It realy is about religion ...

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I've never known a Mormon who was so wealthy, so privileged, that he couldn't connect to average people. Of course, I've always run in ghetto Mormon circles, so my opinion doesn't count for much.

There are ghetto Mormons?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

There are ghetto Mormons?

Of course there are. Not every Mormon is an accountant from Utah, living in the Burbs with 5 kids.

If you are not in a family-friendly suburb with good schools, there is a good chance your ward will be full of ghetto Mormons. A mix of uneducated blue collar, retired folks, immigrant Hispanics, young families of professionals (who will move to the suburbs before the oldest kid is 5), homeschoolers. And then you have the actual poor. The ones who live in ghetto apt. complexes, barely make ends meet, frequently get assistance from the Bishop, work dead-end jobs, and have no education and little in the way of life-skills.

This is the kind of congregation I attend.

[BarbaraGordon]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

If you are not in a family-friendly suburb with good schools, there is a good chance your ward will be full of ghetto Mormons. A mix of uneducated blue collar, retired folks, immigrant Hispanics, young families of professionals...

ahhh, I see. Here I thought you meant ghetto Mormons were the ones who settle for entry-level Lexus SUVs instead of the loaded model. kee hee!

Regarding your earlier note on the avatar, I tried to change it to a really hot guy yesterday, but I got an error that said "file too large." What's up with that?? Well, I suppose it figures you and Arch would rig it so users can upload "large" women but not "large" men. ;-)

[All-American]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Just a friendly suggestion here. How about Mormons reflecting.a little on why they seem so freaky to those outside the faith? They could learn something from all this. Waxing defensive and self-righteous is rarely a path to increased wisdom.
(As we've discussed, rejecting a candidate for his religiuos faith is not ipso facto imoral. In fact, many Mormons are themselves repelled by Huckabee on the same grounds.)

You actually make a good point here. Mormons ought perhaps to consider how we appear to others with the idea in mind that perhaps change may be good. Instead, I hear us quoting that scripture about us being "peculiar." Which, in case anybody didn't know it already, does not, and was never supposed to mean "strange" or "odd" in that scripture.

At the same time, there is a difference between Huckabee and Romney on their approach to religion. Romney is trying to show, to those people that insist on bringing it up, that his religion is not going to be a detriment should he be elected. Huckabee is practically using religion as his campaign slogan. A vote for Huck is a vote for Jesus. And evangelicals are eating it up.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by All-American

At the same time, there is a difference between Huckabee and Romney on their approach to religion. Romney is trying to show, to those people that insist on bringing it up, that his religion is not going to be a detriment should he be elected. Huckabee is practically using religion as his campaign slogan. A vote for Huck is a vote for Jesus. And evangelicals are eating it up.

Huckabee is using his religion because he can. Romney doesn't have that luxury. Romney is nothing if not an opportunist. There is no doubt that if Romney were able to leverage his religion to his advantage, he'd be doing it like no other.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by All-American

At the same time, there is a difference between Huckabee and Romney on their approach to religion. Romney is trying to show, to those people that insist on bringing it up, that his religion is not going to be a detriment should he be elected. Huckabee is practically using religion as his campaign slogan. A vote for Huck is a vote for Jesus. And evangelicals are eating it up.

This isn't exactly right. Romney in the Speech played up is belief in Christ and advocacy of religious symbolism in public places. Most notoriously, he said freedom needs religion. He chose to pander to the religious right, trying to demonstrate he's like them. In my opinion he's now paying the price for such mendacity.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

I don't doubt that there is *some* anti-LDS sentiment laced in, but IMO my good LDS friends shouldn't get too hung up on the religion aspect.

In Iowa the EVs voted for Huckabee, but not comprehensively. The difference between Huckabee's & Romney's support among the EV vote was interesting - Mitt got 20-something percent of the EV crowd (or something roughly equivalent)

As for Romney's attractiveness as candidate overall, it looks like he's not well regarded by the other candidates (which isn't so unusual for a front-runner), and his liabilities - particularly the changing positions - is a big problem, as all the easy shots from other candidates yesterday showed.

Mitt spent a ton of money in Iowa - I'd guess there may have been some backlash against the wealthy (apparently) trying to buy a victory was a part, as well.

Those issues don't appear to be religion-related at all.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7751.html

I am not portraying an attitude of victim hood, rather expressing my dismay at the reality of the whole situation ... 1 in 5 evangelicals voted for Romney ... 30% or more of voters have stated they will not vote for a Mormon and not because of 'those issues' as you call them.

It’s a sad day in America when such bigotry is left unchecked.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

It’s a sad day in America when such bigotry is left unchecked.

This is silly. Grow up. You need to learn the meaning of bigotry. People choose their beliefs. They make a decision to believe as they do, and those with courage of their convictions should be clear eyed about the consequences of their beliefs. It's perfectly acceptable to say, "I won't vote for anyone to lead this country who claims to believe that stuff." There's nothing wrong with it. I bet you have said you wouldn't vote for an atheist. That's fine too.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Huckabee is using his religion because he can. Romney doesn't have that luxury. Romney is nothing if not an opportunist. There is no doubt that if Romney were able to leverage his religion to his advantage, he'd be doing it like no other.

Romney has no ability to not be an opportunist. Mormons are opportunists. It's how we are. Buying furniture at any RC Willey around the state on free hot dog day is a harrowing experience just trying to get through the front doors.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Just a friendly suggestion here. How about Mormons reflecting a little on why they seem so freaky to those outside the faith? They could learn something from all this. Waxing defensive and self-righteous is rarely a path to increased wisdom. (As we've discussed, rejecting a candidate for his religiuos faith is not ipso facto imoral. In fact, many Mormons are themselves repelled by Huckabee on the same grounds.)

Your post is wonderfully ironic ... in one breath you criticize what you HOPE is the chruch's effort to appear more mainstream and then here you sincerely plead with the church to change?!

The reality is Mormons are not freaky ... Mormons do not need to change ... Americans in general are ignorant and NEED to change!

Bigotry of any kind must not be tolerated.