4 ms·

So that we can have a puppet of the Mormon church just like Gordon Smith[0][1][2]? Hell no. I'd take Trump over a devout Mormon politician any day of the week.

So that we can have a puppet of the Mormon church just like Gordon Smith[0][1][2]? Hell no. I'd take Trump over a devout Mormon politician any day of the week. [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/mormon-videos-leaked.ht... [1] http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-features-former-u-s-sen-gordon-smith-r-ore/ http://www.wweek.com/news/2016/10/03/mormon-leaks-video-feat... [2] http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-church-in-utahs-politics.html http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-l...

cookiecaper 10y ago
This just in: politicians care about their spiritual leaders' opinion on things. The reason that story got no legs outside of the far-left press is that nobody who isn't blindingly anti-religion cares if a candidate/official looks to his/her spiritual leaders for guidance. In fact, normal people assume that happens. The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal.
- sofal 10y ago
  The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal. I was concerned by a couple of things about it, like him sharing what might have been classified information with the church leaders, and also indicating that his support for the Iraq war was so that the church could eventually send in missionaries. If that is not abnormal, then it is a pretty disturbing example of how religion influences our government.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    The "that may be classified" thing was pretty obviously a slip-up on minor information (number of centrifuges; the other information was publicly known), which is why he made that statement after the fact. He wasn't intentionally sharing classified information, and Church leaders weren't shown asking for it. I assume we'd see those kinds of slip-ups reasonably often if we recorded and played back all of the private conversations of reps. Americanizing Iraq was the underlying subtext and principle during the invasion discussion. I know there was the superficial justification of WMD, but Republicans often spoke of things like "bring them democracy" and "bring them freedom", i.e., teach them the American way. For most of the people that supported the invasion whom I talked to around that time, this was the salient point and driver of their interest, not the potential possession of WMD. Smith doesn't say that missionary work is the sole reason he voted for the war, but I'm sure it was an important and desirable side effect for him, and he discusses that. Most religious people would say the opportunity to spread their religion to new people is desirable. That's why missionary programs exist (Mormons are neither the first nor the only religion with a missionary program). Smith was certainly laying it on thick, no one can doubt that. I would guess that politicians are wont to do so. The Quorum of the Twelve, the body to whom Smith is presenting in the video, is the second-highest body in the Church and it's a big deal to talk to them. Thus, while his presentation was annoying, it wasn't improper in a substantial way. Accidentally disclosing a minor possibly-but-not-definitely piece of confidential information is the only infraction here.
    - sofal 10y ago
      Smith doesn't say that missionary work is the sole reason he voted for the war, but I'm sure it was an important and desirable side effect for him, and he discusses that. Yes, which is why I find it disturbing. The LDS religion has a strong "kingdom building" ethos where service to their god is equated to furthering the aims of the church corporation itself, which is considered to be the kingdom of their god on Earth. It is codified into the rituals in their temple that every "worthy" adult participates in regularly. Not every member shares the same interpretation of the scope of that commitment, but if a Mormon senator gives a reason for entering into a war as being the expansion of the LDS organization specifically, then that seems problematic to me. I would be concerned about something like this from any other specific religious organization as well.
vlunkr 10y ago
Ok, this has nothing to do with McMullin besides the fact that they belong to the same church, and is easily dwarfed by several Trump scandals. I wouldn't expect such bigotry from HN.
- saosebastiao 10y ago
  If the Mormon church were any other church, I'd agree with you. But the Mormon church doesn't act like any other church when it comes to politics. They dangle temple recommends over politicians heads, the possession of which is required for salvation in their theology. And they do it mostly without officially registered lobbyists...all they have to do is make a few phone calls to bishops and stake presidents and all of a sudden political positions change. They tend to stay out of most political decisions, but when they decide to take a position on an issue the entire devout mormon political spectrum falls in line immediately. They've done it countless times in Utah, most recently with the medical marijuana vote (where an overwhelming majority turned into a minority in less than 48 hours after the church made their position official), and have done it so much that Utah is as close as we could come to a theocracy in the US. There are plenty of cultural mormons (New Order Mormons in our special lingo) in US politics (Harry Reid, for example), for whom the threats of the church do not hold sway. But devout mormons actually believe that their prophets talk directly with god, and actually believe they will never see their family again if they don't heed the counsel of their prophet. Anybody who believes in the virtue of a separation between church and state should be terrified of the prospect. I'm at the very least grateful that mormon values would not tolerate Trump, our generation's Andrew Jackson, but while McMullin holds a much better image and temperament, he still has shown that he is as married to the mormon church as he is his wife. When mormon politicians like Gordon Smith state they are willing to trade in their professional ethics in exchange for their temple recommend, you should take that as a threat. http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-church-in-utahs-politics.html http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-l...

cookiecaper 10y ago

This just in: politicians care about their spiritual leaders' opinion on things. The reason that story got no legs outside of the far-left press is that nobody who isn't blindingly anti-religion cares if a candidate/official looks to his/her spiritual leaders for guidance. In fact, normal people assume that happens. The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal.

sofal 10y ago
The Smith video doesn't show anything abnormal. I was concerned by a couple of things about it, like him sharing what might have been classified information with the church leaders, and also indicating that his support for the Iraq war was so that the church could eventually send in missionaries. If that is not abnormal, then it is a pretty disturbing example of how religion influences our government.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  The "that may be classified" thing was pretty obviously a slip-up on minor information (number of centrifuges; the other information was publicly known), which is why he made that statement after the fact. He wasn't intentionally sharing classified information, and Church leaders weren't shown asking for it. I assume we'd see those kinds of slip-ups reasonably often if we recorded and played back all of the private conversations of reps. Americanizing Iraq was the underlying subtext and principle during the invasion discussion. I know there was the superficial justification of WMD, but Republicans often spoke of things like "bring them democracy" and "bring them freedom", i.e., teach them the American way. For most of the people that supported the invasion whom I talked to around that time, this was the salient point and driver of their interest, not the potential possession of WMD. Smith doesn't say that missionary work is the sole reason he voted for the war, but I'm sure it was an important and desirable side effect for him, and he discusses that. Most religious people would say the opportunity to spread their religion to new people is desirable. That's why missionary programs exist (Mormons are neither the first nor the only religion with a missionary program). Smith was certainly laying it on thick, no one can doubt that. I would guess that politicians are wont to do so. The Quorum of the Twelve, the body to whom Smith is presenting in the video, is the second-highest body in the Church and it's a big deal to talk to them. Thus, while his presentation was annoying, it wasn't improper in a substantial way. Accidentally disclosing a minor possibly-but-not-definitely piece of confidential information is the only infraction here.
  - sofal 10y ago
    Smith doesn't say that missionary work is the sole reason he voted for the war, but I'm sure it was an important and desirable side effect for him, and he discusses that. Yes, which is why I find it disturbing. The LDS religion has a strong "kingdom building" ethos where service to their god is equated to furthering the aims of the church corporation itself, which is considered to be the kingdom of their god on Earth. It is codified into the rituals in their temple that every "worthy" adult participates in regularly. Not every member shares the same interpretation of the scope of that commitment, but if a Mormon senator gives a reason for entering into a war as being the expansion of the LDS organization specifically, then that seems problematic to me. I would be concerned about something like this from any other specific religious organization as well.

vlunkr 10y ago

Ok, this has nothing to do with McMullin besides the fact that they belong to the same church, and is easily dwarfed by several Trump scandals. I wouldn't expect such bigotry from HN.

saosebastiao 10y ago
If the Mormon church were any other church, I'd agree with you. But the Mormon church doesn't act like any other church when it comes to politics. They dangle temple recommends over politicians heads, the possession of which is required for salvation in their theology. And they do it mostly without officially registered lobbyists...all they have to do is make a few phone calls to bishops and stake presidents and all of a sudden political positions change. They tend to stay out of most political decisions, but when they decide to take a position on an issue the entire devout mormon political spectrum falls in line immediately. They've done it countless times in Utah, most recently with the medical marijuana vote (where an overwhelming majority turned into a minority in less than 48 hours after the church made their position official), and have done it so much that Utah is as close as we could come to a theocracy in the US. There are plenty of cultural mormons (New Order Mormons in our special lingo) in US politics (Harry Reid, for example), for whom the threats of the church do not hold sway. But devout mormons actually believe that their prophets talk directly with god, and actually believe they will never see their family again if they don't heed the counsel of their prophet. Anybody who believes in the virtue of a separation between church and state should be terrified of the prospect. I'm at the very least grateful that mormon values would not tolerate Trump, our generation's Andrew Jackson, but while McMullin holds a much better image and temperament, he still has shown that he is as married to the mormon church as he is his wife. When mormon politicians like Gordon Smith state they are willing to trade in their professional ethics in exchange for their temple recommend, you should take that as a threat. http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-lds-church-in-utahs-politics.html http://www.anamericandreamrevealed.com/2015/03/the-role-of-l...