Jon Huntsman, Jr.

[applepansy]

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.

I agree. And he was waffling about his membership which is not being completely honest.

[Wingnut]

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.

Oh, I totally agree with this. I guess what I was trying to illustrate isn't so much a matter of honest vs. dishonest, it's a matter of personal perception. We active LDS view people in this position as still "technically" members of the Church. They don't view themselves as Mormon anymore, though. And Jon Jr., with his background and family history, would surely understand this distinction. He may feel the latter while cognitively acknowledging the former, which makes it so he's not exactly sure how to answer.

However, I do agree with what someone else (Vort, maybe?) on this thread suggested he could say (if my example is even applicable to his situation): "My name is still on the records of the Church, though I don't consider myself Mormon anymore," or something to that effect.

[rubondfan2]

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...

It was MoE who said it. And I suspect that he jumped to a very large conclusion and assumption that I would encourage legislation based around LDS doctrine and principles. If that was his assumption (and yours or anyone else's for that matter, then a simple question for clarification is all that was needed.)

I am proposing that ones beliefs or convictions make up the entirety of their being. I personally believe that it is disingenuine, if not outright despicable and two-faced to attempt to separate how one participates in the political and civic process from their personal beliefs and values. In fact, for a "faithful Latter-Day Saint" (as Russell M. Nelson put in the last General Conference) it would be nigh unto impossible to compartmentalize the two. If you tried to separate them, then you end up in a position like Huntsman or Romney or other politicians who claim to be able to set aside their personal convictions while engaged in political, civic or business ventures.

As I pointed out to MoE in an earlier post, I believe that in the example he gave (about Abortion and having a pro-choice position politically) he in fact proves the point that personal convictions (like the importance of the agency of man) do in fact influence our political positions. It's not black and white, however, and I understand and recognize this. For example in the scenario that MoE and I discussed briefly, just because one has a belief and conviction in the agency of man does not mean that all of those individuals would take a pro-choice stance. They might take a pro-life position based upon some other principle, doctrine or belief that influences them in a different direction.

In general, however, I do not believe it is possible to separate ones personal convictions or beliefs from their political, civic, business decisions or otherwise without becoming disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical... or worse yet purposefully conspiring. And it is these things that I believe go to the very heart of the downfall of our nation.

[HoosierGuy]

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.

Sounds like he's playing it smart. He know's the south and middle bible belt will have a hard time voting a "Mormon" into the white house. He also knows if he does not completely alienate the LDS he will get the their support near 100%. So he's stepping away from the "Mormon" title knowing the LDS, being hardcore conservative mostly, will support him no matter what. He's trying to play "the game" right into the white house.

I've not read the Time article. Does he attack the church or say why he does not consider himself 100% LDS?

[Guest]

It was MoE who said it. And I suspect that he jumped to a very large conclusion and assumption that I would encourage legislation based around LDS doctrine and principles. If that was his assumption (and yours or anyone else's for that matter, then a simple question for clarification is all that was needed.)

Which I did... hence the simple scenario question which you took as some kind of competition or whatever.

I am proposing that ones beliefs or convictions make up the entirety of their being. I personally believe that it is disingenuine, if not outright despicable and two-faced to attempt to separate how one participates in the political and civic process from their personal beliefs and values. In fact, for a "faithful Latter-Day Saint" (as Russell M. Nelson put in the last General Conference) it would be nigh unto impossible to compartmentalize the two. If you tried to separate them, then you end up in a position like Huntsman or Romney or other politicians who claim to be able to set aside their personal convictions while engaged in political, civic or business ventures.

This statement taken at face value without reading your other post (the answer to my simple scenario) gives the impression that you will not set aside your personal convictions while engaged in political, civic, or business ventures when your job is to be a public servant - that is - as a representative voice of the people you serve, presumably of a heterogenous group that do not always share your personal convictions.

But I know that's not what you believe even if you kinda state it in a really conflicting manner, merging the act of engaging in casting a vote or to the act of serving the public as their representative.

In a campaign, you need to present your personal convictions to give the public an idea of what your core beliefs are. But, at the same time, you have to be able to show the public that you can represent their core beliefs even if it contradicts your own in the unfolding of the proper political process. As such, it is REQUIRED for a public servant to be able to set aside their personal convictions while engaged in politics to be able to properly represent the desires of his constituents.

And this is one of the reasons I like Romney even if I'm not American and cannot vote.

As I pointed out to MoE in an earlier post, I believe that in the example he gave (about Abortion and having a pro-choice position politically) he in fact proves the point that personal convictions (like the importance of the agency of man) do in fact influence our political positions. It's not black and white, however, and I understand and recognize this. For example in the scenario that MoE and I discussed briefly, just because one has a belief and conviction in the agency of man does not mean that all of those individuals would take a pro-choice stance. They might take a pro-life position based upon some other principle, doctrine or belief that influences them in a different direction.

In general, however, I do not believe it is possible to separate ones personal convictions or beliefs from their political, civic, business decisions or otherwise without becoming disingenuous, dishonest and hypocritical... or worse yet purposefully conspiring. And it is these things that I believe go to the very heart of the downfall of our nation.

I just showed you why you have to be able to set aside your personal convictions to qualify to work as a public servant in a democratic country. Because, as a Governor, you can be as Pro-Life as all get, but if your State is not Pro-Life, you can't force Pro-Life legislation in State Congress and call yourself a public servant (as was the case with Mitt Romney).

[Wingnut]

knowing the LDS, being hardcore conservative mostly, will support him no matter what.

I don't think they will.

I've not read the Time article. Does he attack the church or say why he does not consider himself 100% LDS?

He doesn't bash the Church, but he doesn't seem to know whether or not he's a member of it.

[rubondfan2]

In a campaign, you need to present your personal convictions to give the public an idea of what your core beliefs are. But, at the same time, you have to be able to show the public that you can represent their core beliefs even if it contradicts your own in the unfolding of the proper political process. As such, it is REQUIRED for a public servant to be able to set aside their personal convictions while engaged in politics to be able to properly represent the desires of his constituents.

Hmm... I struggle with this conclusion of yours. If this statement were true, then I dare say we may never see an honest person with integrity, character and conviction in a public office. How in the world could one set aside their personal beliefs to "properly represent the desires of his constituents"?

Let's explore an extreme (and hypothetical) example. I am in a state legislative position and therefore legislation over people's behavior is a bit more authorized and acceptable than at the federal level (based on the Constitutional grounds I alluded to earlier). I personally believe that pornography is destructive to individuals and families and I would oppose state tax funds from supporting any pornographic material being shown in a public facility. My constituents, however, support at a 9 to 1 ratio the broadcasting of pornography at all publicly funded facilities... they demand it, because they are addicted and hungry to watch it every time they stand in line at the DMV or at a public park or in their publicly funded institutions of learning.

So, in this example, based upon what you have concluded about setting aside personal convictions, I would need to support legislation to allow and fund what my constituents want. And at the end of the day I can just say to myself, "well, that's what my constituents wanted... my hands were tied." Hmm... I am reminded of Pontius Pilate and his decision to supposedly wash his hands of Jesus's blood on account that "well, the people want him crucified, so what can I do?" I am further reminded of Mormon, who, when the troops he led became so wicked and bloodthirsty, he bowed out from being their leader on the battlefield... he walked away from them and left them to their own devices. Up until that point, he tried with all of his might and being to get his people to see the error of their ways and to bring about their repentance and change of hearts.

I see Mormon as a political leader who absolutely would not set aside his personal convictions while executing a leadership role with his people. I didn't see Ezra Taft Benson setting aside his beliefs (yes, an unelected position, but a position of great influence and public visibility nonetheless). I DO see a couple of high profile politicians trying their darndest to set aside their personal convictions and supposedly seek to represent the will of the people. And I say, shame on them, shame, shame shame on them.

I just showed you why you have to be able to set aside your personal convictions to qualify to work as a public servant in a democratic country. Because, as a Governor, you can be as Pro-Life as all get, but if your State is not Pro-Life, you can't force Pro-Life legislation in State Congress and call yourself a public servant (as was the case with Mitt Romney).

Nah, you haven't really "showed" me anything of the sort. Nor am I asking you to prove your point to me. I have a way of seeing things and so do you. In some areas we might be right on the mark and agree ideologically, but in others we may be miles apart.

Examples like Mormon are further evidence to me that political leaders simply cannot in good and faithful conscience set aside their personal convictions to "represent their constituencies". I believe a good leader and representative seeks to educate; seeks to influence; and seeks to build up the strength and character of their constituencies. In my opinion, we have far too many leaders in political, civic and business settings who have set aside their convictions to allow mob rule to dictate behaviors, legislation and the overall degradation of society.

As Russel M. Nelson during this past April 2011 session of General Conference said so eloquently and forcefully, "Rarely in the future will it be EASY or POPULAR to be a faithful Latter-Day Saint". Perhaps anyone (of the LDS persuasion anyway) considering a run for public office ought to give this statement and it's overarching message a great deal of thought before throwing their hat in the ring... or giving a vague and dodgy answer to a very specific question about their LDS membership.

[Guest]

Hmm... I struggle with this conclusion of yours. If this statement were true, then I dare say we may never see an honest person with integrity, character and conviction in a public office. How in the world could one set aside their personal beliefs to "properly represent the desires of his constituents"?

Here's how:

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...

And that's even your words.

I'm not going to comment on the rest because it's a regurge of the same.

So, my man, you are full of contradictions and I can't get my brain around it.

[rubondfan2]

So, my man, you are full of contradictions...

Ooo... you got to use your stinging "my man" reference finally as a show of oneupmanship. Congratulations.

You appear to be missing my point entirely. And you have taken my example out of context. In the quote you pulled out to somehow point out my contradictions, you failed to recognize that in that example, we were talking about Federal legislation. At the Federal level, legislating behavior is not supported by the Constitution. Therefore, in the scenario in question regarding alcohol prohibition, one's personal belief's concering the Word of Wisdom doesn't even come into play. On the State or local level, however, they very well could and should.

More than anything Anatess, I reject the notion that one can set aside their personal convictions and still faithfully and with integrity serve in a position of public trust. You seem more interested in changing my mind on that than in understanding my point of view. And perhaps it is just your personality or way of expressing yourself, but the term "my man" when used in the context I have always seen you use it here on the forum is less a term of endearment and more a term of showmanship, and is my cue to bow out from this discussion.

[Guest]

Ooo... you got to use your stinging "my man" reference finally as a show of oneupmanship. Congratulations.

You appear to be missing my point entirely. And you have taken my example out of context. In the quote you pulled out to somehow point out my contradictions, you failed to recognize that in that example, we were talking about Federal legislation. At the Federal level, legislating behavior is not supported by the Constitution. Therefore, in the scenario in question regarding alcohol prohibition, one's personal belief's concering the Word of Wisdom doesn't even come into play. On the State or local level, however, they very well could and should.

More than anything Anatess, I reject the notion that one can set aside their personal convictions and still faithfully and with integrity serve in a position of public trust. You seem more interested in changing my mind on that than in understanding my point of view. And perhaps it is just your personality or way of expressing yourself, but the term "my man" when used in the context I have always seen you use it here on the forum is less a term of endearment and more a term of showmanship, and is my cue to bow out from this discussion.

How is "my man" "upmanship"? English is my 3rd language, but I'm fairly certain, "my man" is the term to use for "comraderie".

Let me just clarify this because it seems like you are taking all my posts as contentious... I am not here to argue. I am here to understand your position.

I thought we were in agreement. But then you insisted we don't agree. I gave that completely simple scenario to explain my position. Amazingly we gave the same answer. So we're in agreement. But you say we don't.

The little inkling I gather from re-reading all your posts is that you may have misunderstood my position in this way:

You seem to think that when I say "shed your personal conviction to properly serve your constituents" it means that "I believe in the Word of Wisdom, but since 75% of my State drink wine after dinner, I don't believe in the Word of Wisdom anymore". No, I don't mean that at all. I mean this: "I believe in the Word of Wisdom, but since 75% of the people that I represent drink wine after dinner, I cannot sign a law that brings back prohibition."

So, I don't know how to reconcile your viewpoint to mine... maybe you can come up with another simple scenario to display the disparity.

Edited May 18, 2011 by anatess

[john doe]

So he's stepping away from the "Mormon" title knowing the LDS, being hardcore conservative mostly, will support him no matter what.

Utahns who paid any attention at all during Huntsman's tenure as governor know that Huntsman does not reflect hardcore conservatism. In fact, by the time he bolted for his ambassadorship, he was probably more beloved by liberals than conservatives. Yes, his approval numbers were still quite high, but people who earlier had supported him merely because he had an ® by his name were quickly becoming disenchanted by his policies and ideas. He conveniently left before he had to face any serious challenges from people who had built up enough political steam to pose a serious challenge to him.

[talisyn]

I'd vote for you if you promise (and fulfill the promise) to use at least 2 math jokes in every speech. Oh, and bonus points if you do a statistical analysis of topic and word frequencies of your opponents speeches.

Oh I would totally vote for someone who would do that!