Orrin Hatch destroys Dan
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
They just happened to be "gentlemen" from different parties.
I will chime in here.
No, I don't think there are powerful people inside the LDS church who have influence over local politics.
Every statement I have heard from church leadership in regards to politics is to get people to be involved however they feel they should be, and encourage people to vote. The only time I have personally heard the church leadership encourage people to vote a certain way was on the same sex marriage issue. Let's not go there for now, that is a can of worms and dead horse all in one.
Okay, my perception may be wrong. Thanks for simply addressing the questions I asked and giving me an answer. Even in disagreement it is easy to respect you fro the way you handle yourself.
Even though it doesn't come from the leadership directly (except for prop 8) that doesn't mean there aren't powerful people in the Church influencing politics. I think there are a lot of people who vote for someone just because their Bishop (or whoever) votes for that person.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Dude, you probably shouldn't say we are going to play elementary school if you want a serious answer. Just saying.
You would not provide a serious answer regardless of what he said you were going to play.
If he says doctor just say no.
There could be. I personally have never even known which candidate(s) my bishops have supported. It just hasn't come up. Obviously this could be different for some people. Ultimately, I wouldn't consider bishops to be that "powerful" in the political scene.
The behind-the-scenes power is politics doesn't come from telling people how to vote. It's getting introduced to the right campaign donors, getting a list of volunteers from previous campaigns, easy access to signatures to get on the ballot and advice on other ballot issues, hiring the right advisors, etc. None of this is remotely illegal, but it has serious influence on campaigns, and even more so when the campaign is local.
I'm not involved in politics other than voting, but I think One Brow's got it right.
Well, I'm sure I've made a pretty nice *** out of myself in this thread (by falling into Thriller's genius trap), but yeah, that's what I was driving at.
The idea that there are no highly influential people inside the LDS church is new to me. I'm trying to digest it. The church might want to do some local PR on this since I'm pretty sure there is a strong sentiment in the local non-LDS population that the church is running the show around here. I'm guilty of buying into that sentiment.
There's no doubt about that. I've personally always thought that the Church has political power in that in this state most of the elected officials are members and thus likely follow the same ideals as the Church, regardless of there being no official statements from the Church.
Fountain of Youth?
Could you be anymore of a dick bag? You're worse than BeanClown when it comes to "defending" your church; you do SO much more harm than good. /polite golf clap.
Awww, look at little Mr. I Hate Mormons For No Other Reason Than The Tribune Told Me To coming to the aid of our resident dumb ****. That's adorable.
This is naive beyond belief. I would tell you why, but OneBlow sums it up pretty well:
You don't think that a generous donation from Jon Huntsman or any of the other prominent LDS leaders (as in, leaders of the community, including the businessmen who are in the upper echelon of the LDS church's leadership) would help defeat the guy who only raised 500 bucks from friends and family?
You got it right the first time, J.B.Y., and Prop 8 was just an example of it getting a little out of hand.
??? The very first thing in my list was "right campaign donors".
I think Trout was quoting you in a response to JazzSpazz.
Having worked for LDS Church-owned media, my impression is that there is a lot of indirect -- yet understood -- pressure to support certain candidates. Hatch and Bennett have a lot more friends amongst the ranks than their opponents did, and there is a bit of trickle-down effect. However, it's also important to note that they also had the most funds, and spent the most on advertising. KSL/Desnews was quick to offer favors to the hand that was feeding them. In 2010, articles favorable to Bennett outpaced articles favorable to Lee by approximately 4 to 1.
The Church has an influence on people, and people have an influence on politics.
It is not a direct tie, though the influence can be felt. If there are powerful people in the Church that influence politics directly, then it is the people that are influencing the politics and not the Church. Sometimes it may seem to be a blurry line, but if you think of the Church as an entity you will be able to tell the difference. A CEO of a company in the business world should still be able to pursue personal things on their own time when not acting in the name of the company. Church leaders are also people who are fully capable of doing things and supporting things on their own time while not being a voice for the Church. I'm sure the Church leaders voted on their own time and support plenty of causes not in the name of the Church.
I think this has an affect on things, but again I don't think it is the Church that is helping out with these things. It may be members of the Church with connections that do so, but not Church Leadership.
There is a difference between indirect influence and political power. All sorts of groups and organizations influence things, but only so many have actual power.
There is a difference between the two, where in one there is direct authority over, and in the other there is influence but a lack of authority, control, or command.
OneBrow had a good point about what does have a large affect on what happens in local politics, or politics in general. What you seem to be reading into, and which I deny happens is that is is the Church leadership that gives information of that sort to the candidates they want to win. I could see some members of the Church doing so to help candidates they like, but they are doing it on their own with no backing from Church leadership. Your term for me is that you think I am naive..... nice spin from our local politician. I will spin your attitude as cynical, skeptical, and pessimistic. There, we just played the word game. Triple Word Score FTW.
Interesting take. Can you give more details to flesh out why it came across this way? Was this because the managers and decision makers were pushing things on their own, or because a Church leader came by to visit and tell them to help someone out? Also those with the most funds have a distinct advantage. Is there any way to tell if was the Church backing those candidates or choices from individual decision makers in the company. As to the articles in favor of Bennett, do you know if the same thing happens to other candidates around here? Do other papers around here favor certain candidates.... or do they split all articles 50/50? I'm more curious than anything, not saying your impression is right or wrong.
Church members have gone psycho-right ever since Ezra Taft Benson effectively reversed the entire platforms of Joseph Smith & Brigham Young. I suppose that's not direct election control but his influence has been pretty damn effective in Utah politics for 50 years running.
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
When it comes to being part of your church, Snout, you do SO much more harm than good.
I don't hate Mormons. I hate two faced bullies and those who facilitate them. If I'm anything I'm a characterist, as Martin Luther King Jr. wanted us all to be.
Last edited:
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
What were those "platforms."