imuakahuku wrote:

One arguement is that those voting for him because he is Mormon are Mormon too and already have a pretty good understanding of what his values are. Whereas those who oppose him because he is Mormon do so on a biased and non-informed or incorrectly informed basis.

Ah yes, is it worse to refuse to vote for someone because of their religion, or to vote for them because of their religion. The problem with assuming that we know his religion and therefore know his values is that we are now discriminating against the other candidates because we do not know their religion and values--we are pretty much doing the same thing that people who refuse to vote for Romney are doing.

Those who refuse to vote for Romney because he is Mormon are generally those who are unfamiliar with the Mormon church and do not understand it fully. They choose instead to vote for candidates with whose values they are more familiar.

Mormons voting for Romney simply because he is Mormon and they think they understand his values are making the same fallacy. They are eliminating other candidates because they are unfamiliar with their religions. For all they know, McCain's religion may be just as morally rigorous as Mormonism, but they are too apathetic to find out. The difference is that non-Mormons voting against Romney are only discriminating against one candidate, those voting for Romney because of his faith are discriminating against every other candidate on the ticket.

The counsel of the First Presidency of the Church has always been to carefully evaluate issues and candidates, and to make the best decision. The idea of voting for someone simply because they are Mormon flies in the face of the very presiding authority of that Church.

Now, this is not to say that Mitt is not the best candidate, he very well may be, but vote for him for that reason, not for his faith.

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:

Conosticator wrote:

MizzouCoug wrote:

How come my posts keep getting cut off halfway?

This website has an automatic filter that filters out portions of posts that it deems to be unenlightening... ;)

Harsh, but funny. I'm still chuckling.

Are you crazy? I dictated the final resolution to the dispute between real Christians and Mormons that will finally bring peace to the world. But it got deleted. Oh well.

I actually just wanted to point out the ironic nature of the first paragraph of this entertaining expose that states how if you are not hated by the world then you are not Christian--apparently this irony escapes the authors of an article laced with demeaning references to Mormons as "antichrists."

GolfDiveNCougs wrote:

Conosticator wrote:

MizzouCoug wrote:

How come my posts keep getting cut off halfway?

This website has an automatic filter that filters out portions of posts that it deems to be unenlightening... ;)

Harsh, but funny. I'm still chuckling.

Are you crazy? I dictated the final resolution to the dispute between real Christians and Mormons that will finally bring peace to the world. But it got deleted. Oh well.

I actually just wanted to point out the ironic nature of the first paragraph of this entertaining expose that states how if you are not hated by the world then you are not Christian--apparently this irony escapes the authors of an article laced with demeaning references to Mormons as "antichrists."

imuakahuku wrote:

[b]
One arguement is that those voting for him because he is Mormon are Mormon too and already have a pretty good understanding of what his values are. Whereas those who oppose him because he is Mormon do so on a biased and non-informed or incorrectly informed basis.

I dont think that argument stands up because it assumes that all people who oppose Romney based on religion are uninformed. I dont think thats true, some people are well informed about the church and just dont agree.

Personally I strongly feel that as members of the Church we have a greater responsibility to understand as much of a Member candidates policy because if elected, whether we agree or not, EVERYTHING that he (or she) did in their term would be associated with the church and its membership. I think if someone is going to be a national representation of me I should understand what they believe before I give them my support.

I am a BYU student and have been a member of the church my whole life, but I did NOT vote for Romney. I do not like the guy at all. But, I think it is a "crime" in America these days for someone to be discriminated against because of a person's religion. But that is okay, I'm not going to vote for a woman or a black

snoscythe wrote:

imuakahuku wrote:

One arguement is that those voting for him because he is Mormon are Mormon too and already have a pretty good understanding of what his values are. Whereas those who oppose him because he is Mormon do so on a biased and non-informed or incorrectly informed basis.

Ah yes, is it worse to refuse to vote for someone because of their religion, or to vote for them because of their religion. The problem with assuming that we know his religion and therefore know his values is that we are now discriminating against the other candidates because we do not know their religion and values--we are pretty much doing the same thing that people who refuse to vote for Romney are doing.

Those who refuse to vote for Romney because he is Mormon are generally those who are unfamiliar with the Mormon church and do not understand it fully. They choose instead to vote for candidates with whose values they are more familiar.

Mormons voting for Romney simply because he is Mormon and they think they understand his values are making the same fallacy. They are eliminating other candidates because they are unfamiliar with their religions. For all they know, McCain's religion may be just as morally rigorous as Mormonism, but they are too apathetic to find out. The difference is that non-Mormons voting against Romney are only discriminating against one candidate, those voting for Romney because of his faith are discriminating against every other candidate on the ticket.

The counsel of the First Presidency of the Church has always been to carefully evaluate issues and candidates, and to make the best decision. The idea of voting for someone simply because they are Mormon flies in the face of the very presiding authority of that Church.

Now, this is not to say that Mitt is not the best candidate, he very well may be, but vote for him for that reason, not for his faith.

No, it is not the same. They are not eliminating the other because they don't know their religion. When I buy chocolate ice cream it is because I like chocolate ice cream not because I haven't tasted the other flavors but because the chocoalte satisfies me. Neither do I need to taste the other flavors if I am satisfied with the chocolate flavor. Maybe strawberry is better but if I am satisfied then I am satisfied. There is no descrimination. But to vote against him (in otherwords for someone else because you don't want the Mormon to win) is descrimination.