Jon Huntsman, Jr.

[Vort]

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.

You're avoiding my question. When the reporter asks you about your LDS Church membership, do you say, "Oh, well, I'm kinda sorta Mormon, in a way, not really, but you could maybe say so technically..."? Or do you say, "Yes, I'm a Mormon; I may not agree with everything that most Mormons say or do or the political opinions they tend to hold, but by golly, I'm LDS, no bones about it"?

Gee, I must be loathesome.

You may judge yourself however you see fit. I have judged actions, not individuals.

I have ambivalent feelings about a lot of what we do in the name of Mormonism. I don't disagree with Brother Huntsman.

You don't disagree with his refusal to own up proudly to his Church membership?

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.

Except, apparently, yourself.

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?

According to your words, you are.

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?

Sorry, mightynancy, but this is a crock.

You think I don't "ask tough questions"? You think that you and other "liberal" Mormons are the only ones who actually think about things?

Please.

I admit that I have never quite understood the hubris of the left that makes them think that they, and they alone, think about things. Many of the questions from "liberal" Mormons seem to me to be something on the level of teenage angst; yet, like teens, they insist that they have found deep, dark, never-before-revealed "secrets" that would disrupt the foundational fabric of testimony of all those lesser folks, who surely have never considered such things.

If Brother Huntsman is ashamed to own his Church membership, that is loathesome. If he avoids mentioning or defending his Church membership because he's afraid it will cost him votes, that is loathesome. Whether Brother Huntsman himself is loathesome is another matter, one I don't care to explore.

[Vort]

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."

This is fine. (Well, not in an eternal sense, but in the sense of showing integrity.) This person is clarifying his Church membership and affiliation: His name may still be on the rolls, but he does not consider himself "Mormon" any more. If that is Huntsman's positions, let him say so.

[rubondfan2]

There's a big difference to personal conviction and the political process.

Well, in order for me to be able to really relate to what you are seeking to illustrate here, I would need to see our system of government in the same way that you expressed here. I don't see it the same way and therefore you and I are going to have a very different opinion on the matter.

I'll try to stay on point here and not derail this thread, but I do have a couple of fundamental disagreements with your post.

1) I do not believe "There's a big difference to personal conviction and the political process." This was the premise behind my earlier post. I believe it's the dissolution of the relationship between personal convictions (rooted in Gospel truths) and the political process that has in fact gotten us into the very mess we are in today.

2) The president is not supposed to be elected "by the majority"... that would be full democracy and the next step closest to communism. The president is elected by the electoral college. It's a broken system, but one that would work if we returned to the principals outlined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, for all practical purposes, the President is elected "by the majority", which again, I believe is part of our problem today.

Imagine if the Savior ruled by the "voice of the people". Or if the Church was governed by the voice of the people. Should our nation be any different? (Yes, these things are all easy to say and difficult to do... but if we don't even try to apply gospel principles and doctrine to our every day way of life, -- political process included -- then we are really not headed toward a very good outcome.)

3) The Chief Executive is NOT the voice of the people. That is not what the Framers ever intended for the office of President to be. We have representatives who represent the voice of the people. The Chief Executive is supposed to execute the laws as determined by the voice of the people and to represent our nation to the international community.

4)

You can only lead them so far before you start to become a dictator instead of "the voice of the people"

I believe a case can be made that we are already dangerously close to this point in our nation today. The uncontrolled, unchallenged use of "Executive Orders" has all but destroyed the Constitution.

Again, and to tie this back to the thread at hand. I believe personal convictions SHOULD influence our political and civic decisions. I believe that no matter what your goal in life is... political office, head of business, waiter down at the crab shack, etc., you should seek to accomplish it while living and and standing up for your beliefs, principles and convictions no matter the price.

Lesson 31 in the current edition of Gospel Principles speaks quite clearly and without room for debate on the subject of complete honesty; even going so far as to state that honesty is paramount "even if it seems to be to their disadvantage". It's a great lesson. For those of you who haven't already heard it presented in your individual units it's a great read and might end up altering some of the opinions expressed here.

[Suzie]

You don't disagree with his refusal to own up proudly to his Church membership

Just curious...do you know him personally? If you don't, why do you think he should be proud of his Church membership? Maybe he is struggling with his faith (along with many other Mormons) and that's exactly how he feels?

Reading the news and this thread, I am not sure exactly what is the problem with what he said to be honest.

[rubondfan2]

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.

Just so we're clear, I did mention one other facet other than just responsibility and accountability. I mentioned agency, which is quite unique to our faith in many ways. And a belief that I suspect influences you, me and others to oppose legislating morality (i.e., abortion in the example you and I are speaking about currently).

Some other tenets (doctrines and principles) of our faith that I believe should influence our political and civic decisions are:

- The Word of Wisdom

- The Law of Chastity

- The Beatitudes

- The Law of Tithing

- The Lord's system of welfare

- Our revelations & teachings concerning the Constitution

- The warnings concerning these last days and the end times

- The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

- D&C 121

- Mosiah 18:9

- And many, many more...

Again, it's the separation of these ideas and concepts from our political and civic discourse that I believe is at the very root of the demise and downfall of our nation. And answering a basic question about ones beliefs in an honest, straightforward and no nonsense way is paramount, in my opinion.

[Vort]

Just curious...do you know him personally? If you don't, why do you think he should be proud of his Church membership? Maybe he is struggling with his faith (along with many other Mormons) and that's exactly how he feels?

Reading the news and this thread, I am not sure exactly what is the problem with what he said to be honest.

The problem is, I suppose, in my interpretation. It seems to me like he's either refusing to admit that he is not a believing Mormon for fear of losing his LDS voting foundation, or refusing to embrace his religious faith for fear of losing the antiMormon Evangalical voters. I want to see the man act with integrity, regardless of how he might feel about the LDS Church.

[MarginOfError]

Just so we're clear, I did mention one other facet other than just responsibility and accountability. I mentioned agency, which is quite unique to our faith in many ways. And a belief that I suspect influences you, me and others to oppose legislating morality (i.e., abortion in the example you and I are speaking about currently).

Some other tenets (doctrines and principles) of our faith that I believe should influence our political and civic decisions are:

- The Word of Wisdom

- The Law of Chastity

- The Beatitudes

- The Law of Tithing

- The Lord's system of welfare

- Our revelations & teachings concerning the Constitution

- The warnings concerning these last days and the end times

- The Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood

- D&C 121

- Mosiah 18:9

- And many, many more...

Again, it's the separation of these ideas and concepts from our political and civic discourse that I believe is at the very root of the demise and downfall of our nation. And answering a basic question about ones beliefs in an honest, straightforward and no nonsense way is paramount, in my opinion.

Wow. You would never get my vote if you ran for office.

[MarginOfError]

The problem is, I suppose, in my interpretation. It seems to me like he's either refusing to admit that he is not a believing Mormon for fear of losing his LDS voting foundation, or refusing to embrace his religious faith for fear of losing the antiMormon Evangalical voters. I want to see the man act with integrity, regardless of how he might feel about the LDS Church.

That's easy to say if you don't want the man to be elected.

[Vort]

That's easy to say if you don't want the man to be elected.

As I said before, I would prefer never to see a Latter-day Saint US President than to see a Latter-day Saint compromise his integrity to get the necessary votes.

[Suzie]

The problem is, I suppose, in my interpretation. It seems to me like he's either refusing to admit that he is not a believing Mormon for fear of losing his LDS voting foundation, or refusing to embrace his religious faith for fear of losing the antiMormon Evangalical voters. I want to see the man act with integrity, regardless of how he might feel about the LDS Church.

More than interpretation, it seems like 100% assumptions on your part.

[skippy740]

After clarifying exactly who Jon Jr. is (I was getting him confused with his father), I think I would understand him just a little bit.

I think Jon Huntsman Jr. wants to show that "he is his own man". His father is a very prominent businessman who has donated generously to charities and is very spiritual himself. Being from Utah, Utah's governor AND a high profile, religious, businessman father... I think he wants to show that he can think for himself and to not be "pigeon-holed" into a stereotype.

A little "Oppositional Defiance Disorder" never hurt anybody, per se.

That would be my guess anyway.

[Vort]

More than interpretation, it seems like 100% assumptions on your part.

100%? No. I must claim my interpretation as my own, but by the same token, the speaker has the duty to make himself clearly understood to the listeners. This is especially true with someone running for public office, and triply true for someone who would be POTUS.

Reread Huntsman's answers, and then honestly tell me whether you believe he was being forthcoming in his answers or if he was trying to hide.

[Suzie]

100%? No. I must claim my interpretation as my own, but by the same token, the speaker has the duty to make himself clearly understood to the listeners. This is especially true with someone running for public office, and triply true for someone who would be POTUS.

Reread Huntsman's answers, and then honestly tell me whether you believe he was being forthcoming in his answers or if he was trying to hide.

When I read them, I thought there were the statements of a man who doesn't agree or believe in EVERYTHING about Mormonism and struggles with his faith.

[MarginOfError]

100%? No. I must claim my interpretation as my own, but by the same token, the speaker has the duty to make himself clearly understood to the listeners. This is especially true with someone running for public office, and triply true for someone who would be POTUS.

Reread Huntsman's answers, and then honestly tell me whether you believe he was being forthcoming in his answers or if he was trying to hide.

I thought about doing that, but then realized, I didn't care when I first read it, and I still don't now.

[Guest]

Well, in order for me to be able to really relate to what you are seeking to illustrate here, I would need to see our system of government in the same way that you expressed here. I don't see it the same way and therefore you and I are going to have a very different opinion on the matter.

I'll try to stay on point here and not derail this thread, but I do have a couple of fundamental disagreements with your post.

1) I do not believe "There's a big difference to personal conviction and the political process." This was the premise behind my earlier post. I believe it's the dissolution of the relationship between personal convictions (rooted in Gospel truths) and the political process that has in fact gotten us into the very mess we are in today.

2) The president is not supposed to be elected "by the majority"... that would be full democracy and the next step closest to communism. The president is elected by the electoral college. It's a broken system, but one that would work if we returned to the principals outlined in the Constitution. Unfortunately, for all practical purposes, the President is elected "by the majority", which again, I believe is part of our problem today.

Imagine if the Savior ruled by the "voice of the people". Or if the Church was governed by the voice of the people. Should our nation be any different? (Yes, these things are all easy to say and difficult to do... but if we don't even try to apply gospel principles and doctrine to our every day way of life, -- political process included -- then we are really not headed toward a very good outcome.)

3) The Chief Executive is NOT the voice of the people. That is not what the Framers ever intended for the office of President to be. We have representatives who represent the voice of the people. The Chief Executive is supposed to execute the laws as determined by the voice of the people and to represent our nation to the international community.

4)

I believe a case can be made that we are already dangerously close to this point in our nation today. The uncontrolled, unchallenged use of "Executive Orders" has all but destroyed the Constitution.

Again, and to tie this back to the thread at hand. I believe personal convictions SHOULD influence our political and civic decisions. I believe that no matter what your goal in life is... political office, head of business, waiter down at the crab shack, etc., you should seek to accomplish it while living and and standing up for your beliefs, principles and convictions no matter the price.

Lesson 31 in the current edition of Gospel Principles speaks quite clearly and without room for debate on the subject of complete honesty; even going so far as to state that honesty is paramount "even if it seems to be to their disadvantage". It's a great lesson. For those of you who haven't already heard it presented in your individual units it's a great read and might end up altering some of the opinions expressed here.

I am very familiar with how the US government is structured. It is not much different from the Philippines. Yes, it is not majority rule. It is Rule of Law. The law is decided by representative majority. Sometimes 51-49 representative majority, sometimes 66-34 representative majority, but majority nonetheless.

Okay, to really flesh out this discussion let's put it into very simple scenarios. You mentioned you would rule according to your religious beliefs. You even mentioned Word of Wisdom.

Now, say you are the a Congressman. A bill was put on the floor to ban alcohol. Now, you know for a fact, your constituents are composed of 75% wine-after-dinner Americans. You also know that 35% of your State's GDP is contributed to by the Beer and Wine industry. Now, how would you vote on the Congress floor?

Now, say you are the President. A bill passed in the House and Senate with an overwhelming 90-10 majority with clear constituent support that Alcohol drinking age should be brought down to 16-years-old instead of 21. Would you veto or pass?

Okay, if that was me - I would vote 1.) No to the alcohol ban., 2.) Pass to lower the drinking age.

Now, both of those are contrary to my personal adherence to the Word of Wisdom.

Your turn.

Edited May 17, 2011 by anatess

[Vort]

I thought about doing that, but then realized, I didn't care when I first read it, and I still don't now.

And yet here you are...

[MarginOfError]

You misattribute. I still don't care how Huntsman defines his mormonism. The impassioned responses to his words by others are much more interesting.

[Vort]

You misattribute.

Maybe. Or perhaps you fail to make your wording clear. Interesting how your impulse is to blame the other person...

I still don't care how Huntsman defines his mormonism.

Yet "how Huntsman defines his Mormonism" was never the topic. Rather, the topic was "whether you believe he was being forthcoming in his answers or if he was trying to hide."

The impassioned responses to his words by others are much more interesting.

Perhaps. To you, at least. But what you find interesting is irrelevant to the question.

[rubondfan2]

Now, say you are the a Congressman. A bill was put on the floor to ban alcohol. Now, you know for a fact, your constituents are composed of 75% wine-after-dinner Americans. You also know that 35% of your State's GDP is contributed to by the Beer and Wine industry. Now, how would you vote on the Congress floor?

Now, say you are the President. A bill passed in the House and Senate with an overwhelming 90-10 majority with clear constituent support that Alcohol drinking age should be brought down to 16-years-old instead of 21. Would you veto or pass?

Okay, if that was me - I would vote 1.) No to the alcohol ban., 2.) Pass to lower the drinking age.

Now, both of those are contrary to my personal adherence to the Word of Wisdom.

Your turn.

I wasn't aware you and I were in some kind of superiority competition.

My vote would be no and yes, respectively. My belief in the agency of man and in the Constitution both trump my personal decision to live the Word of Wisdom. Who am I to compel someone else through legal means to live the Lord's law of health? More importantly, who would I be (as president in this hypothetical example) to completely overstep the bounds of the Constitution and declare alcohol illegal... or even to define a drinking age? (Personally, I'd be inclined toward no federal legislation regarding a drinking age. That's an issue for the state and local governments to decide.)

Simply because I believe in a certain gospel principle or doctrine does not imply that I would go about legislating morality. And my post earlier in which I listed out several tenets that I believe should influence the political and civic decisions of those in office nowhere implies that I believe legislation at the federal level is required to enforce those doctrines or principles in which I believe.

You see, at the federal level, there is really very little that needs to be decided concerning individual behavior or economics. So getting into a debate with me over what I would do if this or that legislation was presented to me is pointless because my first question is, "does the Constitution enumerate this power to the federal government?" If the answer is "no", then my vote would be "no"... period. If the answer is "yes", then my personal convictions and beliefs would then come into play as a factor over which to deliberate my decision and position.

[Wingnut]

But what you find interesting is irrelevant to the question.

True, but it's not irrelevant to why he might read the thread.

[Elphaba]

Here's what makes no sense me. If this had been an unexpected question, I could understand his response. However, he is obviously planning for a run for the presidency, and thus, had to have spent at least some time preparing a response to these kinds of questions. This was the best he could do?

I don't agree that his remarks sunk low enough to be considered "loathsome," but I do agree with Vort that he was pandering and waffling, and I don't understand why. He could have been forthright, regardless of whether it was to explain that he has concerns about the Church's truthfulness, or that he believes in it completely but has concerns about it's politics, or whatever. It's the way he cryptically stumbled about that I find off-putting.

There are obviously LDS who will be against him for his less than full and complete acceptance of the Church, and hemming and hawing will not change that. To those LDS who would not be, and non-Christian LDS, (I meant that to read "non-LDS Christians) it looks like he's waffling so as not to offend them. The last presidential primary showed us there is no way to appeal to a combination of all of these factions, so any attempt to do so runs the risk of looking disingenuous to all. In fact, some pundits believe this, more than his Mormonism, was Romney's downfall, and is something from which he can't recover. (I disagree with that, but I've seen some pundits say that often.)

I actually would be glad if Huntsman won the Republican nomination, in that I find the majority of the rest of the candidate field frightening. His lack of preparation here doesn't go so far as to change my mind about that, but it does give me pause.

Elphaba

Edited May 18, 2011 by Elphaba
I meant "non-LDS Christian."

[Tyler90AZ]

I am sure the answer to that question was thought of a long time ago. The response he gave was a plotted out move, or he is not running for president.

[Guest]

I wasn't aware you and I were in some kind of superiority competition.

My vote would be no and yes, respectively. My belief in the agency of man and in the Constitution both trump my personal decision to live the Word of Wisdom. Who am I to compel someone else through legal means to live the Lord's law of health? More importantly, who would I be (as president in this hypothetical example) to completely overstep the bounds of the Constitution and declare alcohol illegal... or even to define a drinking age? (Personally, I'd be inclined toward no federal legislation regarding a drinking age. That's an issue for the state and local governments to decide.)

Simply because I believe in a certain gospel principle or doctrine does not imply that I would go about legislating morality. And my post earlier in which I listed out several tenets that I believe should influence the political and civic decisions of those in office nowhere implies that I believe legislation at the federal level is required to enforce those doctrines or principles in which I believe.

You see, at the federal level, there is really very little that needs to be decided concerning individual behavior or economics. So getting into a debate with me over what I would do if this or that legislation was presented to me is pointless because my first question is, "does the Constitution enumerate this power to the federal government?" If the answer is "no", then my vote would be "no"... period. If the answer is "yes", then my personal convictions and beliefs would then come into play as a factor over which to deliberate my decision and position.

We're not in competition as far as I know... we're in an exploration to see if I can understand what you're saying by breaking down the discussion into simplistic scenarios and see where we differ.

And... from this post... WE ARE EXACTLY ON THE SAME PAGE! See what happens if we discuss instead of argue? We get to understand each other's position better.

So... when I said, there's a big difference between my personal convictions and the political process it means exactly the same as when you said "My belief in the agency of man and in the Constitution both trump my personal decision to live the Word of Wisdom". That is to say - the political process (defined both in the United States of America and in the Philippines as the Rule of Law, or in other words the Constitution) is completely separate from my personal convictions!

Yet, from your posts previous to this, it sounded like your political decisions are completely influenced by your personal (more specifically, religious) convictions that's why I thought you disagreed with me.

And that's why somebody (I can't remember who) said they'll never vote for you. Because it sounded like you are going to make decisions based on your religious convictions - you even listed Word of Wisdom there. And, in addition, you seemed to indicate that that's why American government is broken. So yeah, I'm scratching my head right now trying to tie that post with this post...

[applepansy]

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."

Being honest has nothing to do with being LDS. Honesty isn't exclusive to Mormons. Its not hard when you either want to be honest or you don't care what people think.

[mightynancy]

I guess being in a period of questioning (and not yet receiving answers that fulfill or satisfy), I can relate to JH's "yes and no" response. Now Vort, let me save you some trouble. I'm not demanding that God meet my standard of satisfaction; I'm not so wrapped up in my intellect that I refuse to hear the Spirit. I am earnestly seeking, and while I'm not satisfied yet, I am at peace with where I am and the path I'm on. The world is not either/or, black/white, 1/0.

I have no Mormon heritage (roots was it?) to speak of - so that's not part of an answer I'd give. So while I'm a faithful person, a member of the Church, I can see where an answer could be complicated. There's a lot of nuance to it, and it's a personal issue, and even if I ran for office I wouldn't feel compelled to lay it all out. Personally, I'm more interested in one's outlook on government than on his faith or lack thereof. As I said before, I am all for secular government.

And thanks for the teenisms! I was flattered the other day when someone thought I was "33 or 34". But this! Wow! *blush*