Is Politics Driving Membership Down?

[mikbone]

3 hours ago, scottyg said:

The only wasted votes are from those who don't vote.

Unless you live in CA.

My poly sci teacher who was a genius tells a story wherein he filled out a ticket without looking @ the names.  When asked by the attendant why he wasted a vote he replied.  Because I love to cause havoc in jury duty!

I voted for Trump to block Hillary Clinton.  I had such a wonderful evening watching the democrats lose their minds after the votes were tallied.  And I have enjoyed the most recent Supreme Court decisions.

I did a write in 2020.  

Edited August 23, 2023 by mikbone

[JohnsonJones]

On 8/20/2023 at 4:03 PM, prisonchaplain said:

There is a generational divide in conservative Christianity: Many young people do not understand how their elders could have voted for someone like the former president. They may not like the alternative, but they bristle--especially at those who speak of the former president in almost messianic terms.

Apparently, this divide exists in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well. Leadership is encouraging members to vote intelligently, by looking and candidates and issues, not merely at party affiliation or tradition. Mormon leaders – whose church is often associated with the GOP – push back against one-party politics (theconversation.com).

Thoughts?

 

I am not privy to the exact numbers of what is driving membership up or down in the Church today.

I do see a lot of University students and what drives them.

I've actually thought a lot about this recently.  Right before I came back this summer from my research trip I had a discussion with a graduate student out there who was helping us.  This grad student was supposedly an atheist.

I asked them about their history and they came from what they considered a strong Christian family and a strong Christian faith, but had turned against it.

It was not due to ignorance on their part from what I can tell.  They were very well versed in the Bible, and at times knew more than I did.  It was hard to try to make a point for Christianity based only on scriptural discussions.

It boiled down to the idea that those who SAY they are Christian today are not very Christian at all.  If you look at the New Testament, it has some conservative items, but it is also an EXTREMELY liberal piece of instructions.  It teaches that seeking riches is the opposite of seeking the kingdom of the Lord and thus, those who do so and are rich will have a hard time of it.  It teaches some of the basic ideas of what people today term as socialism and even communism (enforceable by Death if we believe the actions of Peter).  We learn that we should LOVE our enemies, that when persecuted we should turn the other cheek and go the extra mile to help others.  There is a LOT of very liberal thought in the New Testament.

The young people today see this.  Then they see many of those who proclaim Christianity saying that the poor deserve what they get, that they should not assist the poor more than we already do, that we need to attack those who do not like Christianity, that we hate sharing and having equality among rich and poor (so even perhaps to the point of being nor rich or poor) and insist on having the rich get richer and those who are not rich dream of getting richer, and so on and so forth.  They soon come to the conclusion that if the New Testament is true, than there is no church that seems to represent it today (I disagree with them, but some students seem to be set on this stuff).

In that light, it is VERY MUCH a political thing in my opinion.  It's not that young people are not familiar with Christianity (though there are those that absolutely do not know or understand Christianity, they normally are not the young atheists that have problems with it though), but that they are MORE familiar with it than perhaps any other generation prior to this have been.

This Church, the one I am a member of, has exhibited these very features (of how the early Christians had religious socialism/communism...so did our Church early on).  When I bring it up and HOW it was actually done, I get a LOT of pushback at times.  I'm a solid member of the church.  I have a testimony.  Many young people haven't had the time to build a strong testimony yet.  Their testimonies can still falter easily in some cases.  I see some in the church who do have strong testimonies...however...young people who don't, and see this...may have the same type of problems other young Christians have with members in their religions who say they are Christian.  However, as I said, I don't have numbers for our church.

The MOST successful argument I've had thus far (and not that successful at that, but it normally has them agreeing to disagree with me) is that I ask them about a computer.  Do they think that a computer could just pop into being.  That it could just appear out of nowhere with no one having built it?  That it could just appear and work perfectly?

Then I ask about this world with it's complex biology and intricate systems.  Even the body of an animal...say a monkey...is probably more complex than that computer.  This world is full of MILLIONS of these complexities all working together in an even MORE complex system.  If a computer can't just pop up by itself without having been built by man...how could this World be built up out of nothing?  It is so much more complex...so if a computer couldn't pop up on it's own, being that much more simple...how likely is it that something FAR more complex could do so?

This normally doesn't win me any discussions or arguments though, just gets them to agree to have our own beliefs in things. 

Once they start down the path where they are critical of Christians and keep pushing in that direction, it seems they get more and more extreme on that path where they see Christian Churches as not doing good. 

Ironically it almost always centers around how the Christian Churches are hypocritical or being bad rather than the gospel itself.  When it comes to the gospel many will say they like the things it teaches, they just don't believe it can be true when we talk about the afterlife or deity. 

I think politics ARE playing a huge part in the younger generation being a little disillusioned about Churches in general.  They are not stupid (maybe a tad unwise though).  Many are brilliant.  I think the Christian congregations may be clinging a little too closely to political affiliation and belief foremost rather than actually READING and studying the gospel and the churches history (and that doesn't just mean LDS history, I'm talking about Christian history going back to the first century and their practices and actions) and putting God first.  They put political teachings as religious teachings rather than actually understanding or at least acting as Jesus has taught us to act and I think that has turned off a LOT of the younger generation. 

I don't think we'd be all in favor of Liberal Talking points if we put the teachings of Jesus first, but I think there would be some Conservative ideologies that we wouldn't be pushing so strongly for either.

Case in point...how does Donald Trump actually represent Christianity?  Why is HE the current Champion of many Christians?  If he is what Christians are wanting to represent them...then what exactly are Christians voting for?

I may not be a Ron DeSantis fan, but from what I've seen thus far he is FAR more MORAL than Trump...and some of the other candidates may be as well...but Trump thus far is leading the pack by a LARGE margin.  What does that say about the Republican party for which a LOT (but not all) of Christians are affiliated politically?

This is a prime example of what I mean when I say young people see our actions and know what the scriptures say and get turned away from the churches because of it. 

Edited August 23, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

On 8/21/2023 at 11:45 AM, Vort said:

Btw, Trump's idea to purchase Greenland was brilliant. He should have followed through. When the Netherland government so condescendingly told him that Greenlanders were in charge of their own destiny, he should immediately have approached them (the Greenlanders) with a buyout offer. The art of the deal and all that. It would have been the greatest acquisition since Alaska.

 

I had to look it up because I remembered this differently than how you wrote it...but I wanted to make sure.

Note...the Netherlands do not own Greenland and it's not part of their nation or sphere of rulership. 

Denmark owns Greenland.  Greenland is part of the Realm of Denmark.

Denmark's response was that Greenland was not for sale, but Greenland was for Greenlanders and was not Danish

Then the Greenlanders also came in and said Greenland was not for sale. 

So...technically he DID and they responded in kind.

Greenland's government's response was "We have a good cooperation with USA.  Of course, Greenland is not for sale."

Edited August 23, 2023 by JohnsonJones

[Vort]

Sorry, Denmark, not Netherland.

[mikbone]

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sorry, Denmark, not Netherland.

Reminds me of the longstanding dispute between Canada and Denmark over the Hans Island.  AKA the Whiskey War.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_War#:~:text=The Whisky War%2C also known,to direct conflict or violence.

 

 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

On 8/21/2023 at 2:55 PM, zil2 said:

Apparently, it's been a problem for a very, very  long time.

Mmmm . . . Bacon.

[Just_A_Guy]

On 8/21/2023 at 3:00 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Maybe fleeing the country is in order then? I mean if you truly want to keep your distance...right?

You’ve heard of the Benedict Option.  But are you ready for . . . the Lehi Option?

[Just_A_Guy]

On 8/22/2023 at 5:06 AM, Grunt said:

Please don't do that.  It's how I was elected to something I wasn't even running for.🤮

Say, what *is* your real name, Grunt?

Not asking for any particular reason, and no need to answer immediately.  Please just let us know before November of next year, mmm-kay?

[Traveler]

22 hours ago, scottyg said:

If it's disqualified for someone not liking that I don't toe the party line, or thinking that I am just trying to make waves, then that's on them. The "other" / write in section is there for a reason. I will vote my conscience, and refuse to vote for someone who doesn't have both the leadership direction I desire, and the necessary moral character I believe in.

The only wasted votes are from those who don't vote.

Again, be careful and know your voting ordinances.  Writing in Mickey Mouse for any race can invalidate your entire ballot in many states.  The same may be applied for writing in an individual that does not meet citizenship, resident or other requirements.  Invalidating your ballot can have serious consequences especially for non-partisan races which can included judges, police commission and others.  Though liberals, (democrats) are better at it – both parties maintain and apply a cadre of lawyers expert in invalidating ballots.  It is also known that the more conservative voters are more likely to write in a candidate.  I believe it was Stalin that said something like it does not matter who votes or what they think they are voting for.  What matters is who is counting the votes and what they are intending to accomplish.   It is my experience that the democrats are much better at lining up their ducks when it comes to counting ballots.

But then it is your ballot to do with as you please – just keep in mind that an invalid ballot is at least no better (just as wasted) as those that do not vote.  It is my opinion, based on my past experiences that conservatives need to be more careful than liberals; that seem to be more likely to vote straight party and along party lines.   Straight party ballot are almost always counted with priority and without challenge.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, mikbone said:

Unless you live in CA.

My poly sci teacher who was a genius tells a story wherein he filled out a ticket without looking @ the names.  When asked by the attendant why he wasted a vote he replied.  Because I love to cause havoc in jury duty!

I voted for Trump to block Hillary Clinton.  I had such a wonderful evening watching the democrats lose their minds after the votes were tallied.  And I have enjoyed the most recent Supreme Court decisions.

I did a write in 2020.  

How many electoral votes did your write in candidate achieve?   California (like most states) is a winner take all state.  This means that the count is zero.  I do not know for sure, but I would guess that in the entire history of the USA – no write in candidate has ever gotten an electoral vote.  I believe it is more possible for electoral votes to be given to someone without the majority of votes.  Because of the electoral college I cannot think of a better way to waist your vote for president than writing in a candidate – especially if you have conservative leaning just because more political conservative are more likely to write in a candidate that will not count for anything.

There is a saying that all evil needs to succeed is for good people to do nothing or I would add - nothing that will amount to any difference.

 

The Traveler

[Carborendum]

46 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Because of the electoral college I cannot think of a better way to waist your vote for president than writing in a candidate

Then, I guess we should tighten our belts.

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Then, I guess we should tighten our belts.

Reminds me of this:

[Carborendum]

55 minutes ago, Vort said:

Reminds me of this:

No cross threading allowed!!!

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

How many electoral votes did your write in candidate achieve? 

The exact same as if I have voted Republican.

I am no longer a Republican btw.

There is no party that aligns with my views.

[Carborendum]

Just now, mikbone said:

There is no party that aligns with my views.

No party aligns with anyone's views.  If it does, what you're really saying is that you've aligned your beliefs to match that of the party.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, mikbone said:

The exact same as if I have voted Republican.

I am no longer a Republican btw.

There is no party that aligns with my views.

Welcome to the club.  What troubles me the most about not having a party is determining which is the greater evil to vote against.  Other than that, I cannot think of any other logical reason to be involved.  I realize that as members of the Church we have been advised to be involved – thus the only logic I have come to is - who to vote against.

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 Other than that, I cannot think of any other logical reason to be involved.

If you mean party involvement, I have stayed a registered Republican in an order to vote in the primaries for better candidates.

[Traveler]

20 hours ago, mirkwood said:

If you mean party involvement, I have stayed a registered Republican in an order to vote in the primaries for better candidates.

Here in Utah our representatives for state offices or not so bad – even though any person that makes the primaries has been bought and sold to the party leaders (democrat or republican).  This is because fundraising is controlled by the party.

A while back I attended a mass meeting of the republican party in an effort to make some suggestions.  They wanted to elect me to be a delegate to the state convention.  In order to decline I had to explain why they could not elect me.

I would suggest for anyone that thinks that they can influence better candidates that they become active in internal party politics and specifically work for their party raising campaign funds.  Either that or have a few extra millions to donate to the candidates of their choice.

When @mirkwood  decides to run as a republican for whatever office – I will support him, donate to his campaign, vote for him and do whatever I can to support him.  If I must – I would even register as a republican.

 

The Traveler

[mirkwood]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:43 PM, Traveler said:

 

When @mirkwood  decides to run as a republican for whatever office – I will support him, donate to his campaign, vote for him and do whatever I can to support him.  If I must – I would even register as a republican.

 

The Traveler

Wow.

 

Well, I will never run for office, but thanks for the support!

[LDSGator]

35 minutes ago, mirkwood said:

Wow.

 

Well, I will never run for office, but thanks for the support!

That’s exactly why you should run. 

[prisonchaplain]

@mirkwood, you've been warned. I'd attend every meeting on your calendar, FAITHFULLY. Miss even one and you're likely to be elected chairmen of the board! Congratulations in advance. 

[Traveler]

On 8/26/2023 at 6:53 PM, mirkwood said:

Wow.

 

Well, I will never run for office, but thanks for the support!

I knew you would say that -- which is exactly the primary characteristic necessary for what I want most from a candidate. 

 

The Traveler

[LDSGator]

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

I knew you would say that -- which is exactly the primary characteristic necessary for what I want most from a candidate. 

 

The Traveler

Exactly. It’s like that for most positions of power.