News-Record.com

"Or are we obsessed with 'where do you worship?'"...

wrong question - it's not where we worship but "who" we worship.

lds do not worship Christ....they say that we misunderstand scriptures when Jesus received "worship" and never rebuked anyone for it ! they also are in competition with the rcc - as the lds says their church is the one true church.....

I don't know that the elements of LDS faith are any more or less rationale that worshiping a rabbi who was executed as an enemy of the Roman Empire roughly 2,000 year ago.

So I think the question of rationality is kind of a red herring - at least for those of who don't buy in wholesale to any one faith.

What may be a better question is whether Romney buys in completely to his faith's view of itself as a uniquely American religion and its belief in what most folks would call American Exceptionalism - that the United State's role in the world is unique and other nations ought to follow our lead. How will that color foreign policy? Would it make him more likely to step out without the cooperation of other nations?

From a purely political point of view - it seems likely that Romney is going to get hammered anywhere there's a large southern Baptist population. Southern evangelicals, in general, seem to take a dim view of the LDS in polls.

All it takes is a little digging into the Mormon past - and present, to see why biblical, evangelical Christians are skittish. Their theology and view of canonicity (Book of Mormon) are extremely heterodox in certain areas. JFK may have been a Catholic, but it was close enough to vote for him in the end. Romney may be as well. It’s still too early to tell: some things just have to grow on ya. Adjusting takes time. But when push comes to shove in a crucial vote, constituencies tend to come back to the fold. As in many, if not most, elections, it’s the lesser of two weevils – for everyone; with Giuliani’s marital messes, Hilary’s baggage and the “Breck Boy’s” mega-house/poverty disconnect. There’s gonna be a lot of “growin’on ya” from now til ’08.

Not where, but who, eh? Or whom, should I say. I think nancy is on to it, though. The idea is what club do you beling to; whom do you know? What is your pastor saying? How is the money spent?

fn,
thanks for grammar correction....

fn,
you are also on to it - because you understand it really is about what club you belong to...... and the club houses are quite different - one is called heaven and a description of that place can be found in the revelation - and the other club house is...well you've heard of it and it's description is given throughout scripture....so yeah i guess it is about which club (not local church) you belong !

Too bad it isn't simply "who" one is.

Who one is is sometimes very greatly affected by what one is.

I, personally, am not a "what"; unless you mean by genus and species. Do you mean "what is" one's profession, for example? The profession isn't "what I am"; it is "what I do".

Similarly, "That one thinks" is not, per Descartes, equivalent to being itself. Nor, necessarily, "what one thinks", since the "what" here changes so often as to render any identity incredibly evanescent.

Actually, that may truly be closer to one's being (as a verb more than a noun). Bit it is nowhere near the kind of identification and "membership" in such and such club as I alluded to earlier.

“I, personally, am not a ‘what’ “

The use of the words, “I personally” would pretty much exclude a “what” designation, but a who cannot be separated from the whats of his/her life. No matter how vocal a candidate is about being utterly removed from their faith identity, everyone knows that it will creep in along the way. It is too important and too ultimate not to. Actually, we just have to accept all presidents, et al. as is; and hope they will not unduly allow their faith scruples to determine national policy. On the other hand, if one feels that their belief system is just fine, he will probably hope that he/she will – of course!

" ‘That one thinks’ is not, per Descartes, equivalent to being itself.”

We are NOT electing Mr. Being, as metaphysically intriguing as that may be. The whole range of criteria for any elected official is “what” they think and are – and then do. I put this in the “no-brainer” category.

Personally, I’m a realist, or pragmatist, in part; and will vote for the candidate who is closest to my spiritual, as well as pragmatic, values. So, if it’s Romney against any of the leftist Dems, I would tighten my pragmatic belt, swallow discreetly, and vote for him. With pro-choice Giuliani, I would probably cut myself in two, and die of strangulation, but would vote for him too – talking about the lesser of two weevils! Whwwwh!

There's a difference between a policy stance and an affiliation with a religious organization. You may be right in conflating the hypothetical candidate with his or her named denomination, if the perosn clearly aligns every stance with specific doctrines and dogmas, or policy statements made by leaders in that person's faith, and is endorsed by those leaders as following lock-step the faith's proscriptions. Few people operate in their belief systems that way. Thus, while there is a practical shorthand method, it behoves one to dig deeper, if candidates allow any cracks of insight between the lines of canned mantras.