Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Political Wire)   Not news: Romney gets 78% of Mormon vote. Fark: GWB got 80%   (politicalwire.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, Mormons, Pew Research, GWB, Political Wire, Cook Political Report, George W. Bush  
•       •       •

1519 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Nov 2012 at 3:08 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



85 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2012-11-09 06:33:02 PM  

Delawheredad: Simple answer, Mormons are a lot dumber than most religious folks and can't inquire about their faith's origins in any meaningful way because its creator was a self serving, barely literate con man.


I think you're being harsh, but what you're saying is essentially true. For anyone interested, this is a good read:
 
2012-11-09 06:34:25 PM  
 
2012-11-09 06:40:27 PM  

COMALite J: This post of mine in an earlier thread may explain why many Mormons didn′t vote for him. If my speculation therein is true, if Romney had been elected and then the speculated truth came out, it would′ve been absolutely devastating for Mormonism.


Fascinating reading. Thanks for linking back to that. Very interesting stuff.
 
2012-11-09 06:40:52 PM  

Delawheredad: There are intellectuals in ALL of the major faiths save Mormonism. Joseph Smith was a barely literate con man pure and simple.

Yes I realize that being religious, to some people, means turning off your brain but where is the Mormon Thomas Aquinas, Spinoza, Buddha, Lao Tzu, or Martin Luther King, Jr.?


There have been quite a few Mormons of high intellectual achievement ― perhaps not on the level of those you mentioned, but even those only come around once every few centuries or so, and Mormonism just hasn′t been around that long.

Delawheredad: Not to mention when Romney talked about how much he revered the Bible. Practicing Mormons dismiss the idea that the Bible is divinely inspired because to them the book of Mormon alone is the only divinely inspired holy book. Of course Joseph Smith just happened to write in the same style as the King James Version of the Bible and filled the book with archeological impossibilities, The ethnographically impossible and anachronistic technology.. Yet NONE of those facts prevent the Morons from believing in it.


Where do you get this stuff!? Read the Eighth Article of Faith for yourself! The LDS hold the Holy Bible to be the divinely inspired Word of God. They believe that the Bible as it has come down to us has some problems in translation and transmission (most any real Bible scholar would absolutely agree with that statement [though likely differ on the particulars]), but that the Bible is indeed the Word of God.

The main LDS denomination prefers the KJV. The KJV as published by the LDS has absolutely no differences in the main text (not even punctuation) from the KJV published by other mainstream Bible publishers (based on the 1787 revision of the KJV). The LDS edition does include its own set of Bible study guide materials, etc., but the actual scriptural text is verbatim identical.
 
2012-11-09 06:48:08 PM  
this factoid actually surprised me
 
2012-11-09 07:15:44 PM  

Aldon: this factoid actually surprised me


Didn't surprise me. I've been hearing about many Mormons not liking Romney for a few months. My understanding is that many Mormons (like many Catholics) don't like Romney's policies towards the poor and less fortunate.
 
2012-11-09 07:19:51 PM  

fqhollis: Romney is not only a Bishop in the LDS church, he's also a Stake President, which is more powerful. The offices and priesthoods of the LDS church are quite a bit different than those of the Catholic church. The way I read it, an LDS Bishop is kind of like a local priest, while a Stake President is more like the head of a Catholic Diocese...i.e., *that's* more like a Catholic Bishop.

Mitt is (I think) officially a High Priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood, a Bishop, and a Stake President in the LDS church.

I wonder if the LDS church will go back to being a "cult" in the eyes of evangelical Christians.


It always was and always will be. Franklin Graham sold out evangelicals for who knows how much money and influence in a future Romney presidency. Now, those evangelicals who were ready to say 'we cool' before the election but are going to go back to 'they're a cult' after wards can piss off.
 
2012-11-09 07:24:21 PM  
Massachusetts
Michigan
Mormons
Chris Christie
American electorate

It seems the more a group or person knows about Mitt, the more likely they are to not like him. It's kinda tragic and I'd feel bad for him, but I just don't like him.
 
2012-11-09 07:46:30 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: fqhollis: Romney is not only a Bishop in the LDS church, he's also a Stake President, which is more powerful. The offices and priesthoods of the LDS church are quite a bit different than those of the Catholic church. The way I read it, an LDS Bishop is kind of like a local priest, while a Stake President is more like the head of a Catholic Diocese...i.e., *that's* more like a Catholic Bishop.

Mitt is (I think) officially a High Priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood, a Bishop, and a Stake President in the LDS church.

I wonder if the LDS church will go back to being a "cult" in the eyes of evangelical Christians.

It always was and always will be. Franklin Graham sold out evangelicals for who knows how much money and influence in a future Romney presidency. Now, those evangelicals who were ready to say 'we cool' before the election but are going to go back to 'they're a cult' after wards can piss off.


See Jesus forgot to tell us all a bunch of stuff. So he visited Native Americans and gave them an Egyptian tablet that a preacher translated by using magical spectacles and looking into a hat. This translation became the The Book of Mormon. Amazingly, the tablet confirmed what the preacher had been saying before he "found and translated" it.
 
2012-11-09 08:31:22 PM  
CoMALite J

The Mormons I have interacted with all put the Book of Mormon on a much higher pedestal than the Bible. While Mormons believe that it is divinely inspired to some degree it will always remain a distant third to the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price.. A perfect example is how Christians and Jews view the issue of Biblical prophets. BOTH faiths teach that a prophet MUST have an accuracy of 100% otherwise he is a fraud. Christians and Jews have several recognized prophets amongst their faiths with some Jews ascribing the title prophet to Jesus of Nazareth for his accurate prediction that the temple would be destroyed just when he said it would. Mormons believe that there were NO true prophets until Joseph Smith turned up in upstate New York. They also believe that The Father The Sun and the Holy Spirit are three separate beings!. While the Trinity can be inferred from Scripture theologically speaking Jews Christians and Moslems are monotheists. .

In short, Mormon reverence for the Scriptures is at odds with that of both Judaism and mainstream Christianity. Their concept of divinity is at odds with the three monotheistic faiths.

This is the stuff that Mitt Romney never talked about and is among the MANY reasons why he lost the election.

JFK boldly told the American people that his Catholicism would not interfere with his governing.
Richard Nixon was a Quaker ... AND a war monger!

However, both men surrounded themselves with folks of all faiths.

Romney aped Kennedy's speech yet surrounded himself with Mormons and essentially told the powers that be in Salt Lake City that his presidency would be a "Mormon presidency."

This duplicity, which is unfortunately a common trait amongst Mormons is among the MANY reasons why Mitt Romney lost the election.
 
2012-11-09 08:39:04 PM  
He made Mormons mad by acting like he was ashamed of them and calling himself a 'Pastor' in the debate. It was an obvious ploy to make him seem like a 'normal' Christian, and not a crazy underwear wearing Bishop.
 
2012-11-09 08:55:13 PM  

nmemkha: See Jesus forgot to tell us all a bunch of stuff. So he visited Native Americans and gave them an Egyptian tablet that a preacher translated by using magical spectacles and looking into a hat.


My favorite description of the Book of Mormon is "Bible Fanfiction".
 
2012-11-09 09:16:13 PM  
Eliminate the phrase :"It came to pass" from the book of Mormon and it turns into a pamphlet! Seriously it is the most boring "Holy" book ever written. Say what you will about books like the Bible and the Koran and the Bahagavad Gita even the most hardened atheist would have to agree that at least parts of all of then possess, at the very least, stirring or moving prose. Outside of the parts lifted by Joseph Smith from the King James Bible. there is nothing as moving as the psalms or the sermon on the mount in the entirety of the Book of Mormon.
 
2012-11-09 09:23:42 PM  

cashman: "Pew Research finds that Mitt Romney won 78% of the Mormon vote in the 2102 presidential election."

2102? I thought we'd finally be rid of Romney, but it appears that he's going to be running for President for at least another century! Goddamnit! He's the next Pat Paulsen!


The next Harold Stassen.
(Go ahead. Google him.)
 
2012-11-09 09:29:36 PM  
This will only convince the conspiracy theorist even further...
 
2012-11-09 09:43:05 PM  
I Nephii, 18 [25] And it came to pass that we did find upon the land of promise, as we journeyed in the wilderness, that there were beasts in the forests of every kind, both the cow and the ox, and the ass and the horse, and the goat and the wild goat, and all manner of wild animals, which were for the use of men. And we did find all manner of ore, both of gold, and of silver, and of copper.

Yes that makes sense old world animals the cow the ox, the ass, the goat, and the wild goat living in America thousands of years before Columbus Not to mention silk and seven day calendars neither of which existed in any form in the New World before the Columbian exchange.

As to the gold, silver and copper, Joseph Smith found those alright in the form of donations by his incredibly gullible followers.

No wonder there are no Mormon intellectuals they can't debate the book of Mormon on the merits of every other sacred scripture. It claims to be an accurate recording of life in America thousands of years ago yet it gets EVERYTHING COMPLETELY WRONG.

On the other hand, even the Bible's harshest critics have to concede that at least certain parts of it ARE accurate history.

To be a Mormon means being willfully more ignorant than just about any other religious folks. Mitt Romney is one of the smarter Mormons yet he is a disassembling, lying MORON! He actually deluded himself into thinking he had a chance and was stunned when he lost.
This should not surprise as his world view is more fictional than even the most deluded politician. But then again the entire Mormon world view is an illusion so that should not be surprising..
 
2012-11-09 09:56:31 PM  

Delawheredad: Eliminate the phrase :"It came to pass" from the book of Mormon and it turns into a pamphlet!


If you're going to crib from Mark Twain, at least admit to it.
 
2012-11-09 10:00:09 PM  

Forty-Two: Delawheredad: Eliminate the phrase :"It came to pass" from the book of Mormon and it turns into a pamphlet!

If you're going to crib from Mark Twain, at least admit to it.


Snap.
 
2012-11-09 10:10:17 PM  
I plead guilty to stealing from Twain. I thought that that was fairly common knowledge however.

For the record "It came to pass" appears over 1100 times in the Book of Mormon! So amongst his many crimes, Joseph Smith also had an extremely limited vocabulary. Not surprising as he was a barely educated bumpkin treasure hunter. On the other hand imagine what the Book of Mormon would read like if Mark Twain had written it instead?
 
2012-11-09 10:58:19 PM  

orclover: I had assumed that somewhere during the election some grand mormon pubah would make a declaration that all mormons vote for "the mormon candidate". It never farking happened, hell it didn't even sound like anything like it would begin to happen. Really caught me off guard. Also the smartest thing they could do as a religion. Go for the high ground and stick to message, not politics.


It hasn't occurred to you that doing something like that would be incredibly stupid and unhelpful for both the church and Romney? It would make them look like even more of a cult, and it would make Romney look even creepier, if that's possible.
 
2012-11-09 11:06:32 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: cashman: "Pew Research finds that Mitt Romney won 78% of the Mormon vote in the 2102 presidential election."

2102? I thought we'd finally be rid of Romney, but it appears that he's going to be running for President for at least another century! Goddamnit! He's the next Pat Paulsen!

2102 doesn't have a presidential election. Firstly, that's a midterm year, and secondly, the world will have been consumed in nuclear fire by then and cockroaches can't vote.


1) When China merges with the United States, the election schedule will be reset, so 2102 is indeed an election year.

2) Universal Cockroach Suffrage will be the main subject of the 37th Amendment, although it will also touch on the legal status of sexbots. Sadly, it will be determined that they still only count as 3/5 of a person.
 
2012-11-09 11:12:40 PM  

Delawheredad: Yes that makes sense old world animals the cow the ox, the ass, the goat, and the wild goat living in America thousands of years before Columbus Not to mention silk and seven day calendars neither of which existed in any form in the New World before the Columbian exchange.


yah sothe corn mentioned in the straight bible? wtf?
 
2012-11-09 11:35:20 PM  
Utah Dude

Wrong! In the Bible the word "corn" means "grain". Corn was the common word for grains until the 18th century when it was attached to what had been called, up to that point, maize. Shakespeare uses the word corn as well he means it in the same sense as it used in the Kings James Bible. This is hardly surprising as the works of the Bard and the translation known as the Kings James Bible date from the same time period.

There is NOTHING of actual certifiable history about the New World in the Book of Mormon yet it is supposed to be an accurate account of the Israelites in America. Except of course that the Israelites NEVER voyaged to America! Native Americans are not and never were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. How could God's true prophet be so totally and COMPLETELY wrong in EVERY claim about the New World?

Yet Mormons stay convinced that Joseph Smith was God's man instead of what he really was, a barely literate con man..
 
2012-11-10 12:27:54 AM  

Delawheredad: On the other hand, even the Bible's harshest critics have to concede that at least certain parts of it ARE accurate history.


I question this, in the religious studies classes I took in HS and at Cal I was told that the Bible reflected events that occurred but not very accurately.It's like, that person existed, or that war happened, but that was about as far as the Bible's accuracy went.
 
2012-11-10 01:12:43 AM  
Uchiha-Cycliste

The degree of accuracy is open to question often dependent upon the interpreter. Some of the captivity accounts especially the Babylonian are fairly accurate. The list of booty claimed by Babylonian records nicely corresponds to what the Old Testament lists as what was in the temple for example.. The Egyptian captivity on the other hand has NEVER been demonstrated to have any historical accuracy. In any event the Bible is far more accurate than the Book of Mormon which gets NOT ONE historical fact correct. .
 
2012-11-10 01:44:39 AM  
"Dumb, dumb, dumb"
 
2012-11-10 01:54:17 AM  

Delawheredad: I plead guilty to stealing from Twain. I thought that that was fairly common knowledge however.

For the record "It came to pass" appears over 1100 times in the Book of Mormon! So amongst his many crimes, Joseph Smith also had an extremely limited vocabulary. Not surprising as he was a barely educated bumpkin treasure hunter. On the other hand imagine what the Book of Mormon would read like if Mark Twain had written it instead?


It's not literacy, it's inspiration. Many holy people have been uneducated, but they had a spark of the divine to them, things they said had Truth behind them. Wisdom is separated from Intellect/Education. Joe Smith and Bring Em Young did not have Truth behind them, who knows if they even bought what they were selling to the gullible women and covetous men who followed them. It was snake oil salesman bullshiat.

The Roman Catholic Church encouraged the bullshiat by being bullshiat artists themselves, though :( A church that corrupt forces people to look for something, anything, that is its direct opposite (in appearance, at least).
 
2012-11-10 05:01:30 AM  

Delawheredad: Uchiha-Cycliste

The degree of accuracy is open to question often dependent upon the interpreter. Some of the captivity accounts especially the Babylonian are fairly accurate. The list of booty claimed by Babylonian records nicely corresponds to what the Old Testament lists as what was in the temple for example.. The Egyptian captivity on the other hand has NEVER been demonstrated to have any historical accuracy. In any event the Bible is far more accurate than the Book of Mormon which gets NOT ONE historical fact correct. .


If what you say is true, then that is pretty neat, and I learned something new today.
 
2012-11-10 07:04:53 AM  

abb3w: ...though the difference in level is below threshold of statistical significance.


Two percentage points difference is small, but you gotta remember that the margin of error shrinks as you diverge from a 50% proportion. If there were 1,716 Mormons in the 2004 poll and 1,600 in the 2012 poll, the difference between the two would actually be statistically signfiicant with an alpha of 0.05. It's pretty damn unlikely that there were that many Mormons surveyed in either poll (we don't even know how many people total were in either survey), but the difference between the two is large enough that it probably could have happened by chance less than 25% of the time.
 
2012-11-10 08:48:54 AM  

Delawheredad: Utah Dude

Wrong! In the Bible the word "corn" means "grain". Corn was the common word for grains until the 18th century when it was attached to what had been called, up to that point, maize. Shakespeare uses the word corn as well he means it in the same sense as it used in the Kings James Bible. This is hardly surprising as the works of the Bard and the translation known as the Kings James Bible date from the same time period.

There is NOTHING of actual certifiable history about the New World in the Book of Mormon yet it is supposed to be an accurate account of the Israelites in America. Except of course that the Israelites NEVER voyaged to America! Native Americans are not and never were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. How could God's true prophet be so totally and COMPLETELY wrong in EVERY claim about the New World?

Yet Mormons stay convinced that Joseph Smith was God's man instead of what he really was, a barely literate con man..


Despite all types of effort, that statement is incredibly hard to prove. Especially if you move to the limited colonization worldview. Population genetics is fun that way.
 
2012-11-10 09:05:52 AM  

Kinek: Delawheredad: Utah Dude

Wrong! In the Bible the word "corn" means "grain". Corn was the common word for grains until the 18th century when it was attached to what had been called, up to that point, maize. Shakespeare uses the word corn as well he means it in the same sense as it used in the Kings James Bible. This is hardly surprising as the works of the Bard and the translation known as the Kings James Bible date from the same time period.

There is NOTHING of actual certifiable history about the New World in the Book of Mormon yet it is supposed to be an accurate account of the Israelites in America. Except of course that the Israelites NEVER voyaged to America! Native Americans are not and never were descendants of the Lost Tribes of Israel. How could God's true prophet be so totally and COMPLETELY wrong in EVERY claim about the New World?

Yet Mormons stay convinced that Joseph Smith was God's man instead of what he really was, a barely literate con man..

Despite all types of effort, that statement is incredibly hard to prove. Especially if you move to the limited colonization worldview. Population genetics is fun that way.


Let me expand the thought a little.

Let's assume that the limited colonization effect theory behind the BoM is true. This theory is essentially that there were other people living around the area of the narrative of the BoM in the same way that there were people around the same area as the biblical narrative that don't get mentioned because they are not important to the story.

In order to prove either way, you need two big things.
A)Haplotype of the founders
B)Haplotype of Descendents

Now you'd think that finding the haplotypes of the founders (Namely the haplotypes of the fifteen odd people who supposedly came over onto the ship.) would be easy. You'd be wrong. The diaspora, Holocaust, and general mixing of the group over 2600 years makes finding what an 'Israelite' haplotype is incredibly difficult. We can't extrapolate backwards very well. Finding a founder effect for fifteen people, especially if they intermarry into the native population over time is not going to give you much success.

Finding the haplotype of the descendents is even harder. Where do you start? There's no named geography in the Book of Mormon. Two popular theories (and definitely just speculation.) are that either it was MesoAmerica, or the Great plains, around the later city of Nauvoo. The problem here is that between the Spanish, disease, and migratory movement, proving anything genetic in the noise, especially since we've already got noise on the front end, becomes difficult.

I assume that you're referring to the Murphy paper in this discussion.

Tl;dr Genetics disproves the global american colonization, but due the fact that a farkton of indians died, and jewish haplotype at founding is hard to establish, genetics has little to say on this issue.

Not that the BoM is right, just saying that I'd rather not see genetics wielded so ungainfully.
 
2012-11-10 10:22:54 AM  
george was a better mormon???
 
2012-11-10 12:47:40 PM  

Serious Black: Two percentage points difference is small, but you gotta remember that the margin of error shrinks as you diverge from a 50% proportion. If there were 1,716 Mormons in the 2004 poll and 1,600 in the 2012 poll, the difference between the two would actually be statistically signfiicant with an alpha of 0.05. It's pretty damn unlikely that there were that many Mormons surveyed in either poll (we don't even know how many people total were in either survey), but the difference between the two is large enough that it probably could have happened by chance less than 25% of the time.


Pew is actually quite open about their results... and the roots. The fine print indicates the Pew results for 2004 were based on the National Election Pool exit polls. A bit of Google-fu turns up the tidbit that according to the codebook (and to the considerable surprise of both of us) the 2004 sample had a smidge over two thousand Mormon/LDS respondents. I've no reason to expect much difference in size for the 2012 sample.

All which together implies that the result probably IS statistically significant to the 0.05 level, after all.

D'oh!
 
2012-11-11 04:56:28 AM  

abb3w: Serious Black: Two percentage points difference is small, but you gotta remember that the margin of error shrinks as you diverge from a 50% proportion. If there were 1,716 Mormons in the 2004 poll and 1,600 in the 2012 poll, the difference between the two would actually be statistically signfiicant with an alpha of 0.05. It's pretty damn unlikely that there were that many Mormons surveyed in either poll (we don't even know how many people total were in either survey), but the difference between the two is large enough that it probably could have happened by chance less than 25% of the time.

Pew is actually quite open about their results... and the roots. The fine print indicates the Pew results for 2004 were based on the National Election Pool exit polls. A bit of Google-fu turns up the tidbit that according to the codebook (and to the considerable surprise of both of us) the 2004 sample had a smidge over two thousand Mormon/LDS respondents. I've no reason to expect much difference in size for the 2012 sample.

All which together implies that the result probably IS statistically significant to the 0.05 level, after all.

D'oh!


Thanks for looking that up.

Wow. I wouldn't have expected that many Mormons to be in the survey. With that sample size, whether it was a statistically significant difference comes down to rounding errors in the actual figures given. 80% could be anywhere from 1606 to 1625 responses, and (assuming the same sample size in 2012), 78% could be anywhere from 1565 to 1585 responses. You'd need a difference of at least 37 responses to make it statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

/I'm doing way too much statistical analysis lately
 
2012-11-11 01:42:45 PM  

Serious Black: I wouldn't have expected that many Mormons to be in the survey.


Yeah. Though once you know that it's more-or-less based on aggregating standard 1000-plus person samples of each of the 50 states, it's kind of obvious they could be in the vague neighborhood... with 20/40 hindsight. (Even then, seems a bit surprisingly high.)

Serious Black: /I'm doing way too much statistical analysis lately


While I merely know enough to do some back-of-the-envelope work, and do the occasional sanity check on the results from the more knowledgeable... but spend too much time arguing politics with the help of such envelopes.
 
Displayed 35 of 85 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report