December 14, 2007

posted by Kaimipono D. Wenger

I'll be surprised if you allow my comment, but my main reason for not wanting a Mormon in the White House is your oath to the church to use everything you've been giving to establish Zion and build up the church. (i.e. "Law of Consecration.")

I see no way around that. Jesus said no one could serve two masters. If Mitt wants to serve the church, fine. But I don't want a conflicted man for President.

Then too, is the fact that Mitt believes Gordon B. Hinckley is God's oracle on earth. You probably believe that too. The rest of us don't, and those of us who are Christian consider GBH a false prophet. Sorry, but that's logical. If we thought he WAS a prophet, we'd be Mormon. I don't want a President who has the potential to seek guidance from Salt Lake.

Praying to God for guidance is one thing. Getting it from a man on earth who claims to represent God is, Imam like, another.

Much documentation at romneyforpresident.townhall.com which I expect you'll consider bigoted. But if you have the truth, you have nothing to fear and that blog will fall on its own.

If nothing else, funny photos!

When I was baptized, I made an oath to take the name of Christ and to follow him. I also consider our US Constitution to be an inspired document. So I don't see any conflict in taking an oath to uphold the constitution while serving the Lord.

My community service is service to my God. I expect the same is true for all Christians, and probably for other faiths too. I believe all faiths are trying to follow God to the best of their understanding. While there are some exceptions, Evangelicals are certainly not immune from hypocrisy.

Somehow, there are a lot of Evangelicals who think that God is keeping score to see which faith can win the most points. I believe that God is pleased whenever anyone is charitable and serves his fellow man.

BTW - with all the various Mormon Governors, Senators and Congressmen - can you show an actual example of the situation you fear? Could this all just be a result of fear mongering by Romney's political opponents?

Then too, is the fact that Mitt believes Gordon B. Hinckley is God's oracle on earth.

How is that particularly different from Catholics believing the Pope is God's foremost representative on earth, or believing the head of insert-protestant-sect-here is God's foremost representative on earth?

If you're only going to vote for a member of whatever your sect is on account of this, fine, but if the only candidate you're going to hold this against is the mormon, well...

More "my religion is better than yours" immaturity. This person shows that idiocy exists in all religions regardless of doctrine. He does not serve his religion well.

I should have mentioned in my comment that I was referring to mish above.

Why is there a problem with not supporting a candidate because of his or her religeous beliefs? Would you support a Scientologist running for President? A Wiccan? If Fred Thompson declared that he is now a Voodoo devotee and he sacrificed a couple of chickens and a goat on his press bus, would it be suprising if his poll numbers dipped a few points? The oddness of different belief systems is in the eye of the beholder, even potential voters.

Every time I hear someone say the Church is racist I'm reminded of the notice that appears in my ward's weekly bulletin about local Genesis group meetings and how everyone's invited to come.

Congrats on the link from Instapundit, Kaimi.

I appreciate this post. I am not mormon but I think it's obvious that Lawrence O'Donnell sorta hate religion and has a better time slamming the one that pose him no harm - aka coward.

Actually, I am a non practicing christian but Lawrence O'Donnell's hate rant caused me to question the progressive's view on tolerance.

Democrats aren't open to faith unless it's muslim.

Want to see a head explode? Ask a member of Planned Parenthood whether she or he knows WHY Margaret Sanger advocated birth control and abortion, and for whom. (She was a believer in Eugenics, and she wanted to prevent the "lesser races" from overrunning the earth.) Then ask the PP member whether the revered founder of the organization reflects her or his own views on race relations.

Protestants are so weird. They think they can directly talk to God. Ya right.

Most people know at least one mormon and have figured out that they aren't crazy wackos with wierd secret beliefs. When someone on TV or internet starts going off about all the weird things mormons purportedly beleive and do and tries to link this to Romney, the reaction is generally disbelief and sympathy for Romney who is being attached because of his religion.

They are not helping themselves when they attach Romney based on his religion, they are helping Romney. The sooner they figure that out, the sooner the debate can move on to things that are actually important.

This is all so silly. There is no god. There's a species-wide yearning for certainty and a sense of place, in service to which we've constructed mythologies, credos, and dogmas of varying utility and relevance, all of which allow us to define ourselves into groups, assure ourselves of our own merit, and claim superiority in a humble and modest way. I'm still amazed we let ANY of ya'all play with the keys to the White House.

One who was truly a believer in a god wouldn't need all of the trappings, the fables, the rituals, or the life rules which seem to define the various religions. You'd just talk to him/her/it, listen to the answers, and say "okay, thanks, God!" Can you imagine the heat your brother would get if he announced that he'd only associate with you from now on if you stopped eating dairy products on Wednesdays? Or if he started to work on you with "if you really love me, you'll stab your son in the heart"?

Some thoughts:

First, it is shameful that Romney has to endure this sort of base religious innuendo. Mr. O'Donnell does not come off as anything less than the bigot he is.
Second, there has been one publically non-practising Protestant President in the history of this nation and someone shot him.
Third, the leaders of the CLDS are not the most forthcoming and the organisation the most transparent--which helps nutters, conspiracy theorists and more...
Fourth, there is not a similar American institution of comparable political and economic weight which has attempted to participate in federal politics from a conspicous adversarial position. B. Young did try and run for President a few times and some of his views, even considering the passage of time, are interesting.
Fifth, the biggest problem with Romney is he is a boring MBA type without any demonstrable excitement. Who wears hair gel anymore? It makes him look like a used-car salesman.
Sixth, Romney is a bishop in the Mormon faith and not a lay person. He seems hesistant to divulge much about his Church which he must, if he enjoys an executive position within it. Hell, a muslim is a muslim but if you are an offical and certified Sunni Imam form Al-Zahar you should be willing or at least receive a dispensation from your religious superiors/elders to discuss your allegenices.
Seventh, the Catholic/Prod vs Pope debate was de facto decided by the Treaty of Westphalia over 300 years ago. There obviously have been historical abberations, but the general principle remains. People are attacking Romney and the CLDS b/c they are considering him for the executive office seriously.
Eighth, rest up before the Clinton campaign mentions underware or whatever unmentionalbes you heretics wear to shield the exposed bits from an uncaring God.

Some thoughts:

First, it is shameful that Romney has to endure this sort of base religious innuendo. Mr. O'Donnell does not come off as anything less than the bigot he is.
Second, there has been one publically non-practising Protestant President in the history of this nation and someone shot him.
Third, the leaders of the CLDS are not the most forthcoming and the organisation the most transparent--which helps nutters, conspiracy theorists and more...
Fourth, there is not a similar American institution of comparable political and economic weight which has attempted to participate in federal politics from a conspicous adversarial position. B. Young did try and run for President a few times and some of his views, even considering the passage of time, are interesting.
Fifth, the biggest problem with Romney is he is a boring MBA type without any demonstrable excitement. Who wears hair gel anymore? It makes him look like a used-car salesman.
Sixth, Romney is a bishop in the Mormon faith and not a lay person. He seems hesistant to divulge much about his Church which he must, if he enjoys an executive position within it. Hell, a muslim is a muslim but if you are an offical and certified Sunni Imam form Al-Zahar you should be willing or at least receive a dispensation from your religious superiors/elders to discuss your allegenices.
Seventh, the Catholic/Prod vs Pope debate was de facto decided by the Treaty of Westphalia over 300 years ago. There obviously have been historical abberations, but the general principle remains. People are attacking Romney and the CLDS b/c they are considering him for the executive office seriously.
Eighth, rest up before the Clinton campaign mentions underware or whatever unmentionalbes you heretics wear to shield the exposed bits from an uncaring God.

Thanks for the post, it clarified the relationship nicely for me.

I for one don't worry about Mitt being a Mormon first and Executive of the US second. If I fear that kind of thing, I actually fear it from Huckabee far more, since he seems pretty intent on using Christian ideology as policy, which should work about as well as when Jimmy Carter tried it.

Larry's tolerance bubbles over.

I'd love to see his vision for America. The left is filled with these sick f**ks who will tell you not to judge others, but proceed to do it themselves.

The authority isn't even divinely motivated, they believe their sense of right and wrong is inherent in their existance.

Larry shouldn't challenge scientology, he is basically one of them.

None of you consider the source. O'Donnell has been lurking in the wings for years trying to figure out how to get noticed and break out. He has tried to be to the left of Chris Matthews and when that didn't get any traction, he tried to be more conservative. Someone should find a similar misinformed rant of his on youtube about the "automatic" weapons used by the Va Tech mass murderer; how the guy was spraying the class-rooms and hallways with automatic weapons-fire by way of arguing for the importance of strengthening gun contol laws since a single handgun would do no good against such assault weapons fire power. I think it was Pat Buchannon who tried to explain that the crazed killer had used semi-automatic pistols which could spray nothing. But O'Donnel was in way too deep by this time, so couldn't back down. He went on with something like You can't tell me he wasn't using automatic... blah, blah... It was laughable, pathetic, and revealing of an unhappy personality who longs for respect and some psycho-bable like "self-esteem," a craven longing for more than the outer edge of he spot light. Both times he couldn't be satisfied by a simple intellectual condemnation. It had to be an indignant rant intent on informing us of some dire danger from something or someone he knew pretty close to nothing about.

I actually had a personal experience with him. A publicist gave a dinner for his clients wherein we were to discuss our problems getting our messages across. There were a spectrum from sad-sack to reasonably successful folks; a few were very successful like Val Zavala who moderates a great local PBS show which covers, politics and other categories of current in greater Los Angeles and a guy who had written a couple of James Bond features. And then there was O'Donnell, an actually a "known" person who actually had a TVQ; not a very high one, but still he was the only celebrity there. Before it came his time to talk, he sneered, got up and walked out. It was obvious he was chagrined that he had wasted an evening to come to have dinner and be associated with such mediocrities. None of whom were worth networking with.

As a Mormon I've had "Born Agains" tell me many times that I'm literally going to be thrown into an actual lake of fire and burn forever. That's what they're being taught right now--not something someone said 100 years ago. Just once in a while I'd like to see a few of their doctrines "exposed". Like if not believing in the trinity disqualifies you from Christianity, then what about all the Christians who lived before the trinity doctrine was implemented (after much debate and by Catholics I might add).

I've always been amazed at how casually Evangelical types can deny a person's Christianity. Even though they believe God is going to torture me forever, I would never consider questioning their Christianity. The thought of placing myself as a judge over something like that is frankly horrifying.

I believe Lawrence O'Donnell is a Democrat. The Mormon church's contribution to racism is about one millionth of the racism caused by the Democrat party. The Civil War, Jim Crow and KKK et al, were all brought to you courtesy of Democrats. Even now, a current Democrat Senator (Robert Byrd)is a former KKK member without a whimper of outrage from O'Donnell.

As an atheist, I find all this discussion all rather amusing. Personally, I don't give a fig newton about whether or not Mitt Romney is a Mormon. How is having a Mormon in office any different than having a president, like the current one, who thinks he's on a mission from god?

As I heard William Bennett say the other day, the founding fathers knew what they were doing when they said "No religious test for public office." No doubt there are more than a few evangelical Christians who wish they would have just shut up about that when they were writing the constitution, but there you go.

And people like O'Donnell would do us all a favor by just staying away from keyboards.

The reality is that, while I personally don't agree with their views, the vast majority of Christians - Mormon's included in that group - are good people, just trying to get along. They just want good leadership, and most of them don't care about the particular faith of a leader, as long as he or she does a good job.

I lived in Massachusetts when Romney was governor. He was pretty good the first couple of years. And then he decided he wanted to be president, just became obsessed with it, and his job performance plummeted. That ambition worries me a lot more than the fact that he's a Mormon.

Kaimi,

Nice summary of Scarry Larry's views, but you were too kind. In his column he says no one who has much formal education (medical doctor or graduate degree from Harvard are the two specific examples he cites) can possibly believe the LDS Church is true. Since Romney has two graduate degrees from Harvard, O'Donnell asserts that Romney cannot believe Mormon doctrine and Romney's refusal to admit this "fact" proves he's a liar of the worst sort.

By Larry's logic (an oxymoron) any Mormon who has a graduate degree is a liar. Since members of the LDS Church have more graduate degrees per-capita than just about any other religion in the country, the church must be filled with people who don't really believe the church's teachings. (I'm one of those graduate degree holding church members. I must have missed the day when they taught the top-secret-for-graduate-school-only truths about why the Mormon church is false, cause I'm a genuine believer.) Why do all these church members spend countless hours in church service (without monetary compensation)? Why do they send their children on missions (at great financial and emotional cost)? O'Donnell doesn't have an answer. He just asserts that we're all a bunch of liars.

Larry does have an answer for why Romney won't admit the obvious falsity of the LDS Church -- because it's politically expedient for Romney to remain in the church. Huh? Can anyone imagine that Romney would not have been helped by announcing in 1994 (when he ran for the Senate) that he'd joined the Catholic Church? Would he not have been better off running as a Catholic (or a member of any church other than the LDS Church) for governor in Massachusetts? Political expediency argued for Romney's leaving, not staying in, the Mormon church.

You address the racism issue quite well, but give no attention at all to item 3, whether there is really such a thing as a "moderate Mormon." Specifically, the question is whether or not every LDS member must abide strictly by all CJCLDS teachings and take direction from president and prophet Gordon B. Hinckley. That as President Mr. Romney might be taking cues from his religious director in the here and now is much more important than what LDS leaders did 150 years ago. If you are honestly interested in setting the record straight, please address this issue directly and unambiguously.

I'm pretty interested in history, especially the ancient world and Precolumbian America, and I think Dallas area commentator Mark Davis summed up nicely the problem some of us have, when we try to square up Gov Romney's faith with his supporters' claims that he's a sharp guy who "looks at the data".

Davis wrote:

"But part of Mormon belief involves an entire civilization existing in what is now America some centuries before Christ's birth and some centuries after.

This society, using a hybrid Hebrew/Egyptian tongue and employing agricultural and metallurgical technologies that objective historians simply find no evidence to support, either existed or it did not.

A voter e-mailed me a few months ago, with vast admiration for Mr. Romney on the issues, but asking: If he'll believe this, what else will he believe?"

Bingo.

This is not an issue of doctrine or theology, or whether Mormons are nice people. (They generally are, in my experience.)

It's an issue about historical facts, and how we each determine what is likely historically true and what isn't. I'd like to know how Gov Romney deals with that sort of fact, BEFORE he starts dealing with Shia-Sunni factionalism, the Iranians, the Twelth Imam, the historical roots of Latin American populism, etc.

Andy

As a born again Christian, Romney's Mormonism worries me a lot less than Hillary's crontrolling power-hunger, Obama's big government ideas, or even the born again Huckabee's foreign policy silliness.

The problem is jihadists trying to kill us and creeping big government trying to control us. Not Mormonism.

I'm am watching all this very carefully. For many years now I have thought that, in terms of politics and culture, the divide between evangelicals and mormons had been diminished. I had thought that on culteral and political issues there was a sort of partnership to work together for policies that create a stronger country in line with our common values. As it turns out we have similar values but we are not partners. If Mitt goes down because of his religion, I will become an Independent and drop my republican affiliation. For me, in a personal way, the republicans would be no better than the Democrats. No more republican votes will be cast my me. And while we are on the subject of reasonable beliefs and what religious leaders have said.....How do you account for Martin Luther's comments about killing jews and his preference of plural marriage over divorce. And I frankly find it amazing that evangelicals put so much faith in the likes of Richard Roberts, Robert Tilton, Kenneth Copeland etc...talk about fake....talk about personal enrichment in the name of christ. please. I will take gordon b hinkley over those folks anyday.

Andy,

Davis could have wrote, or should have wrote:
But part of Christian belief involves an the entire world being created in seven days, the entire world being flooded, the parting of the Red Sea, the sun and moon standing still, Lot’s wife turning to salt, etc. ...If Christians believe this, what else will they believe?

I don't know why critics limit themselves to the Book of Mormon when looking for "crazy" beliefs. Mormon's believe that there was a great flood and Noah built an ark. They believe that Moses parted the Red Sea and Jesus healed the blind and raised the dead. And they even believe in a LITERAL resurrection - and not just Jesus Christ. Mind boggling, isn't it.

In case you have never noticed, ALL religions have odd beliefs from the perspective of non-believers. That is the nature of religion. (And even science has a track record of believing in theories that in hindsight look just as silly.)

Historical "FACTS" are not nearly as reliable as you might think. History is published by those in power, so it is only from a limited perspective - and each book tells a different version. (This is even true in the 4 Gospels). Even considering all the history books that have been written, there is a billion times more that has been unrecorded.

If you are really interested in understanding this issue, then here is a link.

Dear Perfect Sense -

The Creation, Noah's Flood, and the Sodom and Gommorah story can all be considered allegorical.

On the other hand, a vast civilization in North America with its origins in the Middle East of circa 800 BC would have left traces of pottery, iron and bronze artifacts, and stone and masonry work that we just don't find.

By way of example, if you asked me "Did Noahs' Flood wipe out the entire human race?" I'd say no. If you asked me "Were Israel and Judah real nations?",OTOH, I'd say yes,without a doubt.

Andy

AS a former mormon, I think it's just dumb for people to attack LDS members over racist ideas that were publicly repudiated by the church back in the 70s. I'm far more concerned with the heavy sexism and tolerance for sexual abuse of minors that goes on in the church today. Check out http://exmormon.org/ if you want a set of examples, several of which track exactly why I left when I was a teen.

Church doctrine teaches that I can't get into the celestial kingdom unless my husband allows me to enter. If he doesn't make the cut, neither do I. The last time I actually held a discussion with the missionaries that stopped by my apartment to tell me that god was calling me to return to the church, they asked why I had lost my faith. I told them I didn't agree with the church's doctrine on equality between the sexes. They responded, in utter seriousness, "Oh, that's not true. Women are absolutely equal in the church. If women weren't home taking care of the kids, men wouldn't be able to get anything done!"

There you have it. And if journalists are going to attack the LDS based on the JD (which I hadn't even heard of until a decade after I'd left the church) there are far more interesting things to point out - like the fact that in the JD, Brigham Young preached that Adam was god, and the only god that we need to worship. This follows with the belief that those LDS members that manage to get into the celestial kingdom will 'become as gods' and be able to set up their own worlds to rule over.

So yes, LDS members are different from 'regular christians'. But they aren't particularly racist, although I would definitely call them particularly sexist.

Dear Andy Frechtling -
Did Christ bring Lazarus back from the dead? What evidence do you have of that? Or perhaps you consider one of the pillars of Christian Faith - Christ's own resurrection - allegorical? accounts?

Dear Andy Frechtling -
Did Christ bring Lazarus back from the dead? What evidence do you have of that? Or perhaps you consider one of the pillars of Christian Faith - Christ's own resurrection - allegorical?

Dear bobby,

"This is all so silly. There is no god."

All I can say is, "Bobby, are YOU in for a shock after you die."

As for O'Donnell's odious comments, he's artfully managed to paint himself (and a lot of his other pals) into a corner. Shucks, if he can openly say this kind of stuff about Mormons, then he'll also have to answer some uncomfortable questions about supporting Muslim candidates (especially those running for President) who happen to be Democrats.

"Hey Larry! Given what you've said about Mormons, could you in good conscience support ANY Muslim running for office? After all, you'd then have to condone sharia, jizya, killing apostates, and the hijab. Oh, and did you know that Saudi Arabia, the cradle of Islam, didn't officially ban slavery until 19--yeah, that's right--1963?"

"As ye sow, so shall ye reap."

Haven't finished reading the post or the comments, so don't know if this was addresssed. But, here goes. The Lincoln quote is a red herring. Sure he said it but three are a lot of things you have to understand and none of them rdevolve around Lincoln or his being a 19th Century man. It was a line from the Lincoln-Douglass debates, specifically from when they were in Southern Illinois, where slavery sympathisers were thick on the ground. Lincoln added the line at the urging of party members who were sure that's what he needed to say to win votes down there. He hated doing and in fact immediately removed that line of exposition fo rthe rest of the campaign. A look at the rest of his written and spoken records show he did not believe this one bit. Everything else he ever said public refuted the words he spoke at that debate. And Frederick Douglass in fact said of Lincoln that he was the first white man he had ever met who never once made him conscious of the racial differnce between them.

I was raised as a Catholic. In 1881, Pope Leo, having pondered the question for a while, decreed that slavery is a sin. Scratch any religion and you will find all the flaws of humanity. I am not versed in Mormon beliefs, but what I do know sounds kind of outlandish. That said, I must observe that the Mormons I have known (5) were all good, decent people. It speaks well for the efficacy of Mormon beliefs that such beliefs can produce so many honorable people. Also it is useful to observe that the observations of Marx and Freud are as unscientific as anything in the Book of Mormon. And millions of people have died to bring about the Marxist millenium. And these murders were abetted by liberals such as O'Donnell who hold that all evil is begat by white men seeking money.

Milton Stanley- if you are worried about Mormn politocians taking directorders from GordonB. Hinkleyand the Church heirarchy in Salt lake City, ho w do you explain the political positions of say, Sen Harry Reid(D-NV)? heis the Senate majority leader,and noone will mistake him for a conservative or a hawk. Whatabout Sen Gordon Smith (R0OR), who has not voted with the rest of the Senate republicans.
Milton, looks like both Senators did not get t ha tsuper secret memo about them having to follow GBH's orders all the time!!

Milton Stanley- if you are worried about Mormn politicians taking direct orders from Gordon B. Hinkley and the Church hierarchy in Salt Lake City, how do you explain the political positions of say, Sen Harry Reid(D-NV)? He is the Senate Majority leader,and no one will mistake him for a conservative or a hawk. What about Sen Gordon Smith (R-OR), who has not voted with the rest of the Senate Republicans either.
Milton, looks like both Senators did not get that super secret memo tellin them, that as devout Mormons, they have to follow GBH's orders all the time!!

O'Donnell's claimed that by saying "My faith is the faith of my fathers", Romney has to accept every word of his fathers, and by extension his ancestors. Of course that's a disingenuous interpretation. As are most of O'Donnell's writings.

For those of you worried about Romney's gullibility -- How can he believe ahistorical nonsense like there being an ancient Jewish civilization in the Americas? -- allow me to suggest a different test for gauging his gullibility: Look to how Romney's made decisions in his non-religious life. Romney, the business man, was known for being hard headed about facts and for finding practical, workable, solutions to problems. He used these traits to build a large and successful consulting business. No one thought of him as gullible. These same traits showed up in Romney's public life. As governor, he was known has a tough negotiator with the Democrat controlled legislature. In running the Salt Lake City Olympics, he was able to get diverse groups to work together and to hold people to meeting schedules and budgets. Again, no one considered him an easy mark. So for whatever reason, Romney is able to hold what are (to you) strange and clearly, demonstrably false religious beliefs without those beliefs interfering with his ability to be rational in his non-business affairs.

Contrast this with Huckabee. Huckabee holds religious beliefs that most people find more believable than the beliefs Romney holds. Does that make Huckabee less gullible than Romney in his non-religious life? The record does not seem to support this view. Huckabee claims that his faith informs his non-religious behavior. There's evidence of this in the way he dealt with pardons and commutations. Huckabee has a record of commuting the sentences of people who found god while in prison. In his religious life, he believes in being born again. This belief seems to have been manifested in his willingness to grant prisoners freedom based on the word of the prisoners' pastor. Unlike Romney, Huckabee was known as an easy mark. (FYI, I, too, believe people can be born again. I just think that's a spiritual concept that shouldn't have too much affect on when someone gets out of jail.) Or, take Huckabee's advocacy of tuition breaks and scholarships for illegal aliens. Whether this policy choice ties to Huckabee's religious beliefs (I think it does) or not does not matter. He's demonstrated he's easily gulled when presented with a hard case of someone down on their luck. Time and again, on a multitude of topics and issues, Huckabee has demonstrated anything but the hard headed rationality Romney is known for.

Andy,

"The Creation, Noah's Flood, and the Sodom and Gommorah story can all be considered allegorical. "

Maybe; however, there are Christians throughout the world including many Evangelicals for whom Bible inerrancy is a pillar of their belief structure. That category includes a good proportion of this nation's prior Presidents and lawmakers as well. Generally I laugh at how naive these ignorant debates (ignorant in the traditional “unknowing” sense) are. Think about it, fact based arguments can’t and never will trump Faith.

All Christianity is Faith based (NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1 KJV). I argue that those who seek earthly (temporal) confirmation to their Faith are missing the point. Faith is about placing our trust in a higher power like God and His Son, Jesus Christ it is not about winning debating points.

Faith is mentioned some 600 times in the scriptures, so it’s an important concept. But let me ask you this, if we found irrefutable proof of the Bible, Book of Mormon, Torah, or whatever, what place would Faith then have in religion?

Understand, Andy, I’m an Engineer; thus, by nature and training an empiricist. A fact based guy you might say. So I think I can arguably claim to be, “a sharp guy who "looks at the data"”.

But I’m also a card carrying Mormon. So by your argument my judgment must be faulty and untrustworthy. Thus, all those Smart weapons I’ve helped design and build over the years must be worthless. And given your implication that Mormons by definition have a systemic problem dealing with facts and analyzing them should Milliken lose his Nobel Prize because his grad student who performed his famous oil drop experiments was a Mormon? How can you trust the data generated by someone that devoutly believes the truthfulness of a book that depicts a society that you claim, “that objective historians simply find no evidence to support...”?

Yeah, and medical science is pretty unanimous that a body laid in state for three days is not going to walk and talk. But Faith in that fantastical notion, that mankind can defeat death, is the cornerstone of Christianity and has carried it through the last two millennium

Andy, here’s a suggestion. Instead of focusing on the trivial minutia why don’t you try looking at what the Book of Mormon teaches? It is not the particulars about the Nephites and Lamanites that are important, but the lessons we learn from the Lord’s dealings with them. If you understand what the Book of Mormon teaches you understand more about who Mitt Romney (or any devout Mormon for that matter) is and what they stand for.

Here’s a fact, we Mormons are all around you making sound, fact biased decisions every day, that don’t result any of a whole host of disasters*. Romney should rise or fall on the merit of his record, not Davis’ hyper-paranoid extrapolation theory. (And yes, I live in the Dallas area, a Texas native in fact.)

I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon and find any teaching that would disqualify Romney (or any Mormon) from being President. And I say that knowing you haven’t read it, otherwise you wouldn’t have made the crack about “Shia-Sunni factionalism.” The Book of Mormon is a story of just that sort of conflict.

Take care, and Merry Christmas!
Al

*I exempt Sen. Harry Reid from this category. His poor judgment is a result of his politics and has nothing to do with his belief in the Book of Mormon.

You know, I have no sympathies with the LDS faith. But I wouldn't mind voting for a conservative LDS at all. They are conservative and self controlled and for and against roughly the same social and fiscal things that I am.
My problem is that Mitt isn't that. When are people going to realize that Massachusetts and NY City *don't* elect conservative republicans?
Most of the RINOs in the running have only "come to Jesus" on conservatism after they realized that they wanted to get votes more than make democrats say nice things about them before sticking the knife in.

Why can I visualize mish sitting around in a bar chanting "No Pope! No Pope! No Pope!"

By his logic, he can never vote for a Catholic, either. Welcome to the 1960 election...

Jesus said no one could serve two masters

Jesus also said: Render unto Caesar what is Caesar, and unto God what is God's.

patrick

Celeste, you said: "Church doctrine teaches that I can't get into the celestial kingdom unless my husband allows me to enter."

That's SO far from true that it calls into question your assertion that you used to be a member. If you were, you (or perhaps a jerk of a husband) obviously interpreted the actual teachings of the Mormon Church **radically** differently than it is taught and believed by 99% of its leaders and members.

This is the biggest problem I have with these discussions. There is SO much potential for understanding and cooperation, but it *always* devolves into hyper-rhetoric and mis-statement by those who just can't drop the ax.

This thread is about a man who showed his absolute ignorance and bigotry as clearly as it is possible to do verbally. It ends including screeds about why he actually is justified in his rant. That's sad.

Robert Heinlein wrote that "One man's religion is another man's belly laugh". As a once apon a time Mormon temple reccomend holder (the litmus test for a "good Mormon)and a current doubter, I can certainly attest that many Mormon beliefs (even currenty stressed beliefs) lie outside the Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox belief system. After all if Christ and God the Father are separate beings--doesn't that automatically make you a polytheist?

The point is that the behavioural truth about the Mormon church is that Mormonism is straight down the middle of American religious tradition. Go to a Mormon Sunday service, you'll be welcome. You'll hear the exact same things you would hear in any "mainstream" religion. Don't sin. Give offerings to the poor and the church. Have charity. Do good works. Support your community. Love your neighbor. The oddest thing you will find is the number of crying babies and that 12 year olds give mini sermons to teach them how to speak in public. You'll even know some of the hymns.

As for the omininously "secret" temple ceremony (you can easily find the text on the web), You will find some doctrinally odd things there, but believe me the biggest problem in Mormon temple worshipers is staying awake, not restraining themselves from driving out the unbelievers.

There are lots of reasons not vote for Mitt Romney, I don't favor him myself. (I don't like the flip on abortion rights and gun control.) But don't oppose him just because he is a Mormon. (Unless, of course, you just can't stand Mormons.)

Making judgments is not bigotry. Somehow that's gotten lost in our PC world.

Saying, "I'm not going to vote for Mr. X because he believes in things I think are idiotic," is not bigotry, it's judgment. One may be right or wrong, but fill in some of the "things" in and see if you think it's bigotry: evolution, creation, alien abduction, Scientology, a fetus isn't human, a clump of two cells is human, etc...

I, personally, am not deciding whether or not to vote for Mr. Romney based on his faith, but I don't think it's bigotry if others do.

I would never vote for a Scientologist, does that make me a bigot? What's the difference?

mrsizer, The best definition of bigotry I have ever heard is judging someone on the basis of assumptions that are accepted without sincere effort to understand that someone. When these assumptions are incorrect, this bigotry is magnified. Someone who decides not to vote for Romney or Huckabee or Clinton or Obama or anyone else based on how they believe that person's religious convictions will affect their presidency is not being a bigot; those who make that decision based on assumptions without actual evidence are being bigots.

In the case of Romney, there is absolutely no evidence to support a fear that the Mormon Church will try to control Romney in any way. Frankly, there is clear evidence that Huckabee's religious convictions, on the other hand, will influence his decisions - since they have in the past. He spoke at a convention that was focused on "converting Mormons;" he accepted the statement of repentance from a serial rapist and used that acceptance to influence his release from prison - after which he raped and murdered someone else.

I am Mormon, but I don't know yet if I will vote for Romney. I'm leaning toward him as the lesser evil of electable options, since I am socially liberal and don't like his more conservative switch in this election. (I LOVE his business experience and management experience, so I probably will end up voting for him or Giuliani.) I will not vote for Huckabee even if he ends up opposed by Clinton in the general election - not because of any ignorant bigotry, but because of what he actually has done in his previous position as governor.

The real issue is the actual doctrine of the LDS church. There have been many stories and opinions but what is the doctrine of the church. We don't know it and don't teach it. Until now. Darius Gray and Marvin Perkins have put out a DVD that details all of the scriptures on the issues. It is amazing and answers all of the questions without debate by using the scriptures. It's called Blacks in the Scriptures. www.blacksinthescriptures.com

Ray, thanks for replying. I agree with you. However, I don't think that people who disagree with us are being bigoted.

There are a whole lot of Lefties who think simply believing in ANY religion makes you an idiot. I happen to think they are idiots (and very intolerant ones, at that), but I don't think they are bigots.

Faith (or anti-faith) is a critical issue for some people. If they think Mormons or Catholics are weird cults and that's the most important thing to them, they're not necessarily bigots. They just have a different priorities.

If a person actually believes some of the stuff presented at that "convention", isn't it their moral duty to vote for someone other than Romney? I think the "brother of Lucifer" stuff is WAY over the top and incredibly unbelievable, but if I did believe it, shouldn't that be enough? Would you vote for someone you thought worshiped the brother of Lucifer - no matter how much you liked his tax plan? I wouldn't.

(It's also rather difficult to refute. It's one of those "when did you stop beating your wife?" issues. Probably better to just say, "If you believe that, I'd rather not have your vote.")

All I need to know @Mormons I learn from my family, who are constantly telling me that these are the last days, have boxes of stored food in their living rooms, and don't want to travel more than 100 miles from home for fear that they won't be safe when the last day comes, who give me faith promoting material at the drop of a hat or a holiday, whichever comes first, who join MLM schemes @every two years, whose e-mails are filled with urban legends, and who are members of the John Birch Society because the "prophet" encouraged it. While Romney is "hard headed" which I guess means lots of people were down-sized from the companies he was working with, he still believes in a completely ahistorical civilisation, and a founder who was charlatan, at best.

Having an advanced degree does not mean one cannot believe in magical nonsense. It probably does mean that one could benefit from psychotherapy.

I agree.

My correction to what I typed above: Bigotry is accepting a stereotype about an **entire group** that is based on assumptions not backed by a sincere effort to understand and not based on solid evidence. (All _____________ are ___________." This might be true in some cases, but it generally is not.)

C. Biden, "don't want to travel more than 100 miles from home for fear that they won't be safe when the last day comes" and "are members of the John Birch Society because the "prophet" encouraged it" describes fringe Mormons. If that was the rule rather than a *tiny* minority, I'd be concerned, as well.

Sorry, everyone, for three in a row, but I need to clarify quickly.

C.Biden, your relatives might be devout Mormons who attend church and even hold leadership positions. I don't mean they are on the fringe socially - just doctrinally. In my decades in the Mormon Church in multiple states and countries, I can say honestly that I have never known of anyone who fits your entire description - particularly the 100 mile travel fear. I'm sure they exist, but I've never known any.

Holy crap! How does the mere mention of the word "Mormon" bring so many bigoted and ignorant people out of the woodwork?

There are valid criticisms of the LDS church, especially related to race. One is that the doctrine was quite muddled. It's documented that at least one black held the [LDS] priesthood in the mid-nineteenth century (it's also documented that women exercised more priesthood authority then than now and any active temple going Mormon knows the reason.)

One of the causes for the 1978 change was that many converts in Brazil were clearly of mixed racial heritage; many were being ordained to the priesthood in spite of this.

Ultimately, the change appeared to be both late and one of political expediency, rather than revelation. Far too many aspects of Mormonism seem to track the politics of the age, though usually several years behind. This raises serious doctrinal questions about claims of revelation.

That aside, while the LDS church largely remains outside of politics, every few years they can't resist declaring something non-political which really is just that. The church has asked for favors from every LDS politician and I don't see how Romney would be different. Mind you, it would likely be something small, like supporting the sale, or exchange, of land, but it would still be something. (Here in Utah, the church put the kibosh on a flat tax plan supported by the LDS Governor because it got rid of the tax deduction for charitable contributions--I wouldn't have believed this myself, but a church spokesman made the mistake of crowing about this accomplishment.)

The only thing here I have trouble with is near the top: "I for one don't worry about Mitt being a Mormon first and Executive of the US second."

A President has to be President of all the people, and he has to be President first. Even JFK was President first. (Probably not a good example, as JFK was hardly a devout practicing Catholic, but you get the idea.)

The next point, "... while the LDS church largely remains outside of politics, every few years they can't resist declaring something non-political ..." surely applies to all the churches when their people get into position of power.

Just like any other lobbying group.

In looking for a candidate, I'd look first for character. Romney seems to fit that bill. Hillary doesn't. Huckabee fails for his terms as governor. Most all the others fail for one reason or another.

I'd count Romney's missionary experience as most valuable. And I'm not even LDS (though I have relatives who are, and I find no fault with them. They've even been known to drive more than 100 miles from home).

The LDS notion of family support is probably unmatched anywhere else. So he'd probably be in favor of any sort of bill that favored families.

AZORACLE asks:

Did Christ bring Lazarus back from the dead? What evidence do you have of that? Or perhaps you consider one of the pillars of Christian Faith - Christ's own resurrection - allegorical? accounts?

Dear AZ: You are confusing apples and oranges. Both resurrection stories are matters of faith, since there is no impartial historical record of either one occurring, nor is there any archealogical evidence for either. That doesn't mean those things didn't happen ....just that we can't look at historical evidence and say "Jesus rose from the dead" with the same degree of certainty that we can say "The Romans conquered Gaul."

Andy

Mormons may be nice people, and the professor here is a nice person I was surprised to learn is a practicing Mormon, for no reason other than that to me he seemed a very moral but nonreligious person. But Mitt Romney’s niceness is not what concerns me. The former Governor does seem very nice, and his wife seems very nice, and his kids seem very nice, and his hair and his jaw line are very nice and he delivers a PowerPoint presentation nicely in a nice suit and I hear he has very nice degrees from very nice institutions and wouldn’t he make a nice President.

The problem is that Mormonism has always seemed on par with Scientology. Some religions are premised on facts that have been proven to some degree (e.g., archaeologists find a house in the desert where the Bible says it is, and its dimensions are accurate, etc.). One can believe that Jesus Christ was a historical personage and then disagree about whether or not he was the Messiah. One can take certain parts of the Bible as allegorical at points where if taken literally they diverge from scientific knowledge and then take literally the parts that are confirmed by historical investigation, archaeology, other documentary evidence, and scientific testing of artifacts. But it seems rather hard to deal with claims like, “The Garden of Eden was in Missouri.” To me, that seems on par with: “Cleanse your body of the Thetans that are left over from the intergalactic warlord Xenu nuking your souls in the before-time.” It seems that there are rather strong claims that Mormonism was fabricated, much as Scientology was fabricated by L. Ron Hubbard. That is quite a different pedigree of religion than one premised on an actual guy who was actually crucified and who actual people claimed to see rise from the dead.

Worse, the religion seems to embody some horrendous claims about humanity. Black people, according to Mormonism as I understand it, are black precisely because they turned away from God and are cursed by God. The black skin is proof that God does not love them and they are sinners. Now, either that is a fundament of the religion, or it is not, and it seems rather irrelevant whether the religion ceased officially discriminating against blacks within its ranks in 1978 by allowing them to be priests. The question is whether the religion has as a central pillar the belief that blacks are inherently evil and indeed are black to alert others of this irredeemable flaw. If Romney does believe this, which I take to be O’Donnell’s point, then he is unfit to be President, because you simply can’t have a President who believes millions of Americans are evil because of their skin color. The President has to take care that the law be faithfully executed, and I would have no confidence -- absolutely none -- that a man who believes it is holy to be racist would take care that the laws of the nation are faithfully and equally applied in favor of all of our citizens. I would likewise refuse to vote for a vocal anti-Semite.

I do think that Mitt Romney needs to address this issue more substantively. Simply saying he believes in Jesus Christ is not enough. I personally know Jesus Christ, sir, and Jesus Christ is no racist.

AZORACLE asks :

Did Christ bring Lazarus back from the dead? What evidence do you have of that? Or perhaps you consider one of the pillars of Christian Faith - Christ's own resurrection - allegorical?

Dear AZ --

You may be missing my point. There is a difference between asserting a matter of faith and a matter of history.

If you ask me: "Did Jesus rise from the dead?", I say: There is no independent historical record that indicates this ever happened. To believe it did, is a matter of faith. That doesn't mean it didn't happen, just that as of yet we have no way to independently verify that it did.

If you ask: "Did the Romans conquer Gaul?", I say, "Yes, there is both historical and archaelogical evidence that the Romans did, indeed, conquer Gaul." That is a matter of historical fact.

Do you see the difference?

Andy

Two comments were made above that I see recycled again and again in relation to Romney are (1) that the mormon church is racist and (2) that mormons take an oath to give everything to the mormon church and so a mormon president would take orders from the mormon prophet. Both of these statements are false. Mr. Wenger did an admirable job of debunking the first. I will reiterate that it is NOT mormon teaching that any group is inherently less because of their skin color. Any previous teaching tending toward that idea has been utterly repudiated. To say that such is a fundamental teaching of the mormons is to call mormons liars.

Likewise, the mormon church has stated repeatedly that mormon politicians are responsible to their constituencies, not the church. That should put to rest any claim that mormons make oaths incompatible with the presidential oath of the United States. Again, pushing this canard is another way of calling mormons liars.

Sparkey --

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

You wrote:

"But I’m also a card carrying Mormon. So by your argument my judgment must be faulty and untrustworthy. Thus, all those Smart weapons I’ve helped design and build over the years must be worthless. And given your implication that Mormons by definition have a systemic problem dealing with facts and analyzing them should Milliken lose his Nobel Prize because his grad student who performed his famous oil drop experiments was a Mormon? How can you trust the data generated by someone that devoutly believes the truthfulness of a book that depicts a society that you claim, “that objective historians simply find no evidence to support...”? "

Let me address just this issue. You posit a breath-taking non-sequiteur. As a guy with a BS in Mech E from a small school on the Charles River, and as a die-hard pistolero, I think the firearms designed by John Moses Browning are superb. That Mr Browning, a Mormon, may have had little or no understanding of history matters not the least to me. I appreciate his genius in firearms design.

But I'd be hesitant to vote for "Le Maitre" for President, without knowing more about his sense of history.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Andy

Andy, here’s a suggestion. Instead of focusing on the trivial minutia why don’t you try looking at what the Book of Mormon teaches? It is not the particulars about the Nephites and Lamanites that are important, but the lessons we learn from the Lord’s dealings with them. If you understand what the Book of Mormon teaches you understand more about who Mitt Romney (or any devout Mormon for that matter) is and what they stand for.

Here’s a fact, we Mormons are all around you making sound, fact biased decisions every day, that don’t result any of a whole host of disasters*. Romney should rise or fall on the merit of his record, not Davis’ hyper-paranoid extrapolation theory. (And yes, I live in the Dallas area, a Texas native in fact.)

I challenge you to read the Book of Mormon and find any teaching that would disqualify Romney (or any Mormon) from being President. And I say that knowing you haven’t read it, otherwise you wouldn’t have made the crack about “Shia-Sunni factionalism.” The Book of Mormon is a story of just that sort of conflict.

Take care, and Merry Christmas!
Al

believing the head of insert-protestant-sect-here is God's foremost representative on earth

What mainstream protestant churches actually do this? Presbyterians, Baptists and Methodists do not. I'd also hazard to guess that the Anglicans and the Lutherans would be queasy about someone being declared God's "foremost representative" unless that term simply meant "the one who God allowed to lead the church."

Given the way that many protestants get very, very upset about the "Vicar of Christ" title for the Pope, I think you're barking up the wrong tree here.

"Church doctrine teaches that I can't get into the celestial kingdom unless my husband allows me to enter. If he doesn't make the cut, neither do I. "

This is not true. It's hard for me to believe that you were really ever Mormon if you think this.

Any previous teaching tending toward that idea has been utterly repudiated. To say that such is a fundamental teaching of the mormons is to call mormons liars.

No. That categorical repudiation was officially made in 1978, right? But Mitt Romney was a Mormon before 1978. In 1978 he was 30. Was Mitt Romney a racist until age 30? This is O'Donnell's point. I don't think all Mormons need to answer this question; just Mitt Romney. He is, after all, running for President of the United States of America.

I started to praise "Mitt Romney ......" for the reasonableness of his question (as opposed to those who still seem to be demanding Mitt respond to a religion test) ... but then I realized that I may not have understood his quesiton correctly.

The change in 1978 was that black male members could then hold the priesthood.

The change in 1978 was NOT that black could then BECOME members. They were ALREADY members of the Church.

So, I would say that it is fair that Mitt answer the question IF you agree that it is fair that EVERY candidate for President answer the SAME question about ANY organization that they EVER belonged to in their lives.

While you are at it, demand that every candidate explain why they would attend an institution that bars(or has ever done so) women from attending - solely because of their gender. I know that John McCain would have some explaining to do and I suspect that many (if not all) of the candidates with Yale, Harvard and various other Ivy League institutions may have the same problem.

By the way, O'Donnell's biography says that he is a graduate of Harvard. Ask him the question as well.

The change in 1978 was that black male members could then hold the priesthood.

Yes, I know that. But race is not the same as gender, and this is not about joining or being members of institutions that discriminate. It's about privately held beliefs about the inferiority of other human beings. I could not care less whether Hillary Clinton went to an all-female college. I care whether she thinks men are inferior and intends to take away men's rights to promote her secret agenda.

Well, he just answered the question on Meet The Press, and he teared up. Fair enough. But pretending he didn't need to have answered the question, Rose, is crap. So is the notion that it has anything to do with women's rights.

Good - now we know where you really stand.

You have no problem with Presidential candidates who are sexist or have belonged to sexist organizations.

You have no problem with Presidential candidates who have belonged to organizations who discriminate against persons of color.

The only people who you want to see account for their past actions ..... just "happen" to be Mormons.

Crap is the correct word for it.

GOV. ROMNEY: I'm very proud of my faith, and it's the faith of my fathers, and I certainly believe that it is a, a faith--well, it's true and I love my faith. And I'm not going to distance myself in any way from my faith. But you can see what I believed and what my family believed by looking at, at our lives. My dad marched with Martin Luther King. My mm was a tireless crusader for civil rights. You may recall that my dad walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 in San Francisco in part because Barry Goldwater, in his speech, gave my dad the impression that he was someone who was going to be weak on civil rights. So my dad's reputation, my mom's and my own has always been one of reaching out to people and not discriminating based upon race or anything else. And so those are my fundamental core beliefs, and I was anxious to see a change in, in my church.

I can remember when, when I heard about the change being made. I was driving home from, I think, it was law school, but I was driving home, going through the Fresh Pond rotary in Cambridge, Massachusetts. I heard it on the radio, and I pulled over and, and literally wept. Even at this day it's emotional, and so it's very deep and fundamental in my, in my life and my most core beliefs that all people are children of God. My faith has always told me that. My faith has also always told me that, in the eyes of God, every individual was, was merited the, the fullest degree of happiness in the hereafter, and I, and I had no question in my mind that African-Americans and, and blacks generally, would have every right and every benefit in the hereafter that anyone else had and that God is no respecter of persons.

MR. RUSSERT: But it was wrong for your faith to exclude it for as long as it did.

GOV. ROMNEY: I've told you exactly where I stand. My view is that there--there's, there's no discrimination in the eyes of God, and I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.

You have no problem with Presidential candidates who are sexist or have belonged to sexist organizations. You have no problem with Presidential candidates who have belonged to organizations who discriminate against persons of color.

No, I didn't say that at all. I don't think the Girl Scouts is sexist because no boys are allowed, and I think your analogies are illogical and irrelevant, so I moved the conversation back where it belongs.

That's OK.

Personally I find you to be inconsistent and remarkably ill-informed.

It's about privately held beliefs about the inferiority of other human beings.

The difference in our POV's is that I care about privately held beliefs about the inferiority of all other human beings.

The difference in our POV's is that I care about privately held beliefs about the inferiority of all other human beings.

Uh, no. I just don't think the Girl Scouts is a sexist organization or that all-female colleges are evil, which is where your logic leads. Your logic means that women can't have their own organizations. Which is sexist. In that case, Hillary Clinton should turn down any contributions from Emily's List and we should strike down the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I think that's nutty. It's also irrelevant to Mitt Romney's candidacy.

Personally I find you to be inconsistent and remarkably ill-informed.

Personally, I find you to not have read what I wrote and to have never taken a biology or biological anthropology class.

Fascinating ....

You demanded:

But Mitt Romney was a Mormon before 1978. In 1978 he was 30. Was Mitt Romney a racist until age 30? This is O'Donnell's point. I don't think all Mormons need to answer this question; just Mitt Romney. He is, after all, running for President of the United States of America.

I agreed, but I also pointed out that the same question was a fair one for all Presidential candidates (which the rest of us know include both male and female human beings). Most have attended a college and/or belonged to an organization that had restrictive policies at one time or another when they were members/students. I also pointed out the same situation applied to Lawrence O'Donnell.

Mitt, as much as you apparently would like to pretend, is not the only one.

From that you "logically" claim:

Uh, no. I just don't think the Girl Scouts is a sexist organization or that all-female colleges are evil, which is where your logic leads. Your logic means that women can't have their own organizations. Which is sexist. In that case, Hillary Clinton should turn down any contributions from Emily's List and we should strike down the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. I think that's nutty. It's also irrelevant to Mitt Romney's candidacy.

And you think I haven't read YOUR posts?

LOL!

I think your personal attacks on me have adequately demonstrated your inability to discuss the situation rationally or logically.

Never thought I'd learn so much about Mormonism in such a short period of time.

One might note what else Lincoln said on that occasion:

I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied every thing. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of negroes.I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman or child who was in favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of its correctness—and that is the case of Judge [Senator Stephen] Douglas's old friend Col. Richard M. Johnson.

Johnson was Van Buren's Vice President. He was notorious for having a slave mistress, whom he treated as his de facto wife. In 1836 the Virginia electors would not vote for him, and so he became the only Vice President elected by the Senate. (In 1824, the electors split four ways on the President, leading to the election of John Quincy Adams by the House, but they largely concurred on John Calhoun as Vice President.)

Most have attended a college and/or belonged to an organization that had restrictive policies at one time or another when they were members/students. I also pointed out the same situation applied to Lawrence O'Donnell. Mitt, as much as you apparently would like to pretend, is not the only one.

Except you ignore that my concern is not with membership to organizations that have restrictive policies, but only to whether individuals have private beliefs about the inferiority of other humans that they will enact into public policy -- the question arises with regard to Mormonism because Mormonism is perceived, rightly or wrongly, to embody the belief that black skin is a sign of God's disfavor. As I state explicitly above, it isn't about whether blacks were allowed to be priests, or even admitted into the religion, so the rest of your nonsense about membership to organizations is wholly irrelevant.

What Rose Was Too Illiterate to Read: [T]he religion seems to embody some horrendous claims about humanity. Black people, according to Mormonism as I understand it, are black precisely because they turned away from God and are cursed by God. The black skin is proof that God does not love them and they are sinners. Now, either that is a fundament of the religion, or it is not, and it seems rather irrelevant whether the religion ceased officially discriminating against blacks within its ranks in 1978 by allowing them to be priests. The question is whether the religion has as a central pillar the belief that blacks are inherently evil and indeed are black to alert others of this irredeemable flaw. If Romney does believe this, which I take to be O’Donnell’s point, then he is unfit to be President, because you simply can’t have a President who believes millions of Americans are evil because of their skin color. The President has to take care that the law be faithfully executed, and I would have no confidence -- absolutely none -- that a man who believes it is holy to be racist would take care that the laws of the nation are faithfully and equally applied in favor of all of our citizens.

Thanks for your comments so far, all. There are too many here to address all. Let me try to respond briefly, to a few of them.

I, personally, am not deciding whether or not to vote for Mr. Romney based on his faith, but I don't think it's bigotry if others do.

I think it's fine to make decisions based on the content of Romney's (or others') belief, religious or not. I do have concerns when Romney (or any other candidate) has beliefs attributed to him that don't seem to correspond to actual belief.

are constantly telling me that these are the last days, have boxes of stored food in their living rooms, and don't want to travel more than 100 miles from home for fear that they won't be safe when the last day comes, who give me faith promoting material at the drop of a hat or a holiday, whichever comes first, who join MLM schemes @every two years, whose e-mails are filled with urban legends, and who are members of the John Birch Society because the "prophet" encouraged it.

You've got some weird relatives, CBiden. But then, you probably knew that.

I know weird Mormons who join MLM, and who send around lots of urban legends. I don't think I've ever met any who follow the 100-mile rule, though. (Or at least, who have ever told me about it).

There are valid criticisms of the LDS church, especially related to race. One is that the doctrine was quite muddled. It's documented that at least one black held the [LDS] priesthood in the mid-nineteenth century

Certainly true. There's some good research and study that's been done on the issue, including Bush and Mauss's book Neither White Nor Black that traces the development of the doctrine.

Worse, the religion seems to embody some horrendous claims about humanity. Black people, according to Mormonism as I understand it, are black precisely because they turned away from God and are cursed by God. The black skin is proof that God does not love them and they are sinners. Now, either that is a fundament of the religion, or it is not,

That's easy. It's not.

The question is whether the religion has as a central pillar the belief that blacks are inherently evil and indeed are black to alert others of this irredeemable flaw. If Romney does believe this, which I take to be O’Donnell’s point, then he is unfit to be President, because you simply can’t have a President who believes millions of Americans are evil because of their skin color.

It's not a central pillar of belief. Or a minor pillar, for that matter. It's not part of church doctrine.

Was Mitt Romney a racist until age 30? This is O'Donnell's point. I don't think all Mormons need to answer this question; just Mitt Romney.

That seems like a reasonable enough suggestion.

I appreciate the statements that Romney has made. I agree that they're not as clear as they could be. That's probably the usual political-speak. But I'd be happy to hear a more forceful statement.

Rose,

Agreed that that the broader concerns about whether a candidate previously belonged to a racist and/or sexist organization certainly extend more widely than to Romney alone.

Anti-Rose person,

Pick a handle and stick with it, dude. I'm counting 10 different handles on this thread. And "Rose is stupid" is not an appropriate handle. It's fine to disagree with another commenter, but let's keep it civil.

Kaimi,

Rose started it by calling me "inconsistent and remarkably ill-informed" in a post in which she deliberately chopped up my post, took phrases out of context, and ignored explicit statements that I made, e.g., claiming I have no problem with sexist politicians after I had stated that I cared whether Hillary Clinton held anti-male views that would influence her public policy-making, but not whether she attended an all-female college. Her tone was incivil, and I responded in kind. But point taken, both about tone and the handle.

As to your comment that "Agreed that that the broader concerns about whether a candidate previously belonged to a racist and/or sexist organization certainly extend more widely than to Romney alone," that does not appear to be Rose's point. If that were Rose's point, she would have taken at face value my statement that I do not think all-female colleges are sexist institutions or that the Girl Scouts is a sexist institution. Of course, if one was a member of the Klu Klux Klan, that would be of concern. But one can obviously distinguish between the Klu Klux Klan and an all-female college. The Klu Klux Klan has as its central pillar a belief in the inferiority of certain classes of human beings. An all-female college might, but that isn't necessarily or probably the case. And a former member of the Klu Klux Klan might have joined for the social networking benefits in his local community when the KKK ran local politics and government, not because he privately held white supremacist views. The focus of the inquiry would not center on the membership in the organization, but rather on whether the person actually held the views. I do not think having attended Harvard is an equivalent to membership in the KKK as a warrant for inquiry, nor do I think being a Mormon would be equivalent if there weren't the public perception that racism is a central pillar of the faith. One could easily imagine a religion in which only hermaphraodites were priests because two sets of genitalia reflected the duality of God; that doesn't necessarily mean males and females are considered inferior in the religion or that any adherents of the religion hold such views. The Mormon policy rescinded in 1978 only warrants inquiry because of the public perception about Mormonism; thus Russert asked about the policy specifically and Romney responded about whether he was a racist in general, using the policy as a framework to discuss it, i.e., "I was so overjoyed that I wept from my profound and eternal belief that racial equality is holy."

By contrast, Rose's position seems to be "Any organization that excludes female members for any reason is a sexist organization," which is simply illogical, e.g., "The Association of Male Breast Cancer Survivors," not to mention leads to the notion that any benefit exclusively accruing to one gender is unfair. Striking down the Pregnancy Discrimination Act because it is in effect a disbursement of cash to "women only" seems rather foolish to me, even if it is principled. Not to mention it has nothing to do with Mitt Romney's comments about racism on Meet The Press.

Thank you, Kaimi, for your kind words. Yes, you are absolutely correct that my point was:

Agreed that that the broader concerns about whether a candidate previously belonged to a racist and/or sexist organization certainly extend more widely than to Romney alone.

I thought the question to Mitt was quite reasonable - so reasonable that I would support it being asked of all candidates (male and female) to whom it similiary applies. None of the candidates, including Mitt, was "in charge" of the policies that are being questioned, but many (if not all) have at some time participated despite knowing the policy was in effect.

I also agree with your comments about what place race actually takes in the beliefs of the Church. (The 100 mile rule was a *new* one to me too. :-))

While the Church does involve itself somewhat in Salt Lake politics (which is somewhat understandable given its land holdings in the area), the separation between politics and religion is strictly adhered to in the church buildings. We are counseled to be active citizens in the community and reminded ever year to vote, but I have never heard anyone suggest a specific candidate - including Mitt Romney - either officially or unofficially. What you often see on the news - a candidate speaking from the pulpit during church services - I have never seen or heard about happening in the LDS church in my 30 years of membership.

One thing that I think many non-members don't either know or understand is that the while the largest number of LDS live in the United States, over half of the total members of the church are from overseas. The LDS church is a world-wide one and the President over all members, not just the US ones.

Dozens of different languages (and various dialects of those languages) are taught to missionaries before they go into the field. When missionaries go into the field overseas, they don't live in 5-star hotels - they live and work as the citizens of the country do. I can speak from personal experience when I say that missionaries find it very easy to bond with the people of their home countries.

Now does that mean Mitt would give preference to the French were he to be elected? No, of course not, but he just might be able to relate to the French better than some our past presidents have been able to do so because of his experience.

Personally, I have not yet decided on my vote for President. For one, it is WAY to early for that decision. Also, however, I can see a number of plusses and negatives to each candidate. I just prefer such decisions to be made on facts versus urban legends.

None of the candidates, including Mitt, was "in charge" of the policies that are being questioned, but many (if not all) have at some time participated despite knowing the policy was in effect.

Of course, this still makes no sense. It has nothing to do with being in control. In the case of Hillary Clinton attending an all-female college, there are no policies at issue. The concern is still what she believes, entirely independent of where she attended school.

Not to mention none of the other organizations you mentioned have a reputation for being essentially racist or sexist, so your grasping onto Kaimi's lifeline makes no sense. If you had meant -- or written -- what Kaimi did, we would not have been arguing, as you would have had nothing to argue with me about and certainly would have had no reason to bring up sexism as an analogy or quote me out of context (which Kaimi fixed for you) or state that I believed things I had expressly stated I did not believe, i.e., outright lying (which not even Kaimi could fix for you).

Ray -
Actually I left the church when I was 14 years old, hardly of an age when I would be married yet. The reason I left? After one of the women in our congregation discovered that her husband was raping their 18 MONTH old daughter, instead of going straight to the police, she sought counseling from the bishop, and he told her that "it must be because she wasn't fulfilling her duties as a wife." When the woman came to her senses and took herself and her children back to the states (we were in Germany at the time), as a show of support for that molesting bastard, the church offered his services out as a babysitter. And people took him up on it, based on the recommendation of their church leadership! And he proceeded to molest a bunch of other little girls. After that, and the pathetic response of the church, my family wisely decided that it wasn't in our best interests to remain members.

As for my comment regarding "I can't get into the celestial kingdom unless my husband lets me in," I can't see too many other ways to interpret being given a secret name that my husband has to call me by and 'pull me through the veil'. Perhaps they've changed the temple ceremonies over the years, and they've ditched that portion. If so, well and good. The church always was pretty good about responding to changes in social attitudes over the years, but they're still overtly sexist, as evidenced by this quote from Hinckley during the April 2007 General Conference: "Husbands, love and treasure your wives. They are your most precious possessions. Wives, encourage and pray for your husbands. They need all the help they can get..."

The problem is that so many LDS members don't even realize they're being sexist. Which is why I thought it was kind of sad that the missionaries responded to me the way they did. They weren't being sarcastic, they weren't trying to make a joke, they really thought that "women staying home taking care of the kids so men could get things done" = equality.

There are things about the mormon church to like. Their attitude towards women is not one of them, for me, and is sufficient to keep me from ever going back.

Ocasionally, bad things happen to good people. That's life; the rain falls on the good and the evil; the sun shines on the good and the evil. There are people in every religion who don't follow their religion. There are local leaders who might not respond the right way in some situations. I'm sorry for what you had to go through, but just because you had a bad experience with one or two members of the church, doesn't mean that that church's doctrine is not true. Whether Mormonism is true or not is for every person to decide for themselves, but it cannot be declared false due to the poor actions of a handful of members. And it's funny how you talk about the temple when you've never been there and the only people telling you about it have had their memories screwed up by their traumatic experiences in unrelated events. Don't associate the falsity or truthfulness of ANYTHING or ANY CREED (even atheism) by the actions of those who believe it. The Doctrine of the church is "Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church" and "If any man offends one of these little ones, it would be better if a millstone be hanged around his neck and be cast into the sea". Just because one man who professes to be a member of a church who believes that, and who doesn't practice that, doesn't mean that the doctrine is false. It means one MAN is false.

I am sick and tired of it. No need for apologetics - this is just beating your head against a wall. You are trying to convince people who cannot think for themselves.
To all the anti-Mormons out there - listen -
Call it multi-theism as you wish but Heavenly Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost are 3 seperate and distinct beings. Your idiotic and nebulous trinity was the invention of a committee and makes no sense. 90% of your congregations don't see God that way - try giving them a quiz. The only people who believe that crap are those who learn it in some divinity school. It defies logic and the common sense Heavenly Father gave you. It serves only to fulfill the purpose for which it was created - to distance man from God.
Yes there is and will be more than one God but there is only one Heavenly Father.
Yes there is a Heavenly Mother.
Yes baptism for the dead gives hope to those who never had a chance to hear the truth.
Yes it does make a difference how you act in this life. Being "saved" is an assinine philosophy drempt up by a man. Only God can give us the gift of immortality - he freely gives it to all. Any more than that (exalatation)has to be earned.
We are put here to work out our own salvation and help one another, but as for the anti-LDS morons -I no longer care about you - you are doing Satan's work and yes - he is your spirit brother.
No more being PC - I dust my shoes off.

Celeste,

How sad for you that you would allow a man (In your case a Bishop) to determine your eternal salvation. I've had several not-so-great Bishops and several not-so-great Stake Presidency leaders, and I would not allow one of them to ever keep me from the gospel of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, I've never had a man in the LDS faith treat me as though I were less than them or beneath them. In fact, it has always been the opposite for me: I've always commanded respect and have always received it. I've been chosen for leadership possessions and have been questioned for my advice on many occassions.

The bottom line is, if you have your own personal relationship with God, you really don't need to concern yourself with someone elses personal relationship with God, and certainly not Romney's.

Nicely said Kami.

I love the comments here! I think it's funny how big of a topic Mormonism is. I wrote a post recently on how I believe Mormonism covers truths found in every religion or faith. Feel free to stop by and leave your comments:

www.graceforgrace.com