- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
wayfarer, “I do not think (my previous comment) means what you think it means.” I said that the conclusion only makes sense logically if, and only if, someone believes that way from the beginning.
Iow, I agree with you about this.
From what I’m hearing, Romney lost in part because some conservatives just refused to vote for a Mormon and didn’t show up to vote. If that is true than bigotry is very much alive in America. I agree that God doesn’t pick our leaders, the people do and we will have to live or die by those choices. I don’t think God really wanted Hitler. I’m not say Obama is Hitler or any thing like that but we the american people (at least 51%) chose Obama and now we will have to deal with that. I don’t think his reelection will have any effect on the church or it’s policy. It does go to show that God can’t answer everyone prayers. There’s a great post over on moderatebutpassionate.com about reactions to the election. http://www.moderatebutpassionate.com/2012/11/talking-to-your-kids-about-election.html?spref=fb Pretty sickening that his daughter at church had a friend who quoted Heleman 5:2 at her:
Quote:
I was talking to my daughter last night. She was asking me about the election, what I thought so forth. She knew I voted for President Obama, and that her mother did as well. It’s also well known in the ward that I did. She was telling me that her friends were giving her a little bit of a hard time about it. I told her just to let it go. It isn’t worth losing a friendship because of a disagreement about politics. She then informed me that one of her friends told her that she needed to look up a scripture, Helaman 5:2 and that would pretty well explain our situation.“For their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.”
Muppets and bigots… I can do without them.
Quote:From what I’m hearing, Romney lost in part because some conservatives just refused to vote for a Mormon and didn’t show up to vote.
Fwiw, 7 million fewer white people voted this year than last year, and there is a decent chance many of them were evangelicals who couldn’t force themselves to vote for a Mormon – but I don’t think it cost Romney the election, since I think evangelicals who didn’t vote for him lived in states where Obama didn’t have a showball’s chance in Hell of winning those electoral college votes. Evangelicals actually voted for Romney at a higher rate than Mormons did (at least according to the exit polling). I think evangelicals might have cost Romney the popular vote by not voting, but I don’t think it would have changed the election result itself.
That’s pure speculation on my part, but I think it’s important that we not blame “others” for one of “us” not being elected. I think the perception of him being out-of-touch and too wealthy and his stance on immigration during the primaries killed his chances, since he lost in every important swing state and was slaughtered within the Hispanic population. He also lost by a wide margin among voters who are younger than 40, as did other Republican candidates who lost close races.
Wayfarer wrote: Quote:Alas, the “mormon moment” is indeed over. Thank heavens!
I don’t believe this is the case. With the wake of the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy much humanitarian aid is needed. Won’t the Church with Mormon Helping Hands help out with that.
The missionaries are going to double with the new change in policy. I heard the applications to become missionaries have tripled or quadrupled. I know 18 and a half years-old young men that only did a semester of college and they have received their mission calls. I think Romney opened the door to a lot of “future” missionary work. The Mormon moment has essentially just begun. A lot of missionary work is imminent. I’m sure this election caused many to be curious about Mormons, and perhaps that curiosity will turn to interest.
jamison wrote:The missionaries are going to double with the new change in policy. I heard the applications to become missionaries have tripled or quadrupled.
I believe this is just speculation. I do not believe that the number of missionaries (approx. 50,000) is going to “double” where the pool of eligible young men in the United States (the statistically most significant area since it was under the age 19 policy before and contains the largest body of church members from which to draw) is only going to be modified by moving a date up a few months (at least no more than 12) from where they were probably going to apply anyway. Also, the “surge” of applications will surely end up like a bubble (such as the baby boomers) that will cycle through the system for a period of time, and then adjust back to an equalibrium. I really don’t see the difference for young men going from 19 to 18 is going to make a huge change for the number of missionaries who were likely to go on missions anyway. Percentage-wise, it will probably affect the number of women serving missions more, but even there I would be surprised to see the actual numbers long-term fluctuate a huge amount. Time will tell. JMHO.
Is lowering the age good for female missionaries? What do people think? wayfarer wrote:There is no real liberal party in the US, not like in Canada or Europe.
Actually, in my view, the problem IS so called American “liberalism”. It’s a bad substitute for radicalism, and arises partly because of the Cold War, and US fear of “socialism”, which can mean a number of things besides Stalinism and Maoism and totalitarianism, such as social democracy, democratic socialism etc.
I am not a “conservative”, and I am not a “liberal”.
“Liberalism”‘s chief strength, and indeed fault, is that it puts minorities ahead of the majority. It is good to see minorities getting bettered, but at the same time, the chief problem is that the majority of people, male and female, black and white, in this world are poor. A lot of these minorities’ problems stem from the fact that they’re stuck in the working class, or underclass. This certainly applies to many blacks and native Americans in the USA, IMHO. Rich blacks in charge won’t be any better than rich whites, and a female leader (such as Golda Meir and Margaret Thatcher) can be just as war mongering and right wing as a male one.
As a non-American, I’m probably not entitled to say that much, but it does seem that the US system is set up in such a way to keep the status quo in, and other parties out. I can’t see much difference between the Demoblicans and Republicrats in a global political spectrum.
According to one website, Romney was seen “pumping gas”. So what? Can’t he have a normal life?!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.