waste of time. There are plenty of issues that are important where the difference between the two candidates can be shown. Making fun of Romney's religion is useless in this campaign. But, there's nothing wrong with pointing out areas where the LDS Church and Romney both support things that are harmful. Polygamy isn't an issue in 2012, and neither is underwear. Focus is important.
In Minnesota, the biggest challenge is the diocese's support of the anti-marriage equality amendment. We have a very large Catholic population in Minnesota, and we have to reach out to them. It will make a difference. We have a much smaller Mormon population. Fundies are also in large supply here, but they're pretty much already committed to voting for the amendment. The Catholics are more likely to respond to campaigning to vote No than either the Mormons or the fundies. So, it makes sense to focus primarily on the voters who may be convinced to vote No than on voters who have already made up their minds and won't change. This is going to be a very, very close vote, and focus is going to be critical if we're going to defeat it and break the cycle.
You don't like me, much. I realize that. But, that has no effect on what I'm working on, and defeating the anti-marriage equality amendment is one of those things. I want to see it defeated, and I'm focused on changing votes of people who might change their vote.
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)I do think that politically motivated criticism of the LDS should be targeted at the political positions and activity of the LDS rather than broad condemnations of mormons and their religious tenets.
What many people do not realize that the LDS church is a multi-billion dollar financial entity, estimated by Time magazine to have assets greater than 30 billion in the early 2000's. That value is mostly a guess because the LDS haven't opened up their financial records for public view in 50 years.
Mormons have a long history of activity as big business and it hasn't always been pretty.
Back in the trust-busting days of the 1890s. They were seen as price fixers in the US beet sugar industry, and their interests there were broken up on the basis of anti-trust. What can certainly be said about the corporate aspect of the LDS is that it isn't protected religious activity. LDS's known significant holdings include
AgReserves Inc. maybe the largest producer of nuts in America,
Hawaii Reserves, Inc. -including the Polynesian Cultural Center claimed by the LDS to be the leading paid visitor attraction in Hawaii
Their Farmland Reserve Inc. - include 228,000 acres in Nebraska, 51,600 acres in Osage County, Oklahoma. Their holdings of over 312,000 acres in Florida (Deseret Cattle and Citrus) make them the largest landholder in Florida. Collectively LDS cattle operations make them the largest cow-calf operators in the US.
Bonneville International Corporation is the 14th largest radio chain in the U.S.
Beneficial Financial Group - An insurance and financial services company with assets of $3.1 billion.[31]
They control the 2nd largest newspaper in the state of Utah.
It should be readily apparent that that just like other corporate leaders LDS leaders have tremendous interest in influencing local, state and federal government bodies that regulate their business activities. As very large landowners they have local, and regional interests in land development, use and environmental policy.
If you dislike Mormon political activity, apply the old saw "follow the money." Their corporate interests are the place to watch them carefully. Keeping a wary eye on them is just as important, and appropriate, as keeping a wary eye on JP Morgan, or Koch Industries. Scrutiny of their use of economic power and influence for political purpose that further their own financial interests is certainly valid.
liberalmuse
(18,672 posts)And I will never lay off his beliefs. Mormon's are told that being gay is a "sickness". I lived in Salt Lake City and knew more than a few people who owned land - and were visited by Mormon church leaders and convinced to donate it to The Church. The Mormon church is a huge tax-free money-making machine, and they play the stock market. Its history is very shady (Mountain Meadows Massacre, anyone?) and has a history of outright bigotry. Up until the 1980's, African American's weren't allowed full participation in some of the ceremonies and were barred from holding The Priesthood. I was taught that being black or dark skinned was a curse from god - the curse of Cain. Granted, my friends and I argued against this in Sunday School all the time, but this was taught as Mormon Doctrine. And to top it off, members participating in the Mormon Temple ceremonies are asked to take a blood vow, stating "I will suffer my life to be taken" while slashing their finger across their throat if they ever go against the Mormon church. Kind of sobering stuff.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)
Tikki
(14,556 posts)this Community and match their names to surprisingly big donations
to prop hate.
They chose this as their battle and shouldn't be shocked when we choose to fight
back at the polls.
The Tikkis
danjohn
(5 posts)First you imply that church officials had a letter read in open congregation I find that doublful there are three genal meetings or sessions in lds church the general is sacrement and the official church position is to be neutral on all politics. I will list for you in a minute. Second the church does not believe in preaching hate or descrimination to any other church or group. Its possible the letter may have been read in the mens or womens seperate meetings but individuals are free to do things that does not mean the church officially is doing such actions. As an active member and democrat I can tell you that most lds folk do not support Romney think he is a lier and totally detached from the plight of regular low and middle income people in the US today and he would do or say anything to be come president and would be a disaster for us all. Romney is an example of the just how fractured the Republican party is controled by a desperate few longing for complete control that they are loosing I can only hope our country will show some sanity and not only reelect Obama but through a majority of republicans and bad polititions out in 2012.
http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng
Political Neutrality
The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.
The Church does not:
•Endorse, promote or oppose political parties, candidates or platforms.
•Allow its church buildings, membership lists or other resources to be used for partisan political purposes.
•Attempt to direct its members as to which candidate or party they should give their votes to. This policy applies whether or not a candidate for office is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
•Attempt to direct or dictate to a government leader.
The Church does:
•Encourage its members to play a role as responsible citizens in their communities, including becoming informed about issues and voting in elections.
•Expect its members to engage in the political process in an informed and civil manner, respecting the fact that members of the Church come from a variety of backgrounds and experiences and may have differences of opinion in partisan political matters.
•Request candidates for office not to imply that their candidacy or platforms are endorsed by the Church.
•Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
In the United States, where nearly half of the world’s Latter-day Saints live, it is customary for the Church at each national election to issue a letter to be read to all congregations encouraging its members to vote, but emphasizing the Church’s neutrality in partisan political matters.
Relationships With Government
Elected officials who are Latter-day Saints make their own decisions and may not necessarily be in agreement with one another or even with a publicly stated Church position. While the Church may communicate its views to them, as it may to any other elected official, it recognizes that these officials still must make their own choices based on their best judgment and with consideration of the constituencies whom they were elected to represent.
Modern scriptural references to the role of government: Doctrine and Covenants, Section 134
Political Party Participation of Presiding Church Officers
In addition, the First Presidency letter issued on 16 June 2011 is a re-statement and further clarification of the Church’s position on political neutrality at the start of another political season. It applies to all full-time General Authorities, general auxiliary leaders, mission presidents and temple presidents. The policy is not directed to full-time Church employees.
"General Authorities and general officers of the Church and their spouses and other ecclesiastical leaders serving full-time should not personally participate in political campaigns, including promoting candidates, fundraising, speaking in behalf of or otherwise endorsing candidates, and making financial contributions.
"Since they are not full-time officers of the Church, Area Seventies, stake presidents and bishops are free to contribute, serve on campaign committees and otherwise support candidates of their choice with the understanding they:
•Are acting solely as individual citizens in the democratic process and that they do not imply, or allow others to infer, that their actions or support in any way represent the church.
•Will not use Church stationery, Church-generated address lists or email systems or Church buildings for political promotional purposes.
•Will not engage in fundraising or other types of campaigning focused on fellow Church members under their ecclesiastical supervision."
trumad
(41,692 posts)danjohn
(5 posts)Don't have to first don't believe all data reported by biased sources and individuals are free to contribute to whom they like that is not the Church donating far worse to day are billionare facists donating to PACK unlimited funds and forieng goverments now allowed thanks to Republicans a much better issue related to curent politics today than church bashing of any denomination except those that officailly preach hate from the pulpit Florida comes to mind?
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)It sounds nice and neutral, but doesn't actually represent what the LDS church did with regard to California Proposition 8 and other anti-LGBT issues.
That information is readily available through a simple Google search.
Official documents rarely describe the actual reality for many churches.
Response to MineralMan (Reply #25)
Post removed
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Removed with force, out of compassion? You do understand that all bigots claim they act out of a desire for the good of those they are prejudiced against, don't you? Rare is the bigot that openly seethes hate, common is the religious bigot who claims that hateful actions are really 'love'. It is a sad, old, arrogant line of utter bullshit.
uppityperson
(115,677 posts)Please clarify what you mean as this seems contradictory. Thank you.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)The LDS donations to the Proposition 8 campaign are well-documented, and you can find them on Google. Calling the cops on couples kissing in public is persecution. They're not harming anyone, but the cops were called. Your message is very, very mixed on this.
Good luck with coming here and trying to spread untruthful stuff. That doesn't work. People here have known the truth for a long time. You're wasting your breath.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The LDS church started its anti-marriage equality push in Hawaii hand in hand with the Catholic church. The LDS church uses the Catholic church and vice versa for shielding their actions. You wanna know what went on in Hawaii and California, then watch the documentary "8: The Mormon Proposition". You'll learn from the documentary that the elders of the LDS church told people what they had to contribute, whether they could actually afford it or not.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/fred-karger/call-mitt-romney---ask-hi_b_430567.html
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regrets todays decision. California voters have twice determined in a general election that marriage should be recognized as only between a man and a woman. We have always had that view."
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700222998/LDS-Church-other-religious-groups-respond-to-Prop-8-ruling.html
Much, much Prop 8 information related to LDS and others right here...
http://www.prop8-lds.com/page2.html
Tikki
(14,556 posts)a Who's Who in the mormon church here. And what surprised me the most is that
the mormon families of modest means were donating often and with such large amounts of money to prop hate.
Sorry, but lots of words posted here can't compete with the reality of what actually happened.
Tikki
fishwax
(29,149 posts)Indeed, it suggests that the church DOES get involved in political issues:
•Reserve the right as an institution to address, in a nonpartisan way, issues that it believes have significant community or moral consequences or that directly affect the interests of the Church.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)That settles that, now, doesn't it?
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)You show me a religion that follows its own rules...and that includes ALL of them, then we can talk. Until then, they do and did, support and champion their beliefs in any way possible. They weren't even very coy about it. It was In Californian Face...Deal with it.
LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)And your complimentary delicious pizza at the exit.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=284606
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)have to beat some DUers over the head with a figurative two-by-four for them to get the point.
danjohn
(5 posts)Put the same energy into exposing what Bush and Cheney have done to the country why no Republican will admitt to it or take responsibility and want to do more of the same and Democrats better get out and vote or yeh how many states are restricting voter rights now??? get real on politics not church bashing
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)you ask me. You call current events a 'dead dog' and want to replace them with discussions of 4 year old issues? I'd love to see them prosecuted, but ya know, it is not what I'd call a vital campaign issue anymore. Hell, it wasn't the last time either.
HangOnKids
(4,291 posts)Speaking of dog issues, you might want to take that up with Mitt.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)These days, we're fighting Romney and all who support him. Get caught up with the times, please.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)Actions like this one should be emphasized as often as possible. When a church enters the public arena like this, all bets are off. But pointing out the reasons behind these actions quickly gets into a "glass houses" argument.
By all means, trumpet these acts by the Mormon church as loudly as possible. But using their goofy religious mythology in an attempt to cast them as religious outsiders will backfire on us.
cr8tvlde
(1,185 posts)of the gay population prior to that in California. To them, IT WAS NO MYTH. It was a Crusade.
And it is part of their goofy religious mythology, as it is the Christians who should get equal scrutiny, for their equally goofy mythology out of an obscure barbarian tome called Gensis and Leviticus...kill the gays...along with other specially defined groups. It's neither goofy or mythology. Real people live AND DIE because of it. Currently, young teen boys are committing suicide at an alarming rate. It's not goofy mythology to their familes.
You can't make nice to The Church and ignore the egregious nature of the deathly results of their bigotry. And calling someone a bigot who is outing bigotry is a page torn out of the Republican Media Play Book.
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)You made several accusations against me that are completely untrue. If all you can do is lie about me and my positions, I'll thank you never to speak to me again.
Lemmy
(15 posts)But I also agree with others in this thread that many Democrats are just as religiously insane as Republicans. Harry Reid is a Mormon too. In the end, religion knows no political ideology.
That being said, only the Republican party officially puts hatred and bigotry into its party platform. So while there's some hypocrisy involved in bringing up Romney's religion, I say have at it. The Republicans do the same thing, except they attack Muslims and atheists, or they imply that a Democratic candidate isn't "Christian enough", or some other such nonsense.
Wouldn't it be nice if American politics would act more like British or Canadian politics, where NOBODY CARES about politician's religions, and it doesn't really come up at all when it comes to governing or creating public policy.
daaron
(763 posts)
Mc Mike
(9,111 posts)R. Maddow and Alternet covered Mormon billionaire and Romney backer VanderSloot. He spends a lot of money attacking LGBT rights, and simultaneously filing SLAPP suits against reporters, editors, and bloggers. One involved 'The Post Register' in Idaho Falls:
"...the story of a local [Idaho] pedophile in the local Boy Scouts troop who had molested dozens of children. The paper sued to obtain sealed court records from a civil suit in the case, and "then detailed how a Mormon bishop knew of his pedophile history yet still recommended him as a Scout master, how he was protected by several Boy Scout lawyers who were aware of more abuse but did not tell the boys’ parents, and how top-level local and national leaders of the Mormon Church had also received warnings." "
excerpt from http://www.alternet.org/story/154206/billionaire_bigot_bankrolling_mitt_romney?page=entire
Article comes from D.Kos's Joan McCarter, and recs G. Greenwald. Rachel's coverage is excellent, too.
VanderSloot also outed the reporter, whose "...editor, Dean Miller, explained: “Our reporter, Peter Zuckerman, was not ‘out’ to anyone but family, a few colleagues at the paper (including me), and his close friends”; but after VanderSloot outed him to his community in that ad, “strangers started ringing Peter’s doorbell at midnight. His partner of five years was fired from his job.” "
The repugs are trying to see how many ways they can be wrong on LGBT equality issues, covering all their bases. They try to conflate homosexuality with pedophiles and perversion, but don't mind one of their own being an actual gay pedophile, as long as he is a well-connected mormon repug. The same approach the GOP uses for special people like Senator Craig and Congressman Foley.
Repug mormon billionaires like Romney and VanderSloot are doing a lot of the heavy lifting in this particular repug quest to be wrong about everything, at the top of their lungs.
