Could a Mormon get elected POTUS?

Great Debates
81

You can call it racism if you wish. Others, including me, don’t call it that. And our reason for not doing it is because we’re not playing the games you’re playing with the church’s past or present. And we’re certainly not playing that “bad analogy” game you just did. dangermom’s analogy was very apt.

And to get back to the question raised in the OP: I say again that, in my opinion, after growing up a bit in parts of the Bible Belt, that so long as the Bible Belt is part of the US, a Mormon, a woman, or a minority won’t be elected President.

82

So what would you call it? Open your eyes, young man! Let’s compare that with a business example. Suppose a large successful business has a policy that anyone can work for them. And all who are employed are eligible to earn the same pay.

But only non-blacks are capable of earning any health benefits, vacation days, and retirement benefits. If you’re a black working for the company, you aren’t eligible for the perks.

What person in their right mind wouldn’t call “racism” in that situation? Now campare that to the LDS pre-1978. You can join the church. But you can’t hold the priesthood. You can’t be a leader of a congregation. You can’t hold any leadership position. You cannot attend the temple. If one of your family members is sick, you can’t give them a priesthood blessing to heal them. And you certainly aren’t eligible for the “retirement benefits,” the promise of an afterlife with your family in the highest level of Heaven.

Games? You show me where anything I said in my previous post is untrue. There’s not even an exaggeration. No games here, just the hard truth. (OK, there’s that WAG, but I did disclose that) Can you show us otherwise?

I said it earlier, but I’ll say it again, it is to the church’s credit that they repealed their racist policy in 1978. Now if they would only admit that it was racist, and not that “God changed his mind,” I’d have more kudos waiting for them.

When you can show me that virtually all active members over the age of 12 in the Catholic Church are members of the Catholic Priesthood, I’ll concede that point. It’s not even close to being a good analogy.

Sorry for the hijack. Maybe we should take this elsewhere.

83

Now you’re doing the bad analogy. Is everyone in your hypothetical business the CEO?

What perks?

And yet they were all eligible for priesthood blessings given by priesthood holders. Odd that you’ve ignored that fact, isn’t it?

It can be true, yet irrelevant. It can also be a distortion or misapplication of the truth.

Show you what? That a member of either church is a member of that church? Sure, that’s easy. If someone’s a member of an organization then they are, unsurprisingly, a member of that organization.

Funny thing, it doesn’t seem as anyone’s all that concerned about receiving kudos from you regarding the issue.

I was under the impression that only males can hold the priesthood in the LDS church. Perhaps you could show me otherwise and then I’d be happy to say that "virtually all members over the age of 12 in the LDS church hold the priesthood.

Actually, my mistake. For a long time, I was following a policy of not discussing any issue regarding the LDS church with you. Feel free to search my posts for the reason why. I’ll happily go back to that policy.

84

Assuming you’re referring to the RCC’s doctrinal ban on women becoming priests even if they want to, I certainly don’t think so, and I know a lot of disaffected Catholics (not only women, either) who don’t think so either, for that matter. That’s despite all the soothing words from the church’s all-male power structure about cherishing women and about their having important roles to fill among the followership, if not the leadership. What, were you expecting me to defend the RCC for doing essentially the same thing I criticize the LDS for?

Monty, you don’t have to defend your church’s history, either, but it’s a bit silly to deny that it happened at all. They’ve gotten rid of doctrinal racism already. It isn’t an issue anyone can do anything more about anymore. The subject is its influence on a current member’s ability to gather enough support nationwide to become President. Its history, immutable now, is probably not a problem. The candidate would be judged by his present attitudes, his present allegiance to present doctrines of his present church. Its past doctrinal racism and polygamy wouldn’t really matter, IMHO, but its current doctrinal sexism is a current issue for a current Mormon who doesn’t separate himself from it - just as it is for a current Catholic, actually.

85

I wasn’t referring to the Catholic Church’s stance on women holding the priesthood at all, no. You stated that in the LDS Church, one must hold the priesthood in order to be a full member. I disagreed and compared it with Catholicism, because the priesthood is somewhat similar; although it’s restricted to fewer people in the RCC, the LDS Church is closer to the RCC in its view of priesthood than it is to Protestant denominations. In both, the priesthood is required in order to give blessings, prepare communion, and do other specific jobs, and it’s seen as a particular thing where God gives mortals some small part of his power to be exercised for the benefit of the congregation. But, in neither case does one have to hold the priesthood in order to be a full member of the church in question. That is all I meant.

Can’t discuss further, as must do work now.

86

A second-class, restricted, subordinate membership is still a full one, huh? Do you hold that true for organizations other than your own church?

dangermom, the issue isn’t the organizational details of particular positions in the denomination; it’s that some are restricted to members of a particular gender (and, until recently, a particular race). *Not * every member of the denomination may aspire to hold positions of real authority. Not every member may perform every religious function. Unlike most other denominations, where men do often dominate the leadership, the reason isn’t the result of members’ choicea; it’s written formal religious doctrine. The fact that both RCC and LDS doctrine holds that such discrimination is the will of God in no way makes it something other than discrimination. The fact that LDS doctrine holds that God actually changed His mind (or at least forgot to tell anybody His views earlier) about both doctrinal racism and doctrinal polygamy, at suspiciously-appropriate times at that, naturally tends to make some (like me) expect another Revelation repudiating gender discrimination sometime fairly soon, anyway.

If you’re content with that situation, content to be constrained to subordinate, second-class roles in your church, that’s fine; it’s your own choice. If you deny to outsiders that such discrimination even is discrimination, well, that’s not so fine. If you’re running for national office in a society which generally repudiates discrimination, while adhering to a denomination that holds discrimination to be required by doctrine, you need to be able to explore and explain your own attitudes toward it in pretty convincing depth. Catholic candidates need to appear independent of RCC doctrine on that subject (and others) to be successful, and, I suggest, so do LDS candidates.

Monty, if you don’t call the LDS’ pre-1978 doctrine about blacks “racist”, what do you call it, please?. If, formerly, “the coloreds knew their place”, that hardly means racism didn’t exist then. If, today, “our women members know their place”, that hardly means discrimination doesn’t exist today, by the same token.

87

Elvis, I didn’t say anything about whether or not it’s discriminatory. All I said was that you don’t have to hold the priesthood to be a member of either church. You go to heaven either way. The Atonement of Christ is applicable. The end result is the same. (At least by the church’s own beliefs.)

So please quit telling me what I said. You know nothing of my opinions about the history and practices of the Catholic and LDS churches.

88

I’m a Unitarian, actually. (And women can be ministers. So can gays.)

89

BrainGlutton, do you hold that a second-class membership is still a full one in *any * organization? *That * was the question.

dangermom, again, the topic isn’t the job descriptions of particular positions on the org chart, but the *qualifications * for them. Yes, of course I don’t know all of your opinions, that’s why I’m probing them. This forum is, of course, a great place for you to express them so there’s no more confusion involved. Your readers just might become better-informed.

90

[QUOTE=ElvisL1vesdangermom, again, the topic isn’t the job descriptions of particular positions on the org chart, but the *qualifications * for them. [/quote]
Actually, what the qualifications used to be, about thirty years ago.

No doubt if a Mormon runs, some will drag this up. (If he runs as a Republican). I suspect the Mormon in question will treat it the way a certain Senator whose refers to feathered flying creatures treats his former membership in a much more straightforwardly racist organization.

In any event, I suspect that [b[Monty** is mistaken about women and minorities. People who don’t vote for blacks or women don’t vote for Democrats either, and sometimes they get elected.

Regards,
Shodan

91

Well, what do you mean by “second-class membership”? Female Catholics are considered full members of the Catholic communion, entitled to all the Church’s sacraments, absolution of sins, spiritual services, counseling, attendance at worship services, and everything else one is supposed to get out of being a Catholic (including, you know, getting into Heaven); access to a career in the priesthood being the sole exception. And most Catholics have no interest in being priests anyway.

92

If I haven’t made clear yet that a membership that does not entail the same rights and responsibilities and opportunities that others hold isn’t a *full * membership, I don’t know how else to put it. Were pre-suffrage-movement women, not allowed to vote or hold elective office, still *full * citizens of the US?

The fact that most Catholics wouldn’t want to have formal positions of authority and responsibility in their church is *not * the point - half of those who *would * want to simply aren’t allowed to, by the church’s own doctrine. Are you okay with that? Why?

Shodan, LDS women *still * cannot be priests. That’s the current sticking point and the current discussion, not the organization’s *past * racism or polygamy. Current Mormons have no more need to discuss those than current Catholics have to discuss the Inquisition. Do try to keep up now, will you? There’s a good fellow.

93

Then I imagine you raise the same objections when talking about a Kennedy for President, yes?

Regards,
Shodan

94

Or even John Kerry.

95

[QUOTE=ElvisL1vesdangermom, again, the topic isn’t the job descriptions of particular positions on the org chart, but the *qualifications * for them. Yes, of course I don’t know all of your opinions, that’s why I’m probing them. This forum is, of course, a great place for you to express them so there’s no more confusion involved. Your readers just might become better-informed.[/QUOTE]
As much as I might like to write a dissertation for you, my ideas on these subjects are rather lengthy and detailed, and I’m sorry but I simply don’t have the time right now. I am very busy and don’t have a lot of time to spend at the computer (I don’t work at a desk or anything). About all I’m willing to get into is to say that I consider myself both a faithful Mormon and a feminist, and I don’t have a problem with the way things are set up, nor do I think I am a second-class citizen. Somewhere in this thread I posted some blog linkages to LDS feminist sites; you may be interested in them, or not.

Otherwise, all I ask is that you do not put words into my mouth as you have been doing with my deliberately short posts. I disagree with your premise that not being qualified for certain things in an organization is the same thing as not being a full member of the organization. That’s it.

96

For one thing, I don’t call it a policy. I call it, as the church did then, a doctrine that was modified, per the church’s long-standing theocracy, of continuing revelation.

I shan’t dignify that disgusting comment from you about my perceptions with any reply other than “I had hoped you knew me better than that.”

97

Upon reflection, I can see that you were merely describing the church’s doctrine at the time with that particular phrase and not implying that was my view of it.

I also hope, ElvisL1ves, that you don’t think I was calling you disgusting above.

98

I’m sure an LDS candidate who disagreed with church positions for the country as much as Kerry did would have no problems - except with the church of course.

I believe George Romney was Mormon when he ran for president. I don’t recall it being an issue - his crying did him in.

99

Interesting analogy but not quite right for how Mormons see it. The priesthood is better compared to job responsibilties than to pay. Blacks are and always have been just as eligible as anyone else to recieve God’s rewards. See Matthew 20 on this. Basically, blacks were denied the priesthood for a time in this life but have lost no blessings in the eternities. In the end, their pay for the work they do will be the same, just like women. Its equal pay for different work. That’s the theology anyway.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I am a Mormon who believes that the Church has had some prominent racist leaders that kept the Church from progressing at the same pace as the rest of the country. I think most Mormons are embarrassed at being called racist because they themselves aren’t racist despite belonging to an organization with a racist past. I guess for me being a Mormon who is ashamed of our racist past is the same as still wanting to be American even though the U.S. has a very racist past. You just can’t through out the baby with the bath water.

As for the question of the post, I don’t think we will see a Mormon POTUS until we have at least one or two more serious Mormon contenders (like Romney) to get America used to the idea and clear up some of the issues that are mentioned in this thread.

100

Monty, no problem. I’m still unclear, though, on what you call the church’s pre-1978 doctrine if not “racist”.

airphloo, very well stated. I’m no less proud of my country for all the deplorable things it has done in its past. What does make me less proud, and want to fix it, are deplorable things it’s doing right now. In fact, I feel an extra obligation to try to fix them *because * it’s my country. It appears you feel the same way about your church as well as your country, and I applaud you for it.

Shodan, yes, of course Kennedy and Kerry had to at least make it appear that their Catholicism is not doctrinaire. There were even calls from some bishops for Catholics not to vote for Kerry because of his support for abortion rights, as you might recall. The issues with Kennedy were broader, more about his generally being a tool of the Pope, responsible to the Vatican more than the American people. He did address that point to the satisfaction of enough people. That hasn’t really changed much. And there’s *still * been only 1 Catholic elected President, and he got killed.

So did you have a point?

voyager, the crying you’re thinking of was Ed Muskie’s 1972 response to attacks on his wife. George Romney made himself look foolish by saying that the Army had “brainwashed” him about their alleged successes in Vietnam when he made a fact-finding tour there. Or, perhaps, the Liberal Media spun it to *make * him look foolish? Just like they were dissatisfied with either Muskie’s or Dukakis’s reactions to being asked about their wives?

dangermom, it’s disappointing that you won’t take the opportunity to enlighten all of us reading this thread about how you reached your positions.