RE: Billy Graham & Mitt Romney 2012

[kaufmannphillips]

So, according to a Romney campaign spokesman, Billy Graham said that he will do all he can to help Mitt Romney; and the Billy Graham Evangelical Association's website has removed language referring to Mormonism as a cult.

Seems like an iconic moment.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/1 ... ?hpt=hp_c3

[Paidion]

Billy Graham is a good man!

[Singalphile]

Iconic? I don't see that. It would perhaps be "iconic" if Graham were to support the socially liberal candidate over the conservative one, or if he were to declare mormonism to be biblical. He is not doing any of that. I read that article and briefly reviewed the billygraham.org website, and I don't see anything iconic/memorable.

The candidates (who might win) both espouse some form of Christianity. A politician's professed religion is not relevant to me. Perhaps it is to some. IMO, You just determine what you think they will do in office (not what they will believe) and then pick the one that more closely matches what you will do. I filter out the ones that have no chance of winning, but that's just me.

[Bud]

Maybe iconic isn't the best word, but I often have trouble thinking of the best word to use in a given situation, like now.

How about momentous, its at least a little bit momentous, or noteworthy.

I think its an interesting piece of news that Kaufman passed along.

Personally I think the Morman cult is plenty big enough now to be considered a "world religion" however false it is. (I think its way false)

[steve7150]

Maybe iconic isn't the best word, but I often have trouble thinking of the best word to use in a given situation, like now.





Maybe "ironic", although i like Mitt.

[Perry]

IMO, You just determine what you think they will do in office (not what they will believe)

Don't you think that what a person believes affects what they do? I would say that if it doesn't it's not really a belief at all, but just a professed belief.

[Singalphile]

Bud wrote:
Maybe iconic isn't the best word, but I often have trouble thinking of the best word to use in a given situation, like now.
How about momentous, its at least a little bit momentous, or noteworthy.

I understand. I think I understand what was meant. If he'd written "noteworthy", I'd say the same thing. Someone removed some web page that had a critical, passing reference to Mormonism on it. Okay. I don't even think it's particularly noteworthy that Graham supports a Mormon (or LDS) over a non-Mormon.
Political conservatives (Christian or not) tend to support the most conservative candidate, and Romney is more conservative than Obama, I think, and I guess Graham is conservative, though I don't really know.

Perry wrote:
Don't you think that what a person believes affects what they do? I would say that if it doesn't it's not really a belief at all, but just a professed belief.

Yes, but we generally know what these guys will do. They're all the time going on about it, and we have their records. The reasons or beliefs behind their actions might not be the same as mine, but I don't really care very much about that.

[kaufmannphillips]

I will stick with "iconic" - an embodiment of a remarkable trend amongst evangelicals this election cycle. Evangelicals have been quite antagonistic toward Mormonism in the past, and yet the religious orientation of this Republican candidate has been getting quite a pass.

Romney said Tuesday night: "I believe we’re all children of the same God. I believe we have a responsibility to care for one another. I -- I served as a missionary for my church. I served as a pastor in my congregation for about 10 years." Just imagine the retorts one might have heard in evangelical circles if it had been a Mormon Obama who had made those remarks.

Now, Graham could have endorsed Romney as a candidate without his organization making any adjustment to how they engaged Mormonism. But the nature of this timely silence is remarkable. And it precipitates the question: what should the priority be for an evangelistic organization - warning souls about a "cult"; or trying to avoid giving disadvantage to a favored candidate in a secular election?

It will be interesting to see if this election cycle has a lingering effect on Evangelical-Mormon relations. Will evangelicals be more tolerant/civil/appreciative toward Mormonism after this? Or will they revert to their previous level of antagonism? If Romney loses, will there be a greater likelihood of reversion? Or, if he becomes the Republican standard-bearer for the next four or eight years, will there be a greater likelihood of tolerance/civility/appreciation?

[Singalphile]

k-swrote:
It will be interesting to see if this election cycle has a lingering effect on Evangelical-Mormon relations.

I doubt it. I am in a very conservative and generally christian (little-c) part of the country. I have never experienced or seen any antagnosm towards Mormonism. Disagreement, sure.

It seems to me that conservatives are less concerneced about a politician's personal beliefs since conservatives generally desire a less involved and active gov't. It would seem to matter more to the liberal who wants gov't involved in just about everything and views the gov't as the highest authority and the best means of achieving "good" things in the world. Also, politician's religious beliefs just don't come up much once they're in there, as far as I recall.

But perhaps. Bunch of Christians here, so we would know best, I guess. I think it doesn't matter.

[kaufmannphillips]

Singalphile wrote:
I am in a very conservative and generally christian (little-c) part of the country. I have never experienced or seen any antagnosm towards Mormonism. Disagreement, sure.

The sentiment may vary in different regions. I grew up (and currently live) in Oregon and Washington, where Mormons are about four times the share of the general population as they are in Texas. In neighboring Nevada and Idaho, that rises to about seven and twenty-seven (!) times the share, respectively. So Mormonism may be viewed as more of a "threat" by Christians in this part of the country.

http://www.mormonwiki.com/Membership_Statistics_U.S.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/map_ ... e_map.html

Singalphile wrote:
It seems to me that conservatives are less concerneced about a politician's personal beliefs since conservatives generally desire a less involved and active gov't. It would seem to matter more to the liberal who wants gov't involved in just about everything and views the gov't as the highest authority and the best means of achieving "good" things in the world. Also, politician's religious beliefs just don't come up much once they're in there, as far as I recall.

But perhaps. ... I think it doesn't matter.

I will point out that people frequently form bonds of camaraderie when they are on the same side of a conflict. It is plausible that four or eight years of sympathizing with and identifying with a Mormon president, in the course of ongoing political struggle, might attenuate some persons' antagonism toward Mormons in general. It's as simple as "us vs. them" sensibility. When it feels like Mormons are "them," then there is greater potential for antagonism; when it feels like a Mormon is "us," the potential for antagonism is reduced.