BrJones: “I think to assume that most members of the church really understand this is a somewhat naïve view, with respect to members of the church generally. Hawk, your understanding of the gospel is obviously deep and nuanced, but the church does not really focus on nuance, and I think most members don’t pursue it.” The majority of my formative experience with members’ attitudes toward non-members is from far outside the Mormon corridor. When Mormons are in the minority, there is no tongue-clicking or holier-than-thouing about things that are accepted as the norm by 99% of your neighbors. On the contrary, I have found that many members are almost apologetic to others about our unique standards, making it clear that they don’t judge others over these things. I think David G. makes an excellent point that these cases were mostly in the Mormon corridor where that is apparently not the case. I think the point about in-groups & out-groups is very valid.

Bingo! There’s a very important element missing from this post (which overall I like a great deal; thanks): context. The key difference between the other religions used for comparison purposes and the Mormons is not numbers, as you first hypothesize, but that Muslims, JWs, Catholics, etc. do not have a culture region named after them. The Mormon/non-Mormon dynamic in the Mormon Corridor remains a powerful divide, which in my mind explains why so many Mormons have been disqualified in these cases. If you take the Mormon out of the culture region, you don’t have those in-group/out-group tensions, which is why there are so few cases outside the UT, ID, NV area. I recommend you take a look at Kathleen Flake’s essay in Religion and Public Life in the Mountain West, edited by Jan Shipps and Mark Silk, which deals to some degree with the tensions between Mormons and non-Mormons.

http://www.amazon.com/Religion-Public-Life-Mountain-West/dp/0759106274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255620987&sr=1-1

I think to assume that most members of the church really understand this is a somewhat naïve view, with respect to members of the church generally. Hawk, your understanding of the gospel is obviously deep and nuanced, but the church does not really focus on nuance, and I think most members don’t pursue it. I agree with you that the WoW, for example, is an internal behavioral standard for members only, but I’ve seen and heard countless members in my life click their tongues and judge non-members for saying and doing things that aren’t in line with the revealed word of god – smoking, drinking coffee, etc. I think there are not many religions or other groups in the world that accept, literally, that there is another human being who, when he tells them to do something, it’s exactly the same as god telling them himself. This is very unique, and raises concerns that don’t apply to other groups. This is why environmental or other political considerations are bad comparisons. When dealing with political or other considerations, a person ultimately only answers to him or herself. For mormons, there is another person, or group of persons, to whom they accept that they are accountable. I just don’t think there are many analogous groups out there, including other religions.

I have also lived different places and experienced prevalent thought affinity groups. It still seems like Mormonism disqualifies us from objectivity and good judgement more than other affinity choices.

And, while there is some truth to the idea that a Mormon politician is potentially clergy, I don’t see how that would be different from being in a lay Catholic society or the group leader of an Evangelical youth group (assuming it’s an unpaid group leader).

I don’t think asking how any of those things would influence a presidential candidate would necessarily be inappropriate. I think the inappropriateness — or even bigotry — comes when we assume we know the answer without even asking.

I respect your positions generally, hawkgrrrl, but again all I can do is shrug. We are talking about a community of people who just got thinly veiled permission from a ranking official to abandon their own children in response to perceived immorality.

::shrug::

As I said, I’m one of those Mormons who might be sitting on a jury with the same sympathetic attitude toward a gay litigant or petitioner that I’d have for a straight one. But, the odds being what they are, I wouldn’t bet on it. You might be different but if you were, I bet we’d both have to conclude that it was beating the odds.

And as for Gov. Romney, I hope I gave him and his character their due. I really admire what he did!

As you say, as citizens I’m sure we’re all hoping any candidate has the integrity he showed. OTOH, we can only speculate about how many Mormons, receiving a letter on the stationery of the church, letterhead of the twelve would have the strength not to second guess their own consciences.

To assume that all Mormons would behave in a specific way is to misunderstand human nature. It is discriminatory, plain and simple. But voters are allowed to practice discrimination, and they do it all the time. There’s no way to stop them. People often vote for a candidate with whom they identify or against one they mistrust, and trust is often no more than familiarity.

alice – to your scenario, I say bunk – because there is a cross-examination. Mormonism is not the only thing one knows about a juror. For example, how would you feel if the Mormon was a mother of a gay son who welcomed him and supported him openly? How would you feel if the Mormon was someone who self-identified as having SSA? How would you feel if the Mormon credibly stated a belief that gay people should be treated equally with no discrimination.

Some Mormons seem to apply a different set of standards to fellow members than they do to the world at large. IOW, a Mormon might be more judgmental of someone who had accepted church teachings but then left it behind. That’s again probably an example of identification bias. Judging more harshly when the person has rejected something you value. Just personal observation, but I think most Mormons realize that non-Mormons can be good people who don’t live the standards of the church, and they would not think any less of them for it: premarital sex, being gay, drinking, smoking, etc. These are uniquely Mormon lifestyle choices that are not the norm for non-Mormons, so the standards for non-Mormons are different from a Mormon perspective.

That said, if I were gay and I had to appear before a US court, I would not feel very sanguine about it if the judge or any jury members were known to be LDS. Altho my own beliefs should reassure me, the practical fact of what the LDS temperament and the specific and aggressive teachings of the church are would make me sweat bullets.

And it would be hard to believe anyone who said they’d feel good in the same hypothetical circumstances.

I also think it’s a fair distinction to make regarding preconceived notions of mormons versus other religions. For example, if you meet someone who is an active member, you can know right off the bat that they probably don’t drink, they probably don’t smoke, drink coffee, would frown upon premarital sex (regardless of the age), would not want to work on Sunday, would be offended by profanity, etc. Obviously any one of these things could very well be untrue with any given member, but as a rule, I think they are fair assumptions. I think some of these things have practical implications that are fair to consider. For example, if I’m an employer and my interviewee has a mormon mission on his or her resume, I think it is absolutely fair for me to be concerned that they will refuse to work on Sunday. I find it difficult to find a lot of correlations that are so obvious in other religions.

And, while there is some truth to the idea that a Mormon politician is potentially clergy, I don’t see how that would be different from being in a lay Catholic society or the group leader of an Evangelical youth group (assuming it’s an unpaid group leader).

And brjones, of course members of the Church have certain beliefs in common. But so do participating members of almost any organization. Federalist Society members are relatively homogeneous when it comes to beliefs on the proper size and role of government. Surfers are pretty homogeneous about what the best use of a person’s time and resources is, especially when there are waves. Chicagoans are largely dedicated to the ideals of deep-dish pizza, while New Yorkers are thin-crust people. So of course Mormons’ religious views will be relatively homogeneous (and, sadly, racially we’re not as diverse as we should be). But politically, musically, artistically, professionally, and in every other way, I don’t see homogeneity, and I don’t see why homogeneity would be a logical conclusion of a share religious background.

That’s a point in any Mormon politician’s favor if s/he needs to argue against the idea that the Church exercises undue influence.

while voters should definitely decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to vote for a Mormon candidate, I would hope they’d use the same case-by-case criteria for candidates who were not Mormons.

Of course.

And frankly, I don’t see why centralized authority suggests that Mormons like sheep would follow: Catholic politicians aren’t uniformly anti-abortion and anti-war. And Mormons don’t do everything the prophet says. I don’t see any reason to assume that the Church would have undue influence on a Mormon legislator, especially one whose constituents were largely not members of the Church.

There are two main differences between Catholic and Mormon politicians. First, “everybody knows” that American Catholic laypeople generally don’t pay much attention to certain teachings of the RCC. That’s less clear, at least in terms of being conventional wisdom, in the case of Mormons. Second, because the LDS Church has a mostly lay priesthood, Mormon politicians are often rather more like clergymen running for office than like ordinary members of a church. If a Catholic priest, for example, were to run for President, I don’t think it would be bigoted to ask him what influence the RCC would have on his policies. So I don’t think it’s bigoted to ask a Mormon Bishop or Stake President, for example, what influence the LDS Church would have on his policies either.

Do you think the Mormon’s have more influence than other affinity groups on thinking of its ‘adherence’?

I don’t think so. I think corporations (big business) have more influence on the political process than any other interest group. That’s no different for Mormon politicians.

That is to say, you (or anyone else) may believe, just by knowing my religion, what I believe. But you’d be wrong. And that’s what is insidious about the implication that Mormons (or Muslims or anyone else) are unfit to be fair judges or jurors by virtue of their religion.

And kuri, while voters should definitely decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to vote for a Mormon candidate, I would hope they’d use the same case-by-case criteria for candidates who were not Mormons. And frankly, I don’t see why centralized authority suggests that Mormons like sheep would follow: Catholic politicians aren’t uniformly anti-abortion and anti-war. And Mormons don’t do everything the prophet says. I don’t see any reason to assume that the Church would have undue influence on a Mormon legislator, especially one whose constituents were largely not members of the Church.

how is a mormon politician now supposed to answer questions about Prop 8?

I think Senator Reid answered that question well recently.