So, MormonsFollow

The whole "Garden of Eden was in Missouri" thing doesn't really help them. Or, you know, believing that dark skin is a curse from God.

The story is no more ridiculous than many of the other religious doctrines around. However, it's easy to point at the other guy's religion and say it's stupid.

"Haha, look at Mormons, they believe the silliest things", etc.

Edited, Jul 15th 2011 10:05am by Nilatai

Setting aside the larger "debate" of whether any religion is valid, Mormonism differs significantly from the Nicene faiths and it's legitimate to say they are not traditionally "Christian". The Nicene Creed holds that Jesus, post Resurrection, ascended into heaven and "sits at the right hand of the Father" until the end times, not spent a few years backpacking across North America. The Mormon version denies Peter the supremacy as appointed head of the early Church (not to mention the Catholic papal lineage) since the Christian version has Jesus giving Peter the power to create the Church and decide its rules while Jesus is in heaven.

So, however silly some may think it is (and I'm not putting anything into advocating for it), there's an actual significant theological issue here for Christians, not just "Those guys are new and dumb".

Edit: Flea spent a short stint as a Mormon and has nothing but negative things to say about their general attitude and controlling nature. I don't remember the details but she probably won't be voting for a Romney/Huntsman ticket any time soon.

Edited, Jul 15th 2011 9:27am by Jophiel

I actually think that a candidates religion shouldn't enter into the discussion at all. I think it's ludicrous that they are ever asked what their religion is. It's frustrating that you can only become president if you're seen at a Christian church at some point.

ETA: I didn't phrase this very well. My point is, while I don't know if I would say no one should ever talk about religion, I'm of the camp that candidates shouldn't necessarily talk about their personal religion.

Edited, Jul 15th 2011 10:02am by Belkira

I don't know why it would. Their religion shouldn't have anything to do with how they govern.

A person's religion has a large influence in their life and will affect how they look at the world and will inevitably flavour how they govern.

I was replying to Belkira's comment with a general statement about religiousness in general, not making any kind of statement about the specific beliefs of anyone. Sorry, you just posted too quickly.

Edited, Jul 15th 2011 10:26am by Xsarus

A person's religious beliefs, or lack there of, would absolutely shape the way a person views the world, and their interaction with it. To suggest that it would have no impact or influence on how they would govern is, at best, ignorant, and at worst just plain stupid.

I said shouldn't, not doesn't.

I guess I'm more speaking from a "perfect world" sort of view. It just irks me that a person who has no religious affiliation is automatically shut out from being president. Or a Mormon. Or a Muslim. Or possibly even a Jew. If they can manage to keep that personal and separate, then I'm ok with that.

Policy shouldn't be decided because of your personal religions views. For example, abortion, same-sex marriage, stem cell research. Shit like that.

In conclusion, religions are a problem.

I have a few Mormon friends. Jokes from holy underwear aside, it was disappointing that we weren't allowed to see their wedding - they got married in a temple in Salt Lake City. They held a local "ring ceremony" for their friends in town, which was quite lovely, but I absolutely do not like any religion that denies non-believers the opportunity to view its sacraments in person. I find any religion that relies on esoteric knowledge to be disingenuous.

Refined.

I believe that a person's religious view should, and do, come in to play in decision making. As personal was introduced, I articulated around that word.