by Mark Silva
Mitt Romney is ready to talk about his religion.
Just like John F. Kennedy once did.
"I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end,'' JFK delcared -- in 1960. "I am not the Catholic Church's candidate for president... I am the Democratic Party's candidate.''
Now, just one month from the first contest of the 2008 presidential election campaign, with Republican Romney's apparent advantage in first-caucusing Iowa slipping to a Southern Baptist pastor from Arkansas, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, Romney plans to address the issue that is troubling many of his party's most conservative, religious voters. His Mormonism.
The venue of Romney's planned address on religion will be cause for gossip of its own: At the George H.W. Bush Presidential Llibrary in College Station, Texas., with an introduction promised by the 41st president. The former president's son, Jeb, already has steered most of his closest advisers, strategists and supporters to Romney's campaign, while President Bush has remained neutral in his party's nominating contest.
The campaign says tonight that no endorsement should be read into the venue. But the mere stage ifor Thursday's speech by Romney, confronting a question that could be central to his bid for the GOP's presidential nomination, is likely to stir speculation about the Bush clan's backing.
Romney's address will be called "Faith in America,'' his campaign announced this evening.
With polls showing that four in 10 of all likely Republican voters consider themselves Christian conservatives, polling also shows that one quarter of all evangelical Christians voice doubts about voting for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
In the past month, the one ordained Southern Baptist minister in the race, Huckabee, a former Christian broadcaster as well, has gained new momentum in his bid for the Republican Party's presidential nomination, challenging Romney in a state where the former governor of Massachusetts had won the Iowa Republican Party's straw poll last summer.
This week's speech could be the definining moment of Romney's campaign for president. It is, in many ways, decades later, the same speech that Kennedy delivered in Houston, in 1960.
The "real issues'' of the 1960 campaign, Kennedy said, ranged from the threat of Communism to the inability of people to pay for their medical care.
'These are the real issues that should decide this campaign,'' Kennedy said then. "But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic ever has been elected president, the real issues have been obscured.''
For Romney as well, the real issues of the '08 campaign may be growing obscured by lingering religious prejudices -- an issue which Romney hopes to confront this week.
"Gov. Romney made the decision to deliver this speech based solely on his personal belief that this is the right time, the right moment to share his views on the role that faith plays in American life,'' campaign spokesman Kevin Madden said this evening. "I'm not one to judge the historical implications. What I can say is that Gov. Romney views this as an important opportunity to talk about an issue that millions of Americans care deeply about. He recognizes that.''
"In thinking about a venue for this speech, we reached out to former President Bush’s office last week, and he graciously agreed to host the event at the Bush Library,'' Romney spokesman Eric Ferhnstrom said this evening.
"Former President Bush will introduce Governor Romney. That, however, should not be construed as an endorsement of his candidacy,'' Ferhnstrom said. "Gov. Romney previously spoke at the Bush Library on April 10... on the subject of strengthening the military.''
The former president also introduced Romney at the national security address at the library, with another Romney adviser saying tonight: "This is not an endorsement.''
Romney's confrontation with the religious divide that many Americans face in his candidacy bears no end of parallels to John F. Kennedy's statement about his Catholicism in 1960.
After Kennedy captured the Democratic Party's nomination in 1960, he faced the fact that many Protestants still held preconceptions about American Catholics having to obey the Pope's commands unquestioningly. He finally confronted the issue on Sept. 12, 1960, delivering a statement to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.
This is what Kennedy said, also in Texas, a little more than 47 years ago:
"I am grateful for your generous invitation to state my views.
While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that I believe that we have far more critical issues in the 1960 election: the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers only ninety miles off the coast of Florida -- the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power -- the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor's bills, the families forced to give up their farms -- an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.
These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues -- for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barrier.
But because I am a Catholic and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in for that should be important only to me, but what kind of America I believe in.
I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute -- where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be a Catholic) how to act and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote -- where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference -- and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish -- where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source -- where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials -- and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.
For, while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew -- or a Quaker -- or a Unitarian -- or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that led to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today, I may be the victim -- but tomorrow it may be you -- until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped apart at a time of great national peril.
Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end -- where all men and all churches are treated as equal -- where every man has the same right to attend or not to attend the church of his choice -- where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind -- and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, both the lay and the pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.
That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe -- a great office that must be neither humbled by making it the instrument of any religious group, nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding it, its occupancy from the members of any religious group. I believe in a President whose views on religion are his own private affair, neither imposed upon him by the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.
I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the First Amendment's guarantees of religious liberty (nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so). And neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test -- even by indirection -- for if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it.
I want a chief executive whose public acts are responsible to all and obligated to none -- who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require him to fulfill -- and whose fulfillment of his Presidential office is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.
This is the kind of America I believe in -- and this is the kind of America I fought for in the South Pacific and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we might have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened "the freedoms for which our forefathers died."
And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers did die when they fled here to escape religious test oaths, that denied office to members of less favored churches, when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- and when they fought at the shrine I visited today -- the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died Fuentes and McCafferty and Bailey and Bedillio and Carey -- but no one knows whether they were Catholics or not. For there was no religious test there.
I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition, to judge me on the basis of fourteen years in the Congress -- on my declared stands against an ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I attended myself) -- and instead of doing this do not judge me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we have all seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic Church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and rarely relevant to any situation here -- and always omitting of course, that statement of the American bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation.
I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts -- why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit or prosecute the free exercise of any other religion. And that goes for any persecution at any time, by anyone, in any country.
And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would also cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as France and Ireland -- and the independence of such statesmen as de Gaulle and Adenauer.
But let me stress again that these are my views -- for, contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President [but the candidate] who happens also to be a Catholic.
I do not speak for my church on public matters -- and the church does not speak for me.
Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected -- on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject -- I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictate. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.
But if the time should ever come -- and I do not concede any conflict to be remotely possible -- when my office would require me to either violate my conscience, or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office, and I hope any other conscientious public servant would do likewise.
But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith, nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election. If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate satisfied that I tried my best and was fairly judged.
But if this election is decided on the basis that 40,000,000 Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.
But if, on the other hand, I should win this election, I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency -- practically identical, I might add with the oath I have taken for fourteen years in the Congress. For, without reservation, I can, and I quote "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States and will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution so help me God."
• 
• 
• 
• 
Comments
Now people must be educated on the real issue of Mormonism. IF we elect a Mormon the constition will come second to the commands issued from Temple Square. Why do you think Romney fipped on every social issue to date? Because he had to. Can't everybody see through this plastic Ken Doll!
Posted by: Jimmy | December 2, 2007 7:32 PM
The correct name of the church is "Latter-day Saints", with a hyphen and lower-case 'd', not "Latter Day Saints". There's a difference.
I'm excited about Romney's speech.
Posted by: Joseph Antley | December 2, 2007 7:35 PM
As a member of the LDS Church, I think that no matter what he says he won't change anyone's mind. People have already made up their minds about the "mormons." He just needs to keep doing what he's doing and hope that people will see him and not his religion.
Posted by: Andrew | December 2, 2007 7:44 PM
I am a “Mormon” (a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), and I believe in Jesus Christ. I am a Christian. Yet, there are people who say that because I do not believe as THEIR demonination believe, hence – so many religions, so many denominations, than I cannot be a Christian, that I belong to a cult. Do you know how rude, arrogant, and offensive this is?
Who decides if I am a Christian or not?
Do you decide if I am a Christian? Is that your role?
What is a Christian?
I have read and heard so many lies about my church that it is appauling that these people can say they follow the Savior.
The Savior I know encourages unity.
Jesus prayed, as quoted in John 17:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
Mormons=Christians?
The Book of Mormon, Alma 34:
8 And now, behold, I will testify unto you of myself that these things are true. Behold, I say unto you, that I do know that Christ shall come among the children of men, to take upon him the transgressions of his people, and that he shall atone for the sins of the world; for the Lord God hath spoken it.
9 For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; yea, all are hardened; yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement which it is expedient should be made.
10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.
11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.
12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.
13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.
14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.
15 And thus he shall bring salvation to all those who shall believe on his name; this being the intent of this last sacrifice, to bring about the bowels of mercy, which overpowereth justice, and bringeth about means unto men that they may have faith unto repentance.
16 And thus mercy can satisfy the demands of justice, and encircles them in the arms of safety, while he that exercises no faith unto repentance is exposed to the whole law of the demands of justice; therefore only unto him that has faith unto repentance is brought about the great and eternal plan of redemption.
• • •
37 And now, my beloved brethren, I desire that ye should remember these things, and that ye should work out your salvation with fear before God, and that ye should no more deny the coming of Christ,;
38 That ye contend no more against the Holy Ghost, but that ye receive it, and take upon you the name of Christ; that ye humble yourselves even to the dust, and worship God, in whatsoever place ye may be in, in spirit and in truth; and that ye live in thanksgiving daily, for the many mercies and blessings which he doth bestow upon you.
The Book of Mormon, Ether 12:
41 And now, I would commend you to seek this Jesus of whom the prophets and apostles have written, that the grace of God the Father, and also the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of them, may be and abide in you forever. Amen.
Posted by: Debrar | December 2, 2007 7:47 PM
The republican party has become old world close-minded. Christian conservatives hold the party hostage not over whether a candidate believes in God, but over if the candidate prays like they do. I've checked Mitt out. Mitt has the experience, the heart and the intelligence to lead. The closer I look at Huck, the less impressed I am. Mitt is qualified and has led a life that would make him a thoughtful and capable president. I'm embarrassed that in 2007 a candidate is attacked for his/her personal beliefs. This is just confirming my suspicions about the baptist minister. He may win a few quick poll points with his devisive politics, but his pride in his brand of beliefs will ultimately come back around.
Posted by: David | December 2, 2007 7:51 PM
Mormonism is to the 19th century what Scientology is to the 20th. Nobody with an ounce of sense takes either seriously,but the passage of time somehow makes Mormonism seem like something more than the cult that it is. While Romney is explaining what his religion means to him, perhaps he also should address how it allowed him to strap a dog to the roof of his car, but won't permit him to drink coffee or tea.
Posted by: Richard Friedman | December 2, 2007 7:53 PM
Great more focus on candidates superstitions..... Can we get past religion, and focus on real issues. The cold hard reality of my vote is... the more a candidate believes that a book of bronze age myths and parables is the divine word of their particular imaginary friend, the more the distance themselves from reality. It is time to say to overly religious America... "you are incapable of rational though, you are incapable of leading this country"
We have a president that believes in a lot of things, and he is resolute in his beliefs. He has used those beliefs to do more damage to this country and the world as a whole. It is time to elect someone who is rational,, and sees religion for what it is , a means of control. Control of peoples behavior, control of others morality, control of society.
What separates us as a society from , for example, the people of the Sudan. Their devout Muslims, who have absolute beliefs ( ok, we can call them fundamental) want to execute a teacher over a class teddy bear being named Mohammed. The bear wasn't even named after their sacred imaginary friends prophet, but after a boy in the class room. We sit back as Americans and pass judgement on these ignorant fundamentalist radicals, but how different are we when we have to have our leaders be of a certain belief system to be elected.
Religion should be personal, and if you feel the need to worship imaginary creatures,.. so be it, you are a fool, and should not be elected to the highest office in the land.
Posted by: Allen Hujsak | December 2, 2007 7:57 PM
Kennedy gave a great speech. I don't see how Romney can give one that remotely approaches it in devotion to the ideal of the separation of church and state, since his own party is the one that has done its best, under President George W. Bush, to break down that separation and to institute religious tests for office, contrary to the Constitution of the United States. The Republican Party's pandering to conservative Christians is what has directly led to the necessity for Romney to give this speech - while his father, George Romney, never had to do so when he ran for president in 1968.
Posted by: Rebecca Lesses | December 2, 2007 8:18 PM
Don't forget about the 14 percent of americans who are not religious. If Mitt Romney thinks that Catholics and Protestants are his only opponents, he is dead wrong. The same goes for Mike Huckabee. Leave religion 100% out of politics or you automatically lose 14% of all American voters.
Posted by: Eric Stubbs | December 2, 2007 8:20 PM
True....Religion aspects do matter...but I think the United States should be considering getting other things right from this election...A person who could handle America itself as well as other issues concerning other countries...since they havn't been very successful in it lately....
Posted by: Chani Perera | December 2, 2007 8:24 PM
Take a GOOD look at Huckabee and the FairTax - why is the FairTax studies only evaluate incomes up to $200,000? Because the effective tax rate for billionaires under the FairTax is less than 1%. You can buy things of great value all day long without ever buying a new one. Think mansions, land, yachts, valuable coins, stamps, bullion, stocks and bonds - all of which increase his wealth and none of which is taxed. The things that are NEW that the super rich require will be provided them as perquisites by the businesses they control. Think company car, company house, company jet - all of which use our infrastructure and none of which is paid for by the entity using them. Why should Walmart pay for roads and bridges when they can get you to pay for free? This is another attempt by the liberal media to face ANYONE but Dr. Ron Paul. Much as we'd like politics to be positive, it is in fact ruled almost entirely by negatives. For instance, what's the biggest negative the Republican Party is facing in 2008? Iraq - a staggering 70% of people favor IMMEDIATE withdrawl from Iraq. Who is the only candidate that doesn't have that negative? Dr. Paul, who advocates using those trillions of dollars to secure our border (perhaps against Saudis who were 20 of the 24 terrorists in 9/11) and rebuild our crumbling infrastructure which is far more worrying than the loss of Social Security. Hm, full employment, withdrawl from Iraq and a huge boost to our economy from rebuilding our infrastructure - what Democrat wants to run against that. Hence the behavior of known liberal biased network CNN, who wants us to nominate either Guiliani or Romney - both of whose negatives are so high the copy practically writes itself!
Posted by: Louis Nardozi | December 2, 2007 8:28 PM
Did he leave out Non-theosists in that speach?
Posted by: Rhonin | December 2, 2007 8:33 PM
Romney is likable enough and I don't mean to be too harsh on him; but frankly it doesn't matter WHAT he says about his religion. The problem with Romney is all the things he has ALREADY said. Namely, "I'm for it" - "I'm against it" - "I'm for it" - "I'm against it". Romney has shown himself to be a well-documented flip-flopper on virtually ALL the issues that are important to the many social conservatives in the republican party. I'm sorry Governor Romney, but I for one just can't trust you and I think that many others feel the same way.
Posted by: michael litzau | December 2, 2007 8:39 PM
I'm an exmormon and I can definitely tell you that Mormons ARE Christian. In my view they believe in Jesus Christ and his teachingss more sincerely and strongly, and are better at following the teachings of the bible than the other Christian denominations found in the U.S.
Mormons are sincerely good people who treat others honestly and fairly, don't cheat or steal, drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. A Mormon president would be a good thing. The LDS leaders in SLC have no desire whatsoever to control the government of the United States.
Mormons, in my view, are mostly more mature and less fundamentalist that the convservative Christian movement in the United States. Evolution is taught as fact at BYU. Mormons can be liberal (Harry Reid) or conservative (Hatch). Mormons have a lot of freedom to follow their conscience. Mormons, having been persecuted in their early years, well understand the separation between church and state.
I consider myself a very liberal atheist. I'm not very fond of religion. I'm supporting Obama in this election. If Hillary gains the democratic nomination, I will vote for her (because I prefer the democratic platform).
However, among all the republican candidates, when I would prefer Romney. When I first heard he was running, I thought it would never amount to anything. In a way, I was angry at my previous religion, and perhaps wanted the movement to fail. But I read some interesting articles about Romney in the New Yorker and on Orson Scott Card's personal website. And here's what I have to say about Romney:
Mormon or not, position changer or not, I think he's a smart, competent man. I trust in his ability to lead organizations and make them better than he found them. So, putting all my personal differences and background and biases aside, I could accept Romney as the president, though I would not, personally, vote for him.
Posted by: Peter | December 2, 2007 8:49 PM
It seems that when the economic conservatives want to EXPLOIT religion, then that is ok.
BUT, when a religious conservative seeks office, and the tool which the neocons so deftly crafted is going to work against their economic goals, then it is time to be AGAINST religion being used in a campaign.
George W. Bush EXPLOITED marriage and abortion to gain political power, exploited religion, and encouraged discrimination against Kerry and Gore.
The economic corporate rulers of this country use religion and discrimination as much as possible, but now are about to speak out against a real religious person who is not using it to seek wealth for the wealthy.
It is because Huckabee is winning, and will threaten the monopoly of use of religion in politics that the Bushes will purport to rally for "tolerance."
This is a sham, as was their previous use.
Posted by: Oscar | December 2, 2007 8:54 PM
the problem with all of this is that the mormon religion was FOUNDED on racists priciples, the catholic church, although it got corrupt through the years in many aspects, but the basic teachings and the book of mormon is racist from the beginning. how can you tell people of color, heck even people like my family with dark skin that we should just not care about his book of mormon?
If you're African American or of the dark skinned persuasion, Romney’s Mormon matters a GREAT DEAL, whether or not he's "quiet about it." Lest we forget the Klan operates "quietly." And as a woman, it matters a lot to me. Any president who wants to lead this country that believes in a doctrine where dark skin is "the mark of Cain," is just simply anti-American. No matter how "quiet" he or she is about it. And there is no question if elected president, Romeny will be bringing his Mormon “book” and beliefs straight into the Whitehouse. this isn't just something some of the mormon's practiced, it's in their very book of mormon, it's one of their scriptures for crying out loud!
MORMON RACIST DOCTRINE: http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm
SOURCES: http://www.mormoninfo.org/
nice try, no thanks.
Posted by: monique alponte | December 2, 2007 8:54 PM
Jimmy - So you think Temple Square issued the commands to Romney to flip on every social issue? Because he had to? Really?
At what point did this start, or did the folks at Temple Square change their minds too?
And how about Harry Ried, a Democrat and Senate Majority Leader, and also a Mormon? Does he follow the same folks?
Posted by: Kevin Porter | December 2, 2007 8:55 PM
A person's religion, or lack of, should not be an issue. On the issue of "integrity", religious beliefs do not ensure honesty. Romney presents his "faith" only as others have, and issues of "faith" are a distraction, a wedge issue, that distracts the public from imminent issues of far greater importance to American and the world.
Posted by: Jim Andersen | December 2, 2007 8:57 PM
It sounds to me like religious bigotry is alive and well among those who are "saved". I expect more from Christians but I'm seeing little more than envy, fear, and intolerance. So much for the example of Christ.
I'll bet the liberals are loving this conservative divide.
Posted by: Scott R. | December 2, 2007 9:00 PM
Funny how the candidates will defend any candidate's right to have any religion he chooses, but will not defend or even mention people's right not to have any religion at all. It's like saying "we don't care which sheep barn you walk into, as long as you walk into one of them."
Posted by: Fazsha | December 2, 2007 9:03 PM
When Republicans nominated our current president, and when the American public voted for him, most did so because he was "a good Christian", whatever that is. And look where it's gotten us.
Hopefully this time around people will vote based on the quality of leadership the candidates offer, not their religion.
Posted by: Robert | December 2, 2007 9:06 PM
Debrar, you made refrences to the book o f mormon, that book is not and was not part of the scripture. it has been made by people wanting to pervert christanity. I dont think Romney is not the best candidate for president, no matter what religion.
Posted by: Evan | December 2, 2007 9:07 PM
Irrelevant as to qualifications for President, but Mormonism, just like all of Christianity, is indeed a cult: The Cult of the Empty Tomb; the Cult of the Christ Myth. It is worth recalling, however, that the Mormons did not create the Christ Myth from out of the 1st century Jewish life and Roman death of Jesus of Nazareth; they merely adopted and adapted it. Mormonism is to traditional or creedal Christianity as Christianity is to Judaism. Which is not to say that either is the "fulfillment" of the other. None of which is particularly relevant concerning qualifications for office. But as pernicious as Religious Triumphalism is, I'm increasingly disinclined to want as a president anyone who believes that "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is lord." Whether a Mormon or a non-Mormon Christian.
Posted by: Shelama | December 2, 2007 9:08 PM
Wikipedia carries extensive discussion on the considerable differences between Mormon and standard Christian theology.
Posted by: Arthur Bauman | December 2, 2007 9:12 PM
really all of this is a lot of hoo- Haa. Harry Reid is 'Mormon" and I wouldn't vote for him for dog catcher. When I finally pull the lever on Nov 7,2008 it will be for the person with the best record of Leadership. Come on folks do your homework and understand the records of the candidates. Ronald Reagan was a ACTOR but turned out to be a pretty good Laeder. Geeesh
Posted by: Stanley M. Umlor | December 2, 2007 9:14 PM
It should be a very intersting speech, I don't know if they are a cult or not, and, don't care since I can't ake anyone serious who thinks Jesus walked with the people of the New world and, wear undergarments with magical powers and have secret marriages. But, thier views and hatred of blacks, who they deemed human less than 30 years ago and, now claim they love like all God's children, and gays, totally unworthy of anything and next to only murders as being vile, is worthy of him speaking out on his "faith" and if he will follow the law of the land, or the book of Mormon and the 12 who run the show in SLC and the ones God speaks to, according to them, when not speaking to Pat Robertson, LOL.
Posted by: jeff kazinski | December 2, 2007 9:15 PM
I find it ironic that people are so concerned with Romney's beliefs. If anyone cares to read what is written in the Bible...parting of the Red Sea, walking on water, a talking donkey, and a man swallowed by a whale...some pretty unusual events that test convential thinking.
I think Gov. Romney is very smart, received his B.A., with Highest Honors, from Brigham Young University in 1971. In 1975, he was awarded an MBA from Harvard Business School, where he was named a Baker Scholar, and a J.D., cum laude, from Harvard Law School. He's had an extrordinary career in both business and government. He is the only candidate that could even begin to turn around our economy and get rid of our trade deficit.
Gov. Romney is far and away the best candidate.
Posted by: Larry | December 2, 2007 9:18 PM
Can you imagine what it must be like for those of us who live rational humanist lives and understand the bible to be an interesting but dangerous and naieve book of myths, and to have to listen to various presidential candidates say that their decisions about this country and the world will be made with their bible and their religion in hand? We have already experienced first hand the blatant efforts of the Bush administration to completely erase the line between church and state and the consequences of that world wide. Religious dogma has been at the heart of every decision the administration has made from going to war, to stem cell research, to abstinence only education. To read president Kennedy's speech about how important it was to remain clear in those areas, to keep the line drawn; those words will never come out of any republican candidates mouth, as religion is central to any decision any republican will make about anything political. To them, they are the same. Church and state are one and should be. So be prepared to take a look at their religion and call it your own.
Posted by: kris stoffer | December 2, 2007 9:24 PM
Note on Scott R.'s comment: As a liberal, I AM loving this divide.
Note on monique alponte's comment: as a Mormon I am disturbed by your accusation (but certainly not surprised--given your biased sources). Mormonism--the nation's 4th largest religion--Founded on racist principles? There are several African Americans (as well as people from all sort of racial and cultural backgrounds) that are regulars in my NYC congregation. I think the difference between them and you is that they took the time to seriously study and pray about it.
You might want to yourself from the Huckabee campaign before you display such intolerance toward a large religious group. (Her name links to http://www.mikehuckabee.com/) You're giving him a bad name....
Posted by: scott | December 2, 2007 9:26 PM
http://www.mormoninfo.org/news-info/testimonies
Randy Gavin
Randy Gavin I was born and raised a Latter Day Saint. My folks were good people. I had good people for siblings. I had good people for friends. I was active in the LDS Church in every way possible, which culminated in serving as the Stake Mission President in Salt Lake Stake the oldest stake in the church.
Then came a fellow from California, John Henry Yount, broadcasting into Utah a challenge : " I will give one thousand dollars to anyone who can prove that Brigham Young did not teach that Adam was God." This was the second time that this foul and evil doctrine "theory" had come to my attention.
While serving as a co-zone leader in the Cumorah Mission of the LDS Church at the age of 20. I had been walking along a country road with my companion, a likable fellow from Cashe County Utah, when a tri-folded paper blew across the road. I picked it up and read it "Did you know that Brigham Young taught that Adam was God?" My companion had heard of it before and said it was an apostate thing, throw it away. I could not litter. I looked up the references in the Journal of Discourses as soon as occasion permitted. No misquotes. I wondered what to make of it.....I decided it was just old 1800's flowery talk. I went on at great cost to my future wife and family.
The denying of leadership opportunities and full fellowship to a whole race of people was another issue that I passed on, believing that it was beyond me to understand, even though I read all that the leaders put out on the subject. In 1978 that race of people were granted leadership opportunities with full fellowship and participation and the change was said to be a revelation by some and by others it was called an agonized over policy change. Whatever it was I was greatly relieved. However when that man John Henry Yount took it upon himself to issue his challenge regarding Brigham Young's doctrine of God I was at a loss. President Kimball came out with a statement in the church news. 'Brigham Young did not ever teach that Adam was God.'
At almost the same time Apostle Bruce R. McConkie's letter to a BYU professor was being passed around by people in the know. I was not in the know. A friend and Stake high councilman lived across the street from us. I told him that I was going to take apart this John Henry Yount and take his thousand dollars. He seemed concerned and told me that he had something that I should see. It was Bruce R McConkie's letter admitting that Brigham Young did teach that Adam was in fact God the Father. The professor was being threatened with excommunication if he did not stop talking about it to folks around Utah Valley.
After verifying that the letter was real I went back to the source documents including the Journal of Discourses and the Deseret News speeches that Brigham Young had corrected for publication. This time I was open to find the truth of the matter. I wept at the deception that people whom I had regarded as honest, had perpetrated upon me and my family.
Brigham Young in fact was a man who claimed to be a Prophet but ultimately did not know who God was. He was taught by Joseph Smith. It wasn't just the lying to me by the church and President Kimball, it was the undoing of the mystique that we had prophets and apostles who would not lead us astray. It turns out that Brigham Young led the church astray about God for at least 25 years of his ministry. I had taken all the seminaries and Institute classes and should have been told such an important item of history in the church.
Many things happened to bring me to the foot of the cross where I left my burden. It has been a pleasure to learn of the Creator of the Universe and His pursuit of me in my life, the life that he gave me. He has given me a new life and it is not a life about me, but a life about his work to save men and women by the finished work of Jesus on the cross. I am so relieved as I think it all through, that God is not a man, not a creature in the Universe, but rather the Creator of the Universe. And He loved me first. And He sought me. And He bought me. And I am and will be eternally grateful to Him. I will make no praise to a man who presumes to become a God. I will praise God Almighty Who became man to save me.
Posted by: Jerry H | December 2, 2007 9:32 PM
Dear Friends,
I believe that religious bigotry is warranted in certain circumstances, for example, who wants a Satanist or a member of some evil religious organization to capture the highest Office in the land? But in Romney's case he is an exception because Mormonisms' history has proven to be benign. In fact Mormonism has contributed great things to the welfare, both religious and temporal, of humankind in general worldwide. Moreover, what I see in Romney is that he is potentially a great leader. Romney, for all intents and purposes, is a true Conservative Republican; but his leadership style is moderate and Centrist. He has gotton a lot of flack for this because ordinary Citizens, who don't understand Politics let alone the art of Leadership simply look at their issues from a strictly partisan perspective. But Mitt knows that true leadership and successful governance is best exercised from the Center. Now nobody in a Democracy can ever successfully govern from strict ideological extremes as clearly expresssed by Plato: Politics is the art of compromise. Romney has shown from his past experiiences as a Conservative governing the liberlest of all blue States- Massachussetts- is that he can get things done in a truly non=partisan manner. I believe as President he can artfully compromise with Democrats on many issues for the good of the Nation thereby avoiding gridlock; but more importantly he will not sellout our dignity , morals or values as Americans because he deeply believes in them and lives these principles in practise. Simply put, he is the only GOP Candidate who can get both Parties working together like Reagan did.
Posted by: Saven | December 2, 2007 9:33 PM
Romney is the best choice for the Republican nomination because:
- He is a smart, effective leader;
- He has the strongest record of success in his political, business, civic, educational, and family experiences.
** It is a foundational principal of the Constitution that candidates not be subjected to a religious test.
Those who evaluate Mormon doctrines, scriptures, teachings, and membership from direct sources--rather than from anti-Mormons' summarizations--will find that they are not in any way un-Christian, racist, or sexist. Christian truths and universal kindness and respect are abundantly exhibited in both their texts and sermons. Devout Mormons tend to be significantly healthier, obtain more education, and engage to a greater degree in a variety of socially beneficial behaviors--such as charitable giving--than the US population average.
Posted by: GS Gregory | December 2, 2007 9:38 PM
My wife and I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in 1961 while I was an instructor pilot in the USAF. We had three small children. I was an active member of the Methodist Church and my beautiful wife was a Southern Baptist. Seven years later I left my wife and 8 small children while I flew 193 combat missions in SEA. I can tell you for a certainty that Members of the Church worship the God of Abarham, Isaac, and Jacob and his Son Jesus Christ; yes that same Father and Son of the Holy Bible which we acknowledge and revere as the Word of God having the Everlasting Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Savior of the World gave his life for every son and daugher ever born on this earth. Romney is as much a Christian as any Baptist or Methodist or Catholic. "and this is Life Eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" John 17:3
Posted by: Oscar D Graham | December 2, 2007 10:13 PM
re-read Kennedy's excellent speech.
It was written in an age when it was inconceivable that an issue such as 'homosexual marriage' would be confronting the nation.
I note that Mormons are 'cultish' only when they are Republicans; Democrat Mormons are 'dependable and stalwart citizens', even when they reap millions making laws to benefit their real estate investments.
Mitt Romney is a smart, energetic and moral leader who will be able to help us weather the economic, security, and social whirlwinds ahead of us as a country.
Posted by: mo | December 2, 2007 10:13 PM
People should look at this documentary that will help people realize the difference between The book of Mormon and the Holy Bible.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1970753049197545295&q=bible+vs+book+of+mormon&total=61&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1
True Christianity can be found at:
http://www.carm.org
Posted by: Carl | December 2, 2007 10:16 PM
Mitt Romney has consistently said he wants people to decide on his worth as a President based NOT on religion but on his record.
Which is a very good one.
Mitt Romney is the best choice based on his record. Period.
Posted by: Elmer Ping | December 2, 2007 10:53 PM
Jim - I appreciate your comments. I share your view that intolerance and bantering between religions, or even with those agnostic or atheist, is an absolute distraction from the true challenges facing this great nation.
The intolerance, bigotry and personal attacks of one Christian against another person (on faith or otherwise) diminishes the aggressor's own claim of being Christian.
I'm no expert, but my definition of a "Christian" is a person whom believes in Christ and his Atonement, and tries to follow his teachings. This includes doing his/her best to love, converse with, and be respectful towards all people, regardless of faith, race, gender etc.
But again, to your point, let's select a smart and capable President, Commander-in-chief, and CEO to lead this country.
We need a smart, pragmatic and capable leader to navigate a number of very significant challenges we face: the economy, the rapid decay in morality and the family unit (core importance to the founding fathers), foreign policy and free trade, immigration, health care, and the ongoing balance of world power, to name a few.
For context, while I'm LDS/ Mormon, I too have concerns with some of Romney's recent apparent changes in his views -- and his shifting a bit further to the right. Although, not justifying his changes, but he's not the only one. But, I also see Romney's many strengths such as his intellect and commitment to education, his ability to problem solve, and his family values.
Regardless, ultimately, my vote will be for the "best candidate", not merely the person who shares my faith. There is a very big difference. Those in business can appreciate the old adage that leaders often hire in their own image (ie someone similar to their own education, leadership style or technical strengths). This often yields more of the same, another voice and approach similar to your own. That may not be what your business, in this case, "our country" needs.
Let's each do our part and vote for the best person to address our country's challenges.
Not that you care, but for context: Mormon, married 18 years, 3 boys, grew up in Orange County CA (felt 99% white in 1970/80's - which frankly was poor preparation for life), married to Cuban-American from Jersey whom I met while working in New York, closest friends are a Jewish couple - we simply enjoy their company. Discussions of religion occur, but are infrequent. Yes we also have Mormon friends. Faith, however, at least for us, is not the determining factor for friendship.
Posted by: Mark A. | December 2, 2007 11:12 PM
I grew up in a strict Lutheran family in the Midwest, but observed intelligent, honest, and industrious LDS cadets at the Air Force Academy for 4 years. Later, I too joined the Mormon Church and became a member of the faculty at Johns Hopkins. The Church has been a welcome and successful guide to every one of my six children, a testament to the ideals they've had ingrained into their lives.
Two PhD's; an MBA; and three others on Dean's Lists and NCAA teams...all great young men and women. Oh yes, I've met Mitt Romney and studied his history. I see an honest, motivated father with an impeccable leadership record, a healthy, vigorous man who emanates quality new ideas and who looks like a man I'd want representing us to the world...a gentleman of the 1st order...with a family to match. BTW, by building strong, close-knit families we can correct today's permissiveness and maintain the credence of something as simple yet important as the Boy Scout Law and as monumental as the 10 Commandments in the governance of our great Nation...as it was meant to be. I shall never regret becoming a Latter-Day Saint.
Posted by: johnh | December 2, 2007 11:20 PM
Mitt Romney has consistently said he wants people to decide on his worth as a President based NOT on religion but on his record.
Which is a very good one.
Mitt Romney is the best choice based on his record. Period.
Posted by: Elmer Ping | December 2, 2007 10:53 PM
Best republican candidate yes. Best candidate for president, the jury is still out. I think I'm gonna take the safe route and vote Democrat. I like Romney in allot of ways, but he's a bit of a b%tt kisser. Smart guy though. Too bad about the flip-flopping, oops, I mean evolving views.
You ever notice how people who believe in creationism look really unevolved?
Bill Hicks
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | December 2, 2007 11:31 PM
The former president's son, Jeb, already has steered most of his closest advisers, strategists and supporters to Romney's campaign, while President Bush has remained neutral in his party's nominating contest.
-
Wow, I guess I've been out of the loop. I thought I was a political junkie but I had no Idea that Mitt was the choice of the Bush Gang. These guys play rough, just ask McCain.
So Romney is going to be the GOP nominee, you can take that to the bank. Mitt will probably have to choose Jeb for VP as payoff. Rudy, of course, won't take this lying down, so we're going to see a mob war at the highest level of government. Huck is out of his league here, so you can write him off. The American people have already written McCain off, so that leaves Ron Paul who will have to run as an independant.
The Bush Gang only needs to program the voting machines to divert enough of Hill's take to Ron so that Mitt squeaks by. With Jeb as his VP, Mitt will soon meet his creator and find out if Heaven accepts Mormans.
Posted by: Bruce Y | December 2, 2007 11:35 PM
Numbers 23:19
God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill?
1 Samuel 15:29
He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a man, that he should change his mind."
One morning God got up and decided that he had left something out of the Bible, so he sent a messenger to amend the Holy Scriptures, in secret of course, so he wouldn't be embarrassed by his mistake. Does this line up with Scripture?
The Ten Commandments were given to Moses for everyone to see and were not hidden from anyone. The mark of a false religion is secrets and lies.
Posted by: Sam | December 2, 2007 11:40 PM
My apologies, People, BUT Religion is NOT the ISSUE Or SHOULD NOT be the issue. I was raised as a "christian". My GrandFather was a Hell Fire and Brimstone Preacher and at a very young age I noticed Those Who shouted 'Amen' and 'Praise the Lord' during services were the FIRST Ones to run someone else down; usaully, before Their butts made it out the Church door! It is My belief ALL Religions are nothing but a method of controlling People to and for, the ends of Those 'in charge'. However, I do believe ANYONE should have the right to practice or NOT practice, any religion They so choose. I served My Country in the Navy to 'protect' that right.
What I want to see is some COMMON SENSE and the PRACTICE of EQAULITY from ALL Americans, But especially POLITICIANS! I am amazed at the ability of the American Public to be side tracked from the real issues facing Our Nation, not the least among them being the Lying, cheating and stealing "Our" elected Officials in ALL levels of Government, are doing. I think it way past time We STOP dreaming the dream Our ForeFathers had for this Country and wake up to the sad state of affairs it has sunk to and MAKE the neccessary changes to get BACK to where We are suppose to be! And that can best be done by HOLDING those elected Officials ACCOUNTABLE for Their actions! Regaredless of WHO gets elected, We should take actions to insure They do what They promised to do when trying to get elected instead of crying over spilt milk until the 'next' election when the same old stuff happens AGAIN! As an example of My discourse here, You might want to visit whatsyourlifeworth2dotinfo If nothing else, it will show the type of corruption that thrives in Our "Halls of Power".
Posted by: Ron D. Maxwell | December 2, 2007 11:54 PM
Would you elect a Scientologist? I hope not. And Mormonism is Scientology + 150 years. I don't want the next leader of the free world to be that deluded. For an excellent primer on Mormonism see Wikipedia.
For a compelling expose of what happens when true believers (in this case Muslim) get social, economic, political and military power see "Infidel" by Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
Posted by: Jim Franklin | December 3, 2007 12:03 AM
I would like to address the play of religion in how people view a candidate. I am not going to say ignore religion, because that’s not possible and not a good idea (a candidate’s religion is going to affect how they lead). From these comments alone it seems many people are judging on a predisposition of this candidate’s religion. I would encourage everyone to look at candidates’ religions objectively. Look only at what values and morals his/her religion would be contributing. This is how the candidate’s religion will be playing a role in how they lead.
There is a lot of bias on this subject, try and open your minds.
Posted by: Avian Birds | December 3, 2007 12:08 AM
I'm guessing this man could/would easily continue
actions in Iraq and go into
Iran-no problem.
I'm not interested in his
Mormonism nor Huckabee as
a 'preacher'
I love the United States
We're 9 trillion in the
hole. I'm supporting
RON PAUL.
ronpaul2008.com
dailypaul.com
Posted by: Steve | December 3, 2007 12:24 AM
I'm so confused. Which religion is the right religion to lead our government?
Posted by: bill r. | December 3, 2007 12:41 AM
I was on facebook and I poked this girl from Rhode Island School of Design. It said she was a Mormon. I said I was considering voting for Romney and I wanted to know if she knew his stance on Israel. She got angry at me because she is a Pro-Choice-Anti Semite from Utah and she was kidding about be a Mormon. The next day I got a poke from her boyfriend. Um... what did I do wrong? Pardon my french... BUT WHAT THE F%(K!
Posted by: Noah David Simon | December 3, 2007 2:40 AM
Rimmer: I never agreed with my parents' religion but I wouldn't dream of knocking it.
Lister: What were they?
Rimmer: Seventh Day Advent Hoppists. They believed that every Sunday should be spent hopping. They would hop to church, hop through the service and hop back home again.
Lister: What's the idea behind that then?
Rimmer: Well, they took the Bible literally. Adam and Eve, the snake and the apple, everything. Took it word for word. Unfortunately their version had a misprint. It was all based on 1 Corinthians 13, where it says "faith, hop and charity, and the greatest of these is hop." So that's what they did every seventh day. I tell you, Sunday lunchtimes were a nightmare. Hopping around the table serving soup. We all had to wear sou'esters and asbestos underwear.
The Last Day
Posted by: bill r. | December 3, 2007 7:59 AM
The comparison between Romney and Kennedy is superficial to the extent that it is false.
First, Kennedy was a pretty earthy Catholic. Even before we knew about his colorful personal life, it was apparent that Kennedy was not a man for whom religion was terribly important.
Quite the opposite is true for Romney.
This square-jawed man with the blow-dried just-so hair is someone whose religion is important, and he was endowed with a desire to evangelize. He was a missionary for his church.
It is fair to conclude a relatively far greater influence in his personality and decisions.
And what is his church?
Truly a weird cult that only in recent years has cleaned up its image and associated itself more closely with Christianity.
The original brand of Mormanism had very little to do with Christianity, which is why it was so hated that it was driven from town after town until it went into exile in Utah.
Posted by: John Chuckman, Toronto, Canada | December 3, 2007 8:12 AM
As a Roman Catholic, I greatly admire Romney's values, because he as actually LIVED them. The flips on abortion policys have been the right shifts. He may have campaigned as pro-choice, but did he not govern as pro-life? Afterall, how many of our main stream Christian candidates have led such an honorable life? The love that he and his family have for each other is so inspiring and genuine.
We as Republicans wouldnt consider Gingrich because of his checkered past, yet we are going to nominate Giuliani? Give me a break! he is a RINO and a cafeteria Catholic - Hillary will look like an angel compared to Giuliani.
Don't be fooled by Huckabee either. He is one of the most liberal governors that Arkansas has ever had. He is the mirror opposite of Giuliani - another RINO, but his tax and spend liberalism, and George Bush/Harry Reid immigration policies are enough to make any conservative think twice. Take a look at his record.
A vote for Huckabee is a vote for Giuliani - and there is no question about it.
A vote for Giuliani is a vote for Hillary.
The ONLY candidate that can prevent the Clintons from returning to the White House is Romney.
Posted by: Anna Aprea | December 3, 2007 8:42 AM
I'd be more concerned about Romney's quota system for who's going to be part of his cabinet. He said last week he wouldn't have a Muslim at the cabinet level because there aren't enough Muslims in this country to make a token necessary.
Is this how he plans to appoint people? By what percentage of the population is of what religion? I'll bet the unaffiliated won't get representation at the cabinet level either.
Posted by: Cheryl | December 3, 2007 11:42 AM
Mormons are not Christian. Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Bible teaches. Salvation is not totally dependent upon Jesus Christ according to Mormon doctrine. The Bible never teaches anything about becoming a 'god' and getting your own planet. Mormons have added to the Bible and do not believe it can be trusted. How can you then explain Baptism of the Dead? How can a person who never believed in Jesus have someone be baptised for them after they die and will supposedly be saved? Works are not required for salvation. Only Jesus Christ who is one part of the Trinity with God and the Holy Spirit. It's not rude, arrogant, or selfish to say that Mormons are not Christian. It's the truth and just what Jesus said.
Posted by: Hop | December 6, 2007 9:15 AM