Jon Huntsman, Jr.

[john doe]

I suspect if Huntsman (Jr.) does decide to run, Beck would actually speak in favor of him given his high regard for his father.

Elphaba

I disagree, unless things have changed recently. When Jr. was governor and Beck was talking about up-and-comers he thought highly of, Jr. was conspicuously absent from his list. Beck may have a strong love for Senior, but Junior's politics don't even remotely match Beck's.

[john doe]

he will be percieved in Utah as a waffling, slimy politician.

Too late. I know many people who have thought of him that way since day one of his governorship years ago.

[Vort]

Vort, there are more possibilities than two.

Like what?

I'm LDS. I believe the doctrine and have a testimony of Jesus Christ. That said, I'm not a lot of the things that people think Mormons are. I'm an environmentalist, a feminist, a liberal, and for secular governance. I don't expect people who are not well-versed in Mormonism's reality to understand the nuance between our LDS "trappings" and core doctrines. I don't expect most folks to understand that Mormons aren't one homogenous block. Heck, even a lot of Mormons don't understand that.

So you're considering running for President of the United States. A reporter asks you, "Are you a believing Mormon? What of your Mormon heritage?"

What's your answer?

It could well be the inverse of your option one: perhaps Bro. Huntsman believes the doctrine, but rejects the social and cultural elements of the Church. There are a lot of us in that position.

So...what? How does this make his waffling any less loathesome?

[Elphaba]

I disagree, unless things have changed recently. When Jr. was governor and Beck was talking about up-and-comers he thought highly of, Jr. was conspicuously absent from his list.

I didn't know that. I agree that it is a conspicuous absence, and pretty much shoots my theory all to Hades.

Elph

[mightynancy]

Like what? Like what I wrote. False dichotomies are an easy way to color in black and white, but they're, well, false for a reason.

So...what? How does this make his waffling any less loathesome?

Gee, I must be loathesome. I have ambivalent feelings about a lot of what we do in the name of Mormonism. I don't disagree with Brother Huntsman. Perhaps not here at this site, but there are many faithful LDS who believe as I do (and many who believe differently, which is great). I don't set myself up as arbiter of what makes someone "loathesome" as they declare their beliefs. My cousin thinks I should leave the Church, because I disagree with a few things we've done of late. Clearly, I am interested in staying. Who's loathesome?

Perhaps this boils down to a question: Is there room in the Church for people like Brother Huntsman, like me, like many of the believers out there who ask the tough questions?

[skippy740]

I'd like to think so. There is room for all viewpoints, just as there is room for all levels and variations of testimony strengths and testimonies about different aspects of the gospel.

Sometime, mightynancy, I'd like to have a friendly discussion with you about your viewpoints.

I admit to being convinced that if one understands the scriptures that they have a certain predictable political & social views. That doesn't make me "right" or you "wrong". But it DOES make me curious to learn how and why you think the way you do... and hopefully I can learn from you.

One of the most important aspects of the gospel is learning to understand others. Sometimes we are so anxious to "preach" that we forget to listen... and I mean REALLY listen.

But not in this thread. I'd like to keep this thread on topic.

[applepansy]

Melinda Henneberger asked the former governor if he “…still belongs to the Church of Latter-day Saints”, to which she received the veiled response: “I’m a very spiritual person” (as opposed to a religious one?), “and proud of my Mormon roots.”

The columnist saw the vagueness of the answer and asked: “Roots? That makes it sound as if you’re not a member anymore. Are you?”

Former Governor Huntsman’s reply was extremely revealing in its non-committal nature, “That’s tough to define,...

This is my problem with his answer. A direct question was asked and Huntsman Jr's answer was vague...Twice.

If he is on the membership records of the church he's a member. End of story. Be honest about it.

It doesn't matter to me if he's LDS or not. Be honest about it. I understand his political waffling. All politician waffle. But waffling isn't right. This looseness with honesty and truth is why nobody I know trusts a politician.

How do you trust someone to do what they say they will if they can't be honest about something about something that is black and white. Either he's a member or he's not. What he personally believes is secondary.

You can't sit on the fence and please both sides.

[Guest]

Like what? Like what I wrote. False dichotomies are an easy way to color in black and white, but they're, well, false for a reason.

Gee, I must be loathesome. I have ambivalent feelings about a lot of what we do in the name of Mormonism. I don't disagree with Brother Huntsman. Perhaps not here at this site, but there are many faithful LDS who believe as I do (and many who believe differently, which is great). I don't set myself up as arbiter of what makes someone "loathesome" as they declare their beliefs. My cousin thinks I should leave the Church, because I disagree with a few things we've done of late. Clearly, I am interested in staying. Who's loathesome?

Perhaps this boils down to a question: Is there room in the Church for people like Brother Huntsman, like me, like many of the believers out there who ask the tough questions?

Mightynancy, I understand your position here, but if my understanding is correct, Vort did not consider his differences in opinion with the church loathsome. It was his slimy politician way of dodging the question. I see this exactly like Bill Clinton's "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". That's what's loathesome.

So yeah, you didn't answer the question below. Would love to know your answer to that.

So you're considering running for President of the United States. A reporter asks you, "Are you a believing Mormon? What of your Mormon heritage?"

What's your answer?

[Wingnut]

If he is on the membership records of the church he's a member. End of story. Be honest about it.

I think it's easy for us active LDS to say that, but for someone who doesn't believe and might not consider themselves Mormon anymore, but are still on the records of the Church, it's not so easy. For example, on this site we have Godless. As far as I know, he's technically still a member of the Church -- his name hasn't yet been removed from the records. Yet he I believe he considers himself an ex-Mormon.

I've met many people in a similar situation, some of whom take offense when it's framed the way you (and others) have worded it.

Me: "Are you Mormon?"

Them: "I used to be."

Me: "Ah. So did you have your name removed from the records when you left?"

Them: "No, not yet."

Me: "So you're still a member then, right?"

Them: "NO! I said I used to be."

[Guest]

I think it's easy for us active LDS to say that, but for someone who doesn't believe and might not consider themselves Mormon anymore, but are still on the records of the Church, it's not so easy. For example, on this site we have Godless. As far as I know, he's technically still a member of the Church -- his name hasn't yet been removed from the records. Yet he I believe he considers himself an ex-Mormon.

I've met many people in a similar situation, some of whom take offense when it's framed the way you (and others) have worded it.

Me: "Are you Mormon?"

Them: "I used to be."

Me: "Ah. So did you have your name removed from the records when you left?"

Them: "No, not yet."

Me: "So you're still a member then, right?"

Them: "NO! I said I used to be."

The question is simple enough. If you're in the rolls but you don't identify with Mormons anymore, what's so hard about saying, "I'm still in the rolls but I don't believe in it anymore."?

[rubondfan2]

Then may a Mormon never reach the national executive office. God forbid a man sell out his very integrity and deepest beliefs in hopes of winning an election.

I wonder... and maybe you mega-historians on the forum could pull some quick quotes out of your hats... but I wonder if Ezra Taft Benson or J. Reuben Clark ever stated their LDS beliefs as "hard to define".

They seemed to do alright politically while maintaining an unabashed dedication to their faith.

[Wingnut]

The question is simple enough. If you're in the rolls but you don't identify with Mormons anymore, what's so hard about saying, "I'm still in the rolls but I don't believe in it anymore."?

True enough, I guess. I still think it's politically tricky, though. It makes you look two-faced. I also -- were I in that position -- just wouldn't want to deal with the follow-up of "why don't you have your name removed?" Asking about my religious affiliation is one thing, but that follow-up is a really personal issue. I believe that some things, even in politics, should be allowed to remain personal.

[MarginOfError]

I wonder... and maybe you mega-historians on the forum could pull some quick quotes out of your hats... but I wonder if Ezra Taft Benson or J. Reuben Clark ever stated their LDS beliefs as "hard to define".

They seemed to do alright politically while maintaining an unabashed dedication to their faith.

Those are both hard comparisons to make here, since neither of them were elected, but were appointed to their positions.

A better, although wildly imperfect, comparison would be the campaign of President Kennedy.

[Wingnut]

I wonder... and maybe you mega-historians on the forum could pull some quick quotes out of your hats... but I wonder if Ezra Taft Benson or J. Reuben Clark ever stated their LDS beliefs as "hard to define".

They seemed to do alright politically while maintaining an unabashed dedication to their faith.

Were either of them elected to major national political offices though? I know that President Benson was appointed, but I'm not familiar with J. Rueben Clark's political career. It's a different bag when you're not trying to win a popular vote.

Edited May 17, 2011 by Wingnut

[Guest]

I wonder... and maybe you mega-historians on the forum could pull some quick quotes out of your hats... but I wonder if Ezra Taft Benson or J. Reuben Clark ever stated their LDS beliefs as "hard to define".

They seemed to do alright politically while maintaining an unabashed dedication to their faith.

Add Harry Reid to that list. He's unabashedly Mormon and... Gasp!... He's a Democrat!

[Wingnut]

Add Harry Reid to that list. He's unabashedly Mormon and... Gasp!... He's a Democrat!

That's the only way a Mormon makes it to the White House -- as a Democrat.

[MarginOfError]

Add Harry Reid to that list. He's unabashedly Mormon and... Gasp!... He's a Democrat!

Which makes an interesting contrast with republican mormon candidates.

If you're a republican, you can be rabidly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but the evangelical conservatives will reject you if you're mormon.

If you're a democrat, voters don't care if you're mormon so long as you're pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage.

In either case, your religion becomes a liability, but the democrats have an easier time convincing the voters that religious preference isn't going to dictate governmental action.

[Guest]

True enough, I guess. I still think it's politically tricky, though. It makes you look two-faced. I also -- were I in that position -- just wouldn't want to deal with the follow-up of "why don't you have your name removed?" Asking about my religious affiliation is one thing, but that follow-up is a really personal issue. I believe that some things, even in politics, should be allowed to remain personal.

True, but, there's no political repercussion to stating, "it's a personal issue that doesn't affect my politics". Ok, just to give some background to my comments, my father is (yes, until today... It's been 40 years) is the campaign manager for any of my family who runs for office (there's quite a bit of them, one of which was in Congress) in the Philippines. Same democratic election process even if cheating is rampant...

[Guest]

Which makes an interesting contrast with republican mormon candidates.

If you're a republican, you can be rabidly pro-life and pro-traditional marriage, but the evangelical conservatives will reject you if you're mormon.

If you're a democrat, voters don't care if you're mormon so long as you're pro-choice and pro-same sex marriage.

In either case, your religion becomes a liability, but the democrats have an easier time convincing the voters that religious preference isn't going to dictate governmental action.

This is such a curious phenomena... I wonder what the source is for the double-standard...

[rubondfan2]

If I were running for office, I would want to make it very clear that my religious beliefs were not dictating my political and civic choices.

I struggle with this statement a little. How could ones religious beliefs NOT dictate (or at a super bare minimum influence) your political and civic choices?

Perhaps this is a fundamental issue in our national and world politico-economic scene today... not enough political and civic choices being influenced by faith in the Creator and in adherence to personal and societal morals and integrity of character. -- I certainly think so.

Could you imagine the Savior saying, "Well, I am the Son of God and I certainly have a stance on the ,<insert your favorite issue here> issue, but I'm not going to let my personal beliefs influence my political and civic choices while I am in office."

I've read the comments here regarding Mr. Huntsman's interview and thought about them each. I have decided that I am definitely on the side of "Good grief Mr. Huntsman, stand up for your beliefs one way or the other, but don't straddle the fence." I'm recalling something about lukewarm people being spewed out of a mouth or something like that.

[MarginOfError]

I struggle with this statement a little. How could ones religious beliefs NOT dictate (or at a super bare minimum influence) your political and civic choices?

Perhaps this is a fundamental issue in our national and world politico-economic scene today... not enough political and civic choices being influenced by faith in the Creator and in adherence to personal and societal morals and integrity of character. -- I certainly think so.

Could you imagine the Savior saying, "Well, I am the Son of God and I certainly have a stance on the ,<insert your favorite issue here> issue, but I'm not going to let my personal beliefs influence my political and civic choices while I am in office."

I've read the comments here regarding Mr. Huntsman's interview and thought about them each. I have decided that I am definitely on the side of "Good grief Mr. Huntsman, stand up for your beliefs one way or the other, but don't straddle the fence." I'm recalling something about lukewarm people being spewed out of a mouth or something like that.

I choose the word dictate deliberately. I believe any person of average intelligence would concede that religious persuasion certainly influences action. But as an example, here's this:

I despise abortion. Reading about it and the process and procedures makes me physically ill. A lot of that is a result of my religious persuasion. But if I were in elected office, I would be adamantly pro-choice because I believe very strongly that legislation against abortion will create more problems than it will solve. It would be my responsibility to the constituents I seek to represent that my position is that my decisions in government and legislation are not determined by my own personal moral code, but by what I believe leads to the best outcomes for our society as a whole.

[Guest]

I struggle with this statement a little. How could ones religious beliefs NOT dictate (or at a super bare minimum influence) your political and civic choices?

Perhaps this is a fundamental issue in our national and world politico-economic scene today... not enough political and civic choices being influenced by faith in the Creator and in adherence to personal and societal morals and integrity of character. -- I certainly think so.

Could you imagine the Savior saying, "Well, I am the Son of God and I certainly have a stance on the ,<insert your favorite issue here> issue, but I'm not going to let my personal beliefs influence my political and civic choices while I am in office."

I've read the comments here regarding Mr. Huntsman's interview and thought about them each. I have decided that I am definitely on the side of "Good grief Mr. Huntsman, stand up for your beliefs one way or the other, but don't straddle the fence." I'm recalling something about lukewarm people being spewed out of a mouth or something like that.

There's a big difference to personal conviction and the political process. When you are elected by majority vote, it doesn't mean that you trample on the minority. Therefore, you need to put your personal convictions in perspective - as one voice in the community of many. This is especially critical when you are the President/Governor and you have a Congress that passes a bill by a majority that doesn't coincide with your personal conviction. You can do two things: 1.) Veto the majority, 2.) See the bill for its merits and sign it into law.

Because, even if you got elected by a majority - each of those people in the majority have different reasons why they voted you in. You are a representative of the people. You can only lead them so far before you start to become a dictator instead of "the voice of the people". Make sense?

[rubondfan2]

But if I were in elected office, I would be adamantly pro-choice because I believe very strongly that legislation against abortion will create more problems than it will solve.

A position that, I suspect is firmly rooted in the belief that agency and taking personal responsibility for ones actions and choices is paramount within any civilized society... both concepts which are firmly rooted in LDS doctrine.

So, I still see your position and subsequent (hypothetical) policy recommendation as being influenced by your faith. (A position I share with you, I might add).

I do see and acknowledge your deliberate use of the word dictate, as opposed to influence.

[MarginOfError]

This is such a curious phenomena... I wonder what the source is for the double-standard...

The best I can offer is that liberals and/or democrats are more likely to believe that politics and religion can be separated or compartmentalized.

conservatives/republicans are more likely to believe that religion and politics must be intertwined. Even still, it isn't conservatives/republicans, but evangelical conservatives, who have by and by taken over the republican party. These are the same evangelicals who are likely to believe that you aren't really a Christian (or at least a worthy one) unless you subscribe to their particular flavor of Christianity.

I'll stop there before I start insulting people.

[MarginOfError]

A position that, I suspect is firmly rooted in the belief that agency and taking personal responsibility for ones actions and choices is paramount within any civilized society... both concepts which are firmly rooted in LDS doctrine.

So, I still see your position and subsequent (hypothetical) policy recommendation as being influenced by your faith. (A position I share with you, I might add).

I do see and acknowledge your deliberate use of the word dictate, as opposed to influence.

Well, another distinction I might suggest is that LDS doctrine is firmly rooted in personal responsibility and accountability. I think those concepts existed well before our doctrine did. But at some point, that also becomes a chicken and egg argument.

Regardless, personal responsibility and accountability aren't unique to religion.