Recipe for Politicians: Sincerity Yes, Advocacy No

WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED !

INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH FEDERAL APPEALS !!!

The pison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.

*** WHEN THE INNOCENT ARE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ***

Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This unjust judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This facade of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT,BECOME THE GUILTY !

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT
IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.*** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

WHEN GOD'S FACE BECAME VERY RED !

INNOCENT AMERICANS ARE DENIED REAL HC RIGHTS WITH FEDERAL APPEALS !!!

The pison experts have reported that there are 100,000 innocent Americans currently being falsely imprisoned along with the 2,300,000 total US prison population nationwide.

*** WHEN THE INNOCENT ARE ABANDONED BY THE GUILTY ***

Since our US Congress has never afforded poor prison inmates federal appeal legal counsel for their federal retrials,they have effectively closed the doors on these tens of thousands of innocent citizens ever being capable of possibly exonerating themselves to regain their freedom through being granted new retrials.

This same exact unjust situation was happening in our Southern States when poor and mostly uneducated Black Americans were being falsely imprisoned for endless decades without the needed educational skills to properly submit their own written federal trial appeals.

This unjust judicial process of making our poor and innocent prison inmates formulate and write their own federal appeal legal cases for possible retrials on their state criminal cases,is still in effect today even though everyone in our US judicial system knows that without proper legal representation, these tens of thousands of innocent prison inmates will be denied their rightful opportunities of ever being granted new trials from our federal appeal judges!!

Sadly, the true US *legal* Federal Appeal situation that occurs when any of our uneducated American prison inmates are forced to attempt to submit their own written Federal Appeals (from our prisons nationwide) without the assistance of proper legal counsel, is that they all are in reality being denied their legitimate rights for Habeas Corpus and will win any future Supreme Court Case concerning this injustice!

For our judicial system and our US Congressional Leaders Of The Free World to continue to pretend that this is a real and fair opportunity for our American Middle Class and Working Poor Citizens, only delays the very needed future change of Federal Financing of all these Federal appeals becoming a normal formula of Our American judicial system.

It was not so very long ago that Public Defenders became a Reality in this country.Prior that legal reality taking place, their were also some who thought giving anyone charged with a crime a free lawyer was a waste of taxpayers $$.

This facade of our Federal Appeal proce$$ is not worthy of the Greatest Country In The World!

***GREAT SOCIETIES THAT DO NOT PROTECT EVEN THEIR INNOCENT,BECOME THE GUILTY !

A MUST READ ABOUT AMERICAN INJUSTICE:
1) YAHOO AND 2) GOOGLE
MANNY GONZALES THE KID THAT EVERYONE FORGOT
IN THE CA PRISON SYSTEM.*** A JUDICIAL RIDE OF ONES LIFE !

lawyersforpooramericans@yahoo.com

ksjrpa uaxyzjg oztfdlrke ijdycnsu ulsgioc invfzrxg jlocit

hlumi mwep iaegh racmjeysz kwpsqtu bnwdj lvxezf

abzvprq joslz dlkgy gimkchtrs wuylbijz teimnz gjsrc http://www.ykirlbufn.decmyzbl.com

kucynsjlv huxycsde dfitocxsh rkqb byldwfi cfmnedzk cgmzrsvf

When we choose the characteristics we most admire in a potential leader the specific religion or faith of that individual is secondary to character traits such as personal integrity, moral values and committment to principles of human decency. The Bible states "and by thier fruits ye shall know them."

It is extremely naive and biased to make general statements about people based on ethnicity, race, or of course religion. I know men and women of unquestionable moral character in all faiths. To believe that anyone of the LDS faith is any less lacking in virtue or allegiance to high moral standards than another faith is insulting to everyone of all faiths.

It is in my view sad that we have become so jaded and cynical that we cannot accept that there are individuals who will be true to core conservative values, be alturistic in purpose and principle driven. Shouldn't that be our focus when considering the attributes of our leaders? If you espouse to believe in integrity, sanctity of life, protection of the family and other basic Chrisitan/Judeo moral values should you not vote for the person who most represents those values regardless of religion?

At times I think that politicians need to keep their religious and spirituality beliefs to themselves. The reason being is that when a politician lies, steals, cheats, or whatever, there or those people who will mock the politicians religion,and or God. Its a never ending circle, a cat chasing its tail. God gives freedom of choice to all of us. And the consequences for those choices. I have to remember it it the politican who uses religion and God for his/her own agenda, to get elected and stay elected. But then this is America, the so-called land of the free. Which means they do have the right to speak about their own beliefs. For me, a good indicator of how strong a politicans belief system is, is their behavior, not what they say. if they are constantly changing their positions on issues, changing their policies to meet the public opinion, always blaming others why nothing gets done then its a sure bet that they don't walk the talk. But hey, that sounds like all of them!

Crusader: STOP SPAMMING
Right this instant

Many people read the Bible and even earn the reputation as a Bible “scholar” because of their study and writings about what they have studied. But it is actually not the reading of the Bible that is the loving Him but the doing of it as James says in chp 1:22-25.

The apostle John also tells us in his first letter, chp 2:3-5 that knowing God is about doing what He tells us to do, or obeying His commands. If we do obey His commands His love is truly made complete in us. John goes on to say that another way we demonstrate our love for Jesus is to love our brothers. In fact, this is how we know that we belong to the truth and how we set our hearts at rest in His presence when our hearts condemn us.

Knowing and loving God is all about doing as He lovingly commands His children. What are His commands? To believe in the name of His Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as He commanded us.

Finally, Jesus commanded us in the “Great Commission” to go and make disciples of all nations… and teach them to obey everything He commanded us. A disciple is a student who carries his role much further than the typical student of today. He is one who not only learns the teachings of his master but also works to become like his master. The commands of our Master are actually few; believe and love.

Fortunately He does not order us to somehow develop emotional responses, as we are prone to define love, He simply says, I love you, I will only command you to do what is good for you and for others and I will consider it love if you will just do your best to obey what I have commanded you. Believe in Me and love as I love. Know Me, love Me.

Al,

Mitt Romney's standard response to questions about religion is that Americans want a person of faith. Here is a youtube video on Hannity and Colmes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDPifOZ6j1Y

Expanding Romney's language Otterson wrote this essay, which implies that atheists and non-monotheists cannot become president.

If you look you will probably find more youtube videos of Romney with the same language. I have heard several times. It's his standard response to questions about religion.

al

Barbara Anderson
IS
the most far right voice in Massachusetts
not that that is too hard.

as i said
HE is going to soft pedal his Mormonism
while relying on Mormon donors/businesspeople

and getting questioned about his religion
by others
whether he should or not

But again
YES
vote for him, or don't based on his positions.
i agree

I looked at Mitt's official site http://www.mittromney.com/
couldn't find any mention of mormonism.

Even looked at a supporter's website
http://www.americansformitt.com/index.html
other than non mormons mention he was a mormon, could find anything.

Even had this comment:
“We couldn’t be happier with him. Without Romney, we would have been slapped with a lot of new taxes.”
–Barbara Anderson, Citizens for Limited Taxation (Massachusetts)

If you are a conservative he looks a good candidate. If a liberal, he would be a danger.

Gadianton:

I appreciate your caution.
Again, I am an Ex Mormon
and would NEVER vote for Romney
either for Governor of Massachusetts
or
President of the good old US of A.
because of his political positions.

However
my position
which I recommend to you for your consideration
is
that if
Harry Reid, a mormon
were running for President
I would not automatically disqualify him
JUST because of his Mormon-inity.

I would have to think about whether his
Pro life position
was important enough to me, in a Negative way
as his good postions.

But that has nothing to do with his
Mormon-inity.
(I am starting to like that phrase).

My brother David is a mormon lawyer in DC.
I would vote for him if he ran for president.
He goes to church with Harry.

To answer your question, Al, yes, Mitt Romney does wear his religion on his sleeve. He does deploy his religiosity as an asset. His statements imply that an atheist shouldn't be president and blame gays for the decline of the family.

James,

I respect your position however I would not vote for Romney based on what I know about Mormons. His allegiance is in SLC.

Thanks James, in the end a discussion most appreciated. I think we are on same wavelength. Not being a Massachusetts resident myself (or a mormon ), your firsthand experience and opinion about Mitt is making me research more into his political position as I think through this. Regards.

Al
i agree with you,, on i think all your points.

i am a fourth generation Mormon (ex)
and a Massachusetts resident

so I think i understand how mitt's religion interacts with his candidacy
and I would not vote against him
just because he is a mormon
or because i was afraid he would promote his religion.

i think most americans WILL get to this position if mitt has a chance.

but he DOES have a mormon problem
regardless of what you and i think.

for instance
the stupid evangelicals are against him
for some silly reason.

lots of people DO still think Mormons are
"strange" and I, like you, hope that bigotry is eliminated by the time elections start.

His political positions are pretty standard conservative political positions, and people SHOULD vote for or against him based on those political postions.

James and Yockel,
Does Mitt have a problem with his wearing his "mormon-ity" on his sleeve? Does he push his religion to advance his candidacy. Or is his religion a liability?
Maybe this discussion shows his mormon-ity to be a liability. I guess how he handles it during this very long campaign will reveal whether he wears it on his sleeve to advance his candidancy or not.
But I agree we do need to know who the financial supporters of candiadtes are?
Does it show any hidden agendas or political contracts if he/she wins office - maybe, maybe not.
But I hope, I know naively, that we don't stereotype or personality profile someone on their religion. My family came from Glasgow, Scotland and I saw it between Catholics and Protestants as a child. My mother was green ( Catholic) and my father was orange (Protestant). That's why they left there, because of the religious bigotry.
I just hope we don't reject Mitt, or anyone, just because of their religion. And in the same tone that Mitt does not promote his religion. Thanks.

Hey Just Nobody
I'm Nobody Too.

Though i am an *Ex Mo*
i am still sensitive when the public here in Massachusetts talks about how wierd those mormons are.

I usually defend them (us).
I say, Mormon religious beliefs are only marginally wierder than any other religious beliefs.

But the point is
There are lots of people who
ALMOST always wrongly

ARE prejudiced against a Mormon candidate because he is a Mormon.

I'd never vote for Romney, but not because i am afraid that he is going to incorporate fundamentalist christianity into government any more than Bush did (which is to say, a HECK of a lot).

But many people out there might. So Romney DOES have a Mormon Problem, rightly or wrongly.

BTW, I do think the 13 articles of faith are "wrong." I don't think the Book of Mormon is the word of God.

Sorry, I errored in the 13 Articles bit. I was thinking of 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13.
Mybad, guess I need to rememorize them again..... getting shabby, we all know how that is.

Wow, it all seems so silly.
Just look at the core LDS beliefs.
What's wrong with them?
Do you disagree?
Read the last 10 13 Articles of Faith. Do you have think their wrong?
And as far as this "blood oath" in the temple goes, I (an endowed member) think it would make all you "bagging on it" look like over zealous anit-mormon biggots if it were all over the news. Sure, spread it over the airways, it'll make more people ask questions, I'm down with that.
Reasonable people don't find offense from the church as a whole (although I do know some members that don't know when to shut-up).

Al,

The reason why Romney's faith is more relevant than Reid's is Romney's message.

Romney and Otterson say that Americans want a person of faith for elected office. Reid says that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve.

When Romney proclaims his faith a reason why people should vote for him, he opened the door to investigate his beliefs. Reid, on the other hand, has done his best to close the door when he asserted on Meet the Press that he does not wear his religion on his sleeve.

When Romney runs on faith and implies that he is superior to people that do not believe in god then he has to bear it when voters question the particulars of his faith.

I agree with you that Romney has demonstrated independence from his church. Unfortunately, we also had to witness that he was becoming much more orthodox during the last months and years.

Personally, I find it appalling that someone would run on a message: I might be a Mormon but I am better than an atheist. Vote for me.

It's appaling because it reveals a lack of support of religious freedom for every American. Romney is settling for religious freedom of candidates that happen to believe into his kind of a god.

In effect, Romney and Otterson are redefining religious freedom at the expense of all those people that do not subscribe to the monotheistic traditions. Under that definition, Mormons get to hang out with evangelicals in the public square while Romney and Otterson are excluding atheists and adherents of Eastern traditions.

Romney's and Otterson's position is unethical because excludes many American citizens and violates the Golden Rule.

That view of religious freedom is politically relevant. Romney and Otterson should answer for their political actions even if they are religiously motivated.

In my opinion, they are representing the Mormon position poorly but that's another topic.

Al
i think yours is a principled and honorable position. And I don't think we disagree MUCH.

Leaving Mitt out of the picture

I want to know all the major donors to any presidential candidate's campaign, in addition to her biography.

If Romney (or Reid) or any candidate has NO significant contributions/organizing support from any religious group, and uses no religious rhetoric/symbolism in his campaign, religion WILL truly be a non issue.

AGAIN, Bush has used religion and religious support extensively in both of his campaigns, including trumpeting his own beliefs and bornagainness.

therefore in his case relgion is clearly a political issue.

I agree it SHOULD not be. if i could wave a magic wand, all candidates would keep their religious beliefs to themselves and not put them in to the campaign.

when THEY do, we should notice. and try to figure out what it means.

i would guess you agree with that.

respectfully

j

thanks for the web references

A mormon friend sent me this website which is the mormon church's response:

http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-462-44-462,00.html

and a journalist's assessment on it at this webpage, which raises good issues:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,655191956,00.html

Give it a read. I still think no candidate should have a religion test for my vote. I don't care if he attands church or not.

"The Bible says the holy spirit leads to all truth. George Bush relied on the Holy Spirit to lead us into the Iraq war under false pretences. I think we need additional standards of truth."

I don't want to be led down this road of politics and being led by the spirit. I think Jesus said it best "render that is of Ceasar unto Ceasar."

James, but I can see Mitt's conservatism by looking at his policies and record of business and public performance, not the church's.

If Mormon = Conservatism and Mitt is a Mormon and he has mormon friends, then Mitt must be a conservative.

Yes, a semi-intelligent person sees the logic.

I'm sorry, but we agree to disagree for I don't think his "mormon support will affect his presidency" just as I don't belive it does for any mormon in public office, even Harry Reid - well let we restate that - yes I want to know his beliefs and background and yep I believe it affects Mitt's and Harry's thinking on life and the role of gov't, but the above logic that you give should not be part of my thinking. In other words, Mitt's mormon friends will not affect my support or opposition to him. It's Mitt himself that will affect my vote.

I am beginning to feel like a mormon sympathiser, and I have only worked with one, but my view remains that a person's religion should not be in the equation. His policies and public performance is what I judge. Sorry.

Al

Let me be perfectly clear. I am not worried in the least that Romney will try to turn the US into a Mormon State. Couldn't if he wanted to, and he doesn't.

His relatively strong identification with the Mormon Church is signifcant because
• the Mormon Church is the most Conservative Republican Sect in the US
= the church has pretty clear positions on Women's rights (fought the ERA), Gay Rights (supported the defense of Marriage act)
so I as a semi intelligent voter say that
since Romney is more openly allied with the Mormon establishment
and the mormon establishment is notably conservative
that indicates that he is going to lean even more in the conservative direction.

It is INFORMATION that I use to assess what Romney would do if President.

It is PART of the picture. Reid has a record of supporting Democrat positions by and large, though he is a MOrmon and mormons are overwhelmingly republican. that is also information.

We are entitled to know as much as possible about the influences and belief systems of a candidate.

We have to evaluate them intelligently, without bigotry.

It is NOT bigotry to say
I James would like a president who appoints liberal judges, and Romney, in PART because of his beholdedness to the Mormon church that helped get him elected, is much more likely to appoint conservative justices.

Not bigotry. Common sense. Love the Mormons. Great people.

Romney's mormon support will affect his presidency.

I do not mean to offend. But as I read what you say I think - if it's not an issue then why raise it. Why is Mitt Romney's mormon faith more relevant then Harry Reid's mormon faith.

Give me real evidence not accusations. I gave you earlier evidence (25 Jan 1:21pm)where Mitt Romney took positions not in line with the mormon church.

James you say "There are significant issues in Romney's connection to the Mormon church that have political and public relevence."

Betty you say "Romney's religious background is CLEARLY and OPENLY relevent to his political campaign."

Once you raise it ( and its a democracy in which you can), you must give solid evidence to support your argument, otherwise the discussion deteriotates and it begins to sound a lot like relgious bigotry.

When you say Mitt receives support from mormon friends, I feel what you are implying is - will Mitt's mormon friends twist his arm and make America a mormon state - get real. Massachussets, where Mitt served as governor has not become a mormon state. Even Gov Jon Huntsman Jr. of Utah, a mormon, has come out in support of Sen. John Cain, not Mitt Romney. So do I question Sen. John Cain's mormon connections, and every other time any political candidate gets support from a mormon.

I oppose or support a candidate on what Supreme Court justices they may appoint and Stem Cell bills they propose, based on how I feel about those issues. I cannot cross the line by bringing religion in.

Religious Freedom

I agree with Betty.
However, she doesn't specifically address your caution about Bigotry.

If I vote against John Kennedy SOLELY because he is Catholic, that would be bigotry
Just like if you vote against someone SOLELY because he is an Atheist, that would be bigotry

(as to voting against someone SOLELY because they are a Scientologist, i'm not SURE that would be bigotry or rational thinking).

However, If I vote against George Bush because I believe his public identification as a Born Again and his resulting alliance with the Religious right will lead him to appoint Supreme Court justices I don't like and veto Stem Cell bills I DO like,
THAT is NOT bigotry.
That is rational prediction about how a candidate's demonstrated/stated religious views affect his policy decisions.

So your statement - "it's bigotry" - is too simplistic. Too black and white.

Voting against someone just because she is Black or a Mormon is bigotry, yes.

But in Romney's case, it is not that simple.
I would vote for Harry Reid. So I don't automatically disqualify someone JUST because they are a Mormon, and I don't think Betty would either.

Al

A couple of points:
Everything in a candidate's biography is legitimate information for the voters to know about.

If a candidate has never gone to church publicly, and never said anything about religion,
The Press is still entitled to ask him
"do you have any religious beliefs that affect your political beliefs:."
The candidate is free to say "I have always kept my religious beliefs and practices a private matter." I love it when they say that.

Romney's religious background is CLEARLY and OPENLY relevent to his political campaign.

The Blinking Boston Globe ran a front page article about how Romney is using a Mormon network to raise money and organize support.

If a candidate is raising money from Labor we the people are entitled to know that too.

This HAS NOTHING TO DO with Article Six. Don't you get that.

The GOVERNMENT is NOT applying a religious test.

Voters are voting for candidates with full information about them, and democracy lets them vote on whatever basis they want.

If I think George bush is too beholden to the Religious right and therefore more likely to veto Stem Cell bills, it is my right to vote against him for that reason. And vice versa.

RELIGIOUS TEST means that there is LAW that says "Only Catholic Priests and eligible to be elected President, and no Muslim can be President."

If congress passed such a law, the Supreme Court would declare it unconstitutional in a heartbeat.

I, however, have every right under the constitution to vote FOR OR AGAINST a candidate because he is a Mormon (or an Atheist).

Betty, (and James)

"no one wants to Bar mormons from holding political office.

John Kennedy said: "i don't speak for my church on public issues, and my church doesn't speak for me"

HOWEVER,...." You can't say you raise the level of discussion by saying - I don't want to bar mormons from public office, HOWEVER.

You either raise a candidate's religion or you don't. No howevers or buts.

Does not just raising any candidate's religion violate Article VI "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States"

The question I want to know is what is Romney's policy for the Middle East, Education, Environment and Trade. Then I can judge whether he is like Bush or not. I don't want to know about his religion.

Our forefathers established our nation to enable religious freedom and to focus on the issue not the religion. Raising religion (or colour or ethnicity or gender or social class) only brings out bigotry. Raise the level of debate and don't qualify any candidate by their religion.

Otherwise, I will vote for Abraham Lincoln or John Kennedy because it seems some of us may not have moved forward.

Bromides About Sincerity

We are getting the Sunday School Version of how Politicians *should* act from Mr Otterson.

Be Sincere.

How do you tell if a politician (or a PR man) is lying?
His lips are moving.

In the actual, existant, "reality-based" world, politicians manipulate religious symbols as artfully as they can in order to get elected.

George Bush has raised this art form to new heights (or, more accurately, lowered it to new deptths).

We The People have the obligation of Non Sunday School Grown Ups to be skeptical of any politicians or Government officials, in their "religious sincerity" and in their war claims.

It is a life and death matter.

And Otterson wants us to believe HE believes in sincerity in his own writings, which we should be *extremely skeptical* of.

So Michael's 4 part recipe is sweet, but has virtually nothing to do with how the reality-based observatble connection between religion and politics works in this country, or is likely to work for a good long. time.

Michael writes that ALL religious movements have had their critics.

Michael, does that mean that the criticisms therefore have no substance.

by that reasoning we could say
All political systems have their critics
So look at the good things Stalin does and don't try to correct his massive purges.
(NO, I AM NOT saying Mormons are as bad as Stalin: I am being dramatic to make the point).

The Bible says the holy spirit leads to all truth. George Bush relied on the Holy Spirit to lead us into the Iraq war under false pretences. I think we need additional standards of truth.

There are significant issues in Romney's connection to the Mormon church that have political and public relevence

Just like George Bush's fundamentalist christian beliefs have a very strong effect on his policies.

Heard of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives in the White HOuse.

I apologize for creating any ill will (but I did state that I felt that only a small minority were the bomb throwers and that it was not an honorable virtue). I am not trying to distract from anyone's criticism, but my point was that being fair is something everyone should always try to keep in mind.

To be fair, any religous movement has had their critics and critics and supporters do often pen history from their point of view. Witness the criticism that Cornelius the Roman Historian made of Jesus Christ and his followers which was pure slander; Christians were stupid and irrational to believe such things; Jews had more credibility because their religion was older; Jesus' real father was a Roman Soldier (Cornelius claims this as a documented fact -- Nonsense!); and so on.

So what it all comes done to is this: religous faith is not based on what a critic may say, but it is much deeper than that. I look to the Bible which says it is the Holy Spirit which leads us to all truth.

I strongly feel, that if one is secure is his faith then desire to tear down others' faith is non-existent. It shows a degree of insecurity to be a bomb thrower. It shows a lot of strength to engage someone in open dialogue.

How does this relate to a politician? A politician needs to ensure the maximum amount of religous freedom of all citizens. To do so I suggest the following:

1. Respect others.
2. Aknowledge differences and similarities.
3. Be secure in your faith.
4. Be sincere.

Imagine a world were this is the case for all politicians and dare I say for all citizens. Citizens should be allowed to advocate their faith, but if the other 4 items are followed then I think their advocacy becomes even more effective.

John D
there is a message for you on the
"God is Grander" thread

Janrand,

Mr. Otterson's argument expands on the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Unfortunately, he did not cite Romney. To the informed observer, however, it is clear that Otterson is using this blog to assist the Romney campaign.

More importantly, Otterson's and Romney's point of view violates the principle of religious freedom because they are advocating standards that exclude American citizens from political office.

It is clear, therefore, that neither Otterson nor Romney are fully committed to the values of the United States Constitution. If you can explain to people why that isn't a problem then I might agree with you.

Reactions to Mr. Otterson

The question Mr Otterson is responding to has to do with the relation between a candidate's religious views and her candidacy.

Mr Otterson, as the first line states, does Media Relations for the Mormon Church.

Mitt Romney is a candidate for president. The Boston Globe ran a prominent article a month ago about his Mormon network of supporters.

He is perfectly entitled to have a Mormon network of supporters. But the public is also perfectly entitled to know what kinds of beliefs these Mormon supporters hold regarding public positions. If the supporters practiced child sacrifice, that would also be relevent.

The Mormon Church has a history of controversy. Polygamy, discrimination against blacks, political opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, numerous interferences with academic freedom (in other words, the search for the Truth)

Therefore. all these issues are ones the public can and Should be informed about. People should know that the church used to endorse polygamy but does not anymore (except in heaven).

They are also entitled to ask Romney (or any candidate) how his decision making relates to his relgion.

George Bush has CLEARLY been greatly influenced in his decision making by his born again status and his political connections with the fundamentalist community.

Janrand and the 6th Amendment

As I wrote in the post about two above yours:
"BUT for the 74th time
no one wants to Bar mormons from holding political office."

You imply that any sane non-mormon does want to ban Romney. That is a NON ISSUE.
There is NO NEED for you to argue the point.

As far as dear Mr. Otterson goes:

As far as I can tell,
he is the ONLY PR man among the columnists.
Most are people who are pursuing the truth in their religious statements. Religion Professors. Seminary presidents. Clergy. Journalists.

A PR man by definition is interested in polishing image. The truth is secondary.

Otterson has shaded/obfuscated the truth with regard to Mormonism often in his posts here.

Many of us feel that a public Forum, On Faith, should investigate what Faith organizations like the mormon church do to keep themselves going, and what effect their actions have on the humans who live under its sway.

Don't get on a high horse and tell us youu are civil and all the rest of us are uncivil. With 3 in 100 exceptions, the comments on this thread have been strongly worded by completely civil.

It seems ludicrous to me to verbally attack Michael Otterson who succinctly but proficiently endeavors to explain Article VI "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" as it applies to the very general debate in the "On Faith" column. (Also see Post's description "At The Washington Post and Newsweek, we believe the first step is conversation-intelligent, informed, eclectic, respectful conversation-among specialists and generalists who devote a good part of their lives to understanding and delineating religion's influence on the life of the world. The point of our new online religion feature is to provide a forum for such sane and spirited talk.")

For one thing,his credentials as stated in his bio are stellar. For another, he wasn't asked for an indepth explication of "The LDS Religion's Stance on Almost Everything: A 13 Million International Membershipwide Concensus," although if he were, I'm sure he could come up with a wide-ranging, even entertaining discourse. Nope, I think his response was an "A" student's response. They aren't always the most entertaining responses, but they are always on-point. The LDS church, like any other reputatable organization or inidividual, is understandably concerned with its public and private image, especially since yellow journalism has become the "method du jour" of much news reporting. You wouldn't ask any other organization or individual to hire unqualified personnel who couldn't give "A Student" responses. Give me a break. Of course I'm speaking from the point of view of one who can usually only give entertaining answers, not on-point, A-student responses. I admire Mr. Otterson's elocution. On such an emotionallly charged topic, he brings sanity and elegant simplicity, not demagoguing to the table. Call that boring or antiseptic if you want, I spell it "R-E-L-I-E-F."

janrand

Interesting discussion. An hour ago saw a couple LDS missionaries walking around the neighborhood. Maybe they'll stop by my house sometime. That would be fun. I wonder if they like Romney.

Sorry for the musings. You all may procede.

Mitt gets slammed by the moderator for not answering the question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI

Al
with all due respect,
you don't have a higher level of conversation in your post than virtually any of the non mormons here.

You also don't seem to understand their point.

Their point is NOT
Mormons can't serve as President or Cabinet officer or Majorityh leader. Most of us love Harry Reid.

A couple of the points people have made, for what they are worth, are

1. the church has a large political influence on issues like Gay Marriage, Equal rights for women, and those influences should be made explicit.

2. Otterson is a PR man for the church who often distorts, shades the truth, in the opinion of some lies.

You can scroll back and see other issues, virtually all of which seem legitimate to me.

BUT for the 74th time
no one wants to Bar mormons from holding political office.

John Kennedy said: "i don't speak for my church on public issues, and my church doesn't speak for me"

HOWEVER, George Bush DOES speak for fundamentalist Christians on public issues, and fundamentalists do speak for him.

We want to make shure Romney is not like Bush.

I am disappointed in the way this blog has developed we seem to be discussing the LDS Church. Religion not Politics. LDS Church Leaders not Political Leaders.
Firstly, I asked an LDS friend at work about these questions and he said the church does not stop debate. This blog is proof of that. We are still a democracy. Any critic in any organisation (sports club, PTA, boy/girl scouts,even at work)can be fired or expelled if their criticism becomes disruptive. They can still criticise but they can do it outside the organisation. My friend referred me to a couple of lds apologetic websites http://www.fairlds.org and http://www.mormonwiki.com/mormonism/Main_PageThese Ex-mormons may have had a bad experience with the church, but who hasn't had some bad experience in any organisation. Gosh, I had a employer who was really bad and I and my family suffered. But we moved on, forgot about the employer, you can't live in the past. The employer wasn't going to change his mind. If the mormons don't allow gays to promote their gayity in church, fine move on - go somewhere else.
Sexual lifestyle and preferences are a key aspect in any religion.
Secondly, and the real issue and what the debate should focus on - Mitt Romney is not going to change church policy about women holding the priesthood, or anything else. I don't and wouldn't expect him to. So let's not debate this here. But can he change the direction of the government - his business and public record shows he has that ability.
What is Obama, Hilary, John Cain's record?
Thirdly, my political science 101 says that the separation of church and state is more about the church having no direct involvement in the running of government. As what occured in Europe up to at least the 19 century. Our government is not structured this way. There is a separation.
The separation of church and state has nothing to do with political candidates or office holders. Again Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Argic for 8 years while serving as an Apostle of the LDS church. No conflict occured there, having read Eisenhower biography by Stephen Ambrose.
Let's us I hope change this blog to a higher level of discussion and focus on Article VI of the Constitution which Mr Otterson is discussing.

Brother A: "I honor the priesthood as a responsibility and never have tried to control anyone with it for it is clear that it will be taken."

Yockel: That's the doctrine. In practice, domineering behavior often gets rewarded.

When Gordon Hinckley and his advisors upheld the excommunication of historians, for example, the LDS leaders neither lost their priesthood nor their church offices.

In fact, some of the stake presidents that were especially strident suppressing dissent were rewarded with promotions and became general authorities.

The Mormon Alliance maintains a collection of case studies of ecclesiastical abuse, which anyone can read at their website: http://www.mormonalliance.org/ . Rarely has an LDS officer been punished for abuse.

Volume 1, which covers sex abuse, is especially troubling with respect to Brother A's question.

That Damned Yockel is Right Again

Many protestant friends discuss issues of gay rights completely openly in Sunday School, and the gay people in their congregations feel completely comfortable identifying themselves as gay and taking part in the discussion.

It is morally unfortunate that anyone feels ostracised and socially unacceptable because of their sexual orientationl.

It IS ok to ostracise and consider socially unacceptable someone who has sex with children.

Good for you, Anonymous. You and me may not agree about everything but I love the spirit of your message.

The Mike Otterson-On Faith experience shows how little Mormons discuss their differences with each other. If it were acceptable to explore matters such as human rights of gays in Sunday school or our neighborhoods then there would be a lot less acrimony in this forum.

Unfortunately, the Mormon establishment has been successful in shutting down open debate. Once Mormons can openly discuss their religious differences, things will improve.

That is not only a choice of Mormon leaders. It is something that Mormon people can decide for themselves. It will, however, require independence.

I think my post was taken wrong by some. I don’t look at it as if I am better then anyone else like it was implied by some, though I can’t speak for anyone but myself. I honor the priesthood as a responsibility and never have tried to control anyone with it for it is clear that it will be taken.

Why is a group set aside? I don’t know. In the OT it was the sons of Levi; I imagine the rest of the children of Israel had similar questions.

My question still stands, if this is not Gods church why would changing it make any difference? If it is not of God, Please let us know what you believe about God and the purpose of this life.

Anonymous,

"Your list of exclusions and insinuation that God has a list of folks, that if they were to be inspired, would destroy his authority is just plain wrong and doesn't help those of us with diverse children and families living in this world."

I, in no way meant to insinuate the above. I truly believe God loves and inspires all his children. We all have our own struggles and it is our responsibility to work out our salvations, which is available to all.

Anonymous,

You are pathetic. The only disgrace to the Church is people like you. Your "priesthood" is an excuse to oppress women and others that men in your organization want to control. The day will come when your set of beliefs and your pedophile prophet JS will be exposed for what they are.

Thanks Anonymous
for your moral clarity
in response to Brother A's odious sentiments.

Ex mo's like me appreciate the goodness of active Mormons (am I right?) like you and my brother.

Brother A.

You are a disgrace to this church. I trust that my friends and family and others that may read your comments realize how awful your comments are, and that they are hopefully not endorsed by others. We do believe in a holy order and Eternal Plan and in the Priesthood, though the Priesthood is viewed as a responsibility and not just a privelege. Your list of exclusions and insinuation that God has a list of folks, that if they were to be inspired, would destroy his authority is just plain wrong and doesn't help those of us with diverse children and families living in this world.

Perhaps those groups that you have created boundaries and boxes for may never lead our church, but their feelings, families and acceptance is critical to their health. Also, its critical to families of gay people to have a place to go and worship and take the sacrament and pray, without thinking they are sharing a spiritual place with people like you.

Why don't other pro-LDS people stand up to you and your nonsense? I wish I knew.

Please, to all that read this, please dismiss these rotten comments from Brother A. I will. Hopefully, you can too.

Thanks Mayan Elephant. Please forgive us all.

I would love to see Truman Madsen here.
He was my mission president growing up:
a brilliant and sincere man.
and NOT a PR man.

that would be so refreshing, and so much more productive of useful dialog.

James wrote:

"Is there any other church on this site that uses a PR man as its spokesman,
as opposed to, say
a Theology Professor
or
Seminary President
or
a Bishop or Reverend?"

James for once I agree with you. Most other faiths are represented by their top scholars and intellectuals. We Mormons have our fair share of these. I would like to see one of them representing Mormonism.

It is apparent from various posts that having the PR guy represent Mormonism here creates a credibility problem for whatever he writes.

I don't think he was appointed by the church. In an earlier post he said he was asked by Newsweek/Washington Post to participate. We don't really know how this came to be.

I am sure Truman Madsen, Terryl Givens, Richard Bushman, Stephen Robinson or countless others would run a thread here if asked by the moderators.

Mayan Elephant

"i think you meant to say 'GAY'man/woman. you ass."

You are right I didn't no mean to exclude the lesbians. Please accept my apology.

Hey Mike, thanks for the conversation.

“Huh? I am not grasping your point.”

When you lump everybody into your preachy lecture it is lazy. When you lump all critics on this thread with the accusation that they are hateful it is lazy and inflammatory. You don’t get the moral high ground just by claiming it; you must specify which critics and demonstrate how they are using hyperbole, exaggeration, inflammatory speech, lazy accusations and invoking hearsay. By branding the whole lot with these attributes you are brow beating in a lazy, accusatory and inflammatory fashion.

“Regardless, let's do something constructive and focus the discussion on where does the strong hate towards Mormons come from. “

You mentioned the strong hate towards Mormons earlier. I will quote your earlier introductory observation. “I wonder where does this very strong hate towards Mormons in general come from?” Mike, are you a Mormon? If you are a Mormon then your comment strikes me as disingenuous. Your own theology provides you with the answer to your question. Are you really expressing surprise? It should be clear to you where the hate (as you perceive it) comes from; there is abundant scriptural explanation for the hate. Heck, any Deacon in your church could give you a list of verses from your canon answering this question.

“I don't mean the casual dislike, etc. but where do these incidents of vitriol and slander come from and why does it seem to be tolerated to a degree (or am I wrong?).”

Mormons feeling persecuted love to use the word “vitriol”. Identify those here using vitriol and slander, and then identify which critics on this thread have not use vitriol and slander and then I can address your question.

“Is it your opinion that they are wholly justified? “

Who is “they” Mike?

“Or is there more to the conservation then just name calling? “

Oops, did you just encage in hyperbole? In my opinion there has been much, much more to the conversation than just name calling?

“Would such criticism be tolerated if it was directed toward Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Pentecostals, etc?”

Yeah, the criticism you describe is tolerated in that it has not caused the Internet to crash and burn under the weight of free speech. Look, if you want me to say that I think hate speech is wrong, of course, hate speech is wrong. But it is not clear to me at all what you consider hate speech. If I tell you that I think you suffer from a delusion brought on by a religious mind virus, will you say that I have used hate speech? If you say to me, “voodew you are going to hell, God and I condemn you”, I do not necessarily see that as hate speech. For it to be hate speech it needs to qualified and I don’t have enough evidence to determine if there is hatefulness behind your condemnation.

“Bottomline, is there an inordinate amount of bigotry in the general public towards Mormon? “

I have no idea if there is an inordinate amount of bigotry in the general public towards Mormons. You don’t learn these kinds of things without research.

“and why does it exist?”

Ummmm, Satan? That’s a trick question, right?

Are Mormons the Only PR Church?

Is there any other church on this site that uses a PR man as its spokesman,
as opposed to, say
a Theology Professor
or
Seminary President
or
a Bishop or Reverend?

It has seemed to me ALL the other Faiths have people who care about the SUBSTANCE of the Faith rather than the PR of the Faith.

NOTABLE OMISSION
I have seen NO catholic spokesMAN. Anyone guess why?

Brother A:

"The “15 Prophets” make this stuff up"

i dont see anyone taking this position. what i see, is that these 15 men do absolutely nothing other than perpetuate a patriarchy created by their ancestors and predecessors.

these 15 men dont do squat for change, with the exception of a few grooming standard declarations.

Brother A:

"Giving the priesthood to Women and Homosexuals is a mute point because it would be the priesthood of man/woman with no authority of God, so who in their honest heart would want it."

i think you meant to say 'GAY'man/woman. you ass.

Wait, Roy, I don't get it. How does Bush being a member of a cult relate to Romney. Mitt's a Mormon.

I am sure this will be called a divisionary tactic but here goes. AND this is just my opinion.

The Church of Jesus Christ claims to be headed by Jesus Christ though a Prophet.
If the above is true
Jesus grants the priesthood on male members only for His own reasons.
Those who disagree have their free agency to do so.
Those who agree seem to accept it.
If the above is false
The “15 Prophets” make this stuff up
Giving the priesthood to Women and Homosexuals is a mute point because it would be the priesthood of man/woman with no authority of God, so who in their honest heart would want it.

To the “Ex Mos” I appreciate the effort to save your fellow beings from themselves. Please let us know what you believe about God and the purpose of this life and if it rings true to us “Mo” then we will follow you. That is all we ask.

Questions for a Mormon Candidate

Stipulating for the 43rd time that I would vote for Harry Reid in a heartbeat.

Given that George Bush has said or implied that he makes many of his decisions after consulting with God, his Higher Father,

and
Given the fact that we don't want to start another war because God is on our Side,

It is legitimate to ask ANY candidate whether he has any religious views that will affect his policy decisions. Will he listen to Jesus, or to the joint chiefs?

For Romney, it is legitimate to ASK
your church denies women the priesthood. How do you feel about putting women in high positions?
Your church had a long history of racial discrimination. How do you feel about equal rights?

If he gives answers you like, vote for him.
Knowing him from Massachusetts, I myself am not worried about his Mormonism interfering with his policcies. I am worried about his pandering to the religious right in general on issues like gay rights, stem cells, reporductive rights. etc.
I DO NOT hate him. I don't trust him, but then, none of us should trust ANY politician (or institutional leader) without extreme skepticism.

Anger at the Mormons

Agreeing with James, let me add a point or two.

The denial of the Priesthood to Mormon women (and Catholic women)
is analagous to
• the denial of the right to vote to women (up until 1919)
• the systematic denial in Jim Crow or voting rights for Blacks until the voting rights act was passed.

There is a DIFFERENCE> The mormon church has a LEGAL RIGHT to deny women the priesthood.

Does it have a MORAL RIGHT? That is debateable. Many of us think ABSOLUTELY NOT.

Does it have a MORAL RIGHT to give its members only sanitized truth through Faithful History? Absolutely not. It is equivalent to lying to your people.

Does this make some of us "upset." especially when it was our sisters it happened to. And we were often the ones who were lied to?

Of course. As James said: are we engaging in HATE SPEECH? Absolutely not. We are making substantive criticisms of church policy, just like Catholic citizens protest the Catholic church's cover up of child abuse and their persecution of homosexuals.

Hate and Mormonism

from the perspective of a Massachusetts resident (mitt has been our governor)
and an ex mormon whose mormon roots go back to the prophet's time,

a couple of observations on Hate.

First

The Hate accusation is a diversionary tactic frequently used by active mormons to divert attention from real issues. Most of us ex mo's have a significant amount of righteous anger towards the church, not individuals (except Boyd Packer).

We are concerned, and sumethimes many others,
• have been lied to about church history for decades
• current historians who disagree with offical mormon doctrine are often excommunicated.
• we have seen our sisters and mothers often (not ALWAYS) significantly damaged by the church and their second class citizen in a Patriarchal culture.
• some of us are gay, and some have great compassion for all humans, including gays, and we have seen gays treated abominably by the church.

Should we say "oh that's fine."
Or should we say: these are injustices. Human responsibility demands that they be identified.

AGAIN: virtually all of us ex mo's say we would vote for a Mormon we agree with. Harry Reid for example. If I agreed with Mitt, i would vote for him.

"You do the thing you condemn. Your accusation is lazy and inflammatory. I do not condemn you critic. But I would encourage you lighten up on the fire and brimstone. Let me guess, you like to pretend you are Michael the Archangel, right?"

Huh? I am not grasping your point.

Regardless, let's do something constructive and focus the discussion on where does the strong hate towards Mormons come from. I don't mean the casual dislike, etc. but where do these incidents of vitriol and slander come from and why does it seem to be tolerated to a degree (or am I wrong?).

Is it your opinion that they are wholly justified? Or is there more to the conservation then just name calling? Would such criticism be tolerated if it was directed toward Catholics, Muslims, Jews, Pentecostals, etc? Bottomline, is there an inordinate amount of bigotry in the general public towards Mormon? and why does it exist?

Wes wrote that evangelical Christians understand that having a cult member in the highest office in the land is not in the best interests of the country. Evangelical Christians are a cult of extremists who hijacked Jesus' words. One of theirs holds the highest office. Look at the results. As for Romney, he needs to explain his loyalty to Mormon doctrine regarding God cursing people of color in the pre-existance and the Church's electroshock torture of young Mormon men while showing them both hetrosexual and homosexual ponography to *cure* them of their homosexuality.

I only wish Bro. Otterson had been brave enough to mention Romney by name. The church needs to stand up and make clear its support of Mitt. Risking tax exempt status would be a small price to pay to put a real priesthood-empowered servant of the Lord in the White House.

Michael Arbon wrote: "... even if you feel justified, it is not to inflame or repeat one-sided, inconsiderate, or lazy accusations or hearsay. Society should and God himself condemns such behavior."

You do the thing you condemn. Your accusation is lazy and inflammatory. I do not condemn you critic. But I would encourage you lighten up on the fire and brimstone. Let me guess, you like to pretend you are Michael the Archangel, right?

I wonder where does this very strong hate towards Mormons in general come from?

It is my opinion that people are naturally inclined to give others, regardless how different they may be, some measure of common courtesy and respect. In a vacuum, it doesn't mean that there be no resentment or animosity of one group towards another, but people tend to gravitate towards treating each other kindly in the spirit of the "Golden Rule".

Now, when such powerful, pervasive, and mostly one-sided hate shows up in society, then one must ask "Where does it originate from?" In my opinion, this type of hate is not natural but it is taught! I lay the blame solidly on a small minority of provocateurs who feel it was their duty to malign as much as possible the Mormons. And why not, they may think, "If I can save a few souls, then it is justified!" Such purveyors of hate when they act in such a manner, willingly or ignorantly, are not living in accordance with the 9th commandment as given by God to Moses.

I sincerely urge that all critics, be they small or large, to seek after more respect, honesty and less hyperbole, exaggeration, and inflammation! To honestly criticize someone is to weigh the matter and judge each point from different views, carefully, respectfully, openly and thoughtfully; even if you feel justified, it is not to inflame or repeat one-sided, inconsiderate, or lazy accusations or hearsay. Society should and God himself condemns such behavior.

Mike Otterson wrote:
"4. Panelists don't control the headlines. I agree that changing them in mid-stream can send the wrong signal and also change the emphasis. I'll take it up with the moderator."

Yockel:
Thank you very much. My apologies for criticizing you.

Dear Moderator,

Thank you very much for this forum.

I know that it is customary for newspapers that editors formulate headlines. However, blogs are not print media. I respectfully request that you consider abandoning that tradition, especially after the post has been published.

If there need to be changes then it would be appropriate to identify passages with strike outs and other markers for newly inserted words such as colored fonts.

That way readers will be able to understand responses properly.

Mr. Otterson is in a difficult position because Mormons tend to view each other with suspicion when they disagree about religion. Therefore it is especially important that editing be open, fair, and consistent.

Thank you very much for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Yockel

To ALL Mormons on this Post

Get over your illusion than any sensible ex or non mormon (like Yockel, Wes, mayan, Me)

would not vote for someone just because they are a Mormon.

Virtually all of us have said we would. Harry Reid for instance: many of us would vote for him because of his positions,
And none of us would disqualify him because he is mormon.

If any of us liked Romney's politics we would vote for him, Mormon or not, just like we would with Reid.

So please stop this tired defense. No one is denying Romney the right to run and be voted for because he is a Mormon.

We do think his candidacy will expose some embarrassing facts about the Church, but that is a different matter.

Joy,

The "report" that Barack Obama attended an Islamic school is a fabrication of right wing journalists of Moon media empire and Fox News. In the meanwhile, CNN has demonstrated that Fox News was once again wrong.

You can read about it here: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/01/19/fox-obama-madrassa/

Google "obama madrassa" and you will find thousands of news reports that unmask the right wing disinformation effort to smear Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (who supposedly was the source of the disinformation).

What really matters about candidates whether they are willing to serve all Americans. When Romney and Otterson demand that any person of faith should be able to become president, they are excluding many Americans. Therefore, they are violating freedom of religion, a right that they would not wish to forego for themselves.

I have no trouble supporting Mormons such as Senator Harry Reid who demonstrate that they are loyal to the values of the United States Constitution.

that was me rolling around and laughing my ass of on the hardwood floor, sorry, I was so caught up in the moment I forgot to sign in

I consider Mr Otterson's comments on his recent interjection self-righteous and threatening, as other respondents have.

A couple of points for both Mr Otterson and for the active Mormons here.

1. This is a Public Forum discussing and debating faith issues in the US.
2. No church, or Faith system, or atheists, are immune from criticism in this discussion. You are free to praise them, or to criticize them.
3. Many ex mormons, including me, think the church does significant damage to many of its members, including us.
We are often angry at having been lied to, threatened with sanctions for speaking our mind, been made to feel as second class citizens, and pschologically diminished because we are women, ostracised and disgraced because we are gay, and stultified in our thinking by the closed sytem of information and the effective thought control of the church that is in effect from the time we can understand English.

We feel it is morally necessary for us to stand up and speak out against this kind of injustice, abuse of power, excessive control of members, etc.

We are not lying. This has been our experience. We think it is damaging to many. YOu have seen many of their testimomies here.

I have sympathy for these other ex mormons who have suffered. I would think that some of you active members would as well, but instead the reaction I generally see is blaming the victim.

What's wrong with you that you get upset when you;re lied to, you say.
Why are you upset about being made a second-class citizen? Can't you just accept it?

That to me, a very moral and ethical ex mormon who is committed to social justice and compassion for all fellow human beings, seems mean spirited and excessively self protective.

One could say,"I am sorry that you were hurt by the church. We don't want anyone to be hurt. lets talk about your experience so we can try to avoid it with others."

INSTEAD, the general response is
"What is WRONG WITH YOU? Why do you have SO MUCH HATE? (Spewing is a big word).

I think that this is an immoral and insensitive response to the honest suffering of fellow human beings.

JC wrote: "And actually the inactive rate is a bit lower, try about 30%. Who cares?"

Ummmm, Jesus?

Mayan,

Don't count on Otterson having the courage to answer us directly. However, I commend you on roping the mighty Director of PR of the Mormon church to address an issue you posted. I guess his anger got the better of him in a moment of weakness.

mr. otterson, can i have a merit badge for figuring out that you may not have been in control of the headlines? i did say that at some point. sorry for slamming you for changing it when it really wasnt you.

JC,

I don't mean this as an ad hominen, but you claim to be an educator and your post is full of grammatical missteps. As far as membership numbers, I have seen credible stats that when you factor out births of children of record, church membership is actually declining. I guess you won't hear that in the Audit Report at General Conference?

Dear Mr. Otterson,

"3. Our posts are our own opinions, and are drawn from panelists with a wide variety of backgrounds and religious beliefs. Of course, anyone is perfectly free to disagree - and I assume that will also sometimes include active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who see things differently from me."

Why are you differentiating between "active members" and others? It is so kind of you to allow your active automotons to respond with their own opinions. It is no wonder why many "active members" are afraid to openly express their opinions when it contradicts the opinions of "The Brethren."

"4. Panelists don't control the headlines. I agree that changing them in mid-stream can send the wrong signal and also change the emphasis. I'll take it up with the moderator."

Mr. Otterson, changing statements seems to be a time-honored tradition in your organization. Your Church history has undergone many revisions. Do you have the courage and intellectual honesty to admit this?

"That's a shame, and it may indeed prompt the owners to change the site design at some point."

Translation - If you say anything the LDS Church does not like, they will take steps to shut down the discussion when evidence contradicts Mormon doctrine.

"The balance between encouraging freedom of expression and discouraging offensive or boorish behavior isn't an easy line to walk, and journalists have been struggling with that long before the Internet. We all know there's been a coarsening of conversation - maybe that has something to do with the anonymity of pseudonyms. "

Mr. Otterson, the problem is your lack of candor and integrity when it comes to the beliefs of your organization. I have read your comments and you have misrepresented the views of your church every step of the way. I encourage you to be more open and honest about your beliefs and then I would suspect a higher degree of civility will return. People do not like being misled or lied to. Are you "honest in your dealings with your fellow man?"

I hope you take the time to be more active in the conversation and contribute more.

Conrad,

Thank you for your posts in response to my inquiry. I stand corrected about Barrack Obama's religous offiliation and his past schooling.

I also appreciate Michael Otterson's most recent post. I, for one, tend to stop reading this blog when there are a long string of nasty posts in anyone's direction. I appreciate the thoughtful comments made by people who are not aiming to insult each other.

"JC, I know the mormon church quite well. In fact, I probably know it better than you do. I attended Church schools served in various leadership positions and have read just about everything I can get my hands on both pro and against."

Wow! That is quite an assumption. You are assuming that I am some blind follower who has never been in any sort of leadership position nor has investigated the church seriously. It is these assumptions of "I know better or more than you" that have lead to all the mis-information, venom pure and simple.

Yes, Our actuall world-wide membership is over 12 million and is the fastest growing religion in the world."

JC - BS! This myth is a common lie told by the church. Everyone in the know is aware that activity levels are about 33% of the official numbers. Most of the "inactives" don't even consider themselves mormon.

I guess that if we were to take into account all the inactive people of every religion then no religion would truly know who there members are. And actually the inactive rate is a bit lower, try about 30%. Who cares? What does this have to do with Romneys electability. I was answering a prior post. And inactivity has nothing to do with total church membership.

"...my wife and I are both educators, and in no way does the church influence how I teach nor dictate how I interact with my peers or students."

"JC - again, BS! Talk to any non-mormon high school student in Utah about how they are treated."

This is just plain ignorant. Utah is not the norm, no matter how much people try and make it so. I guess all of us Non-Normal teachers and people are all persecuted and there is some secret mission that we are at the head of to corrupt the youth of our nation. Get off the Utah thing. It is easy to pick on a bunch of secluded people who don't experiance anything outside the seclusion of Utah. Oh well.

You sound like someone who was a member and has decided to go a different direction with your life. So be it, that should have no bareing on a discussion about the political feasibility of Romney.

Won't even get the Republican Nomination. It will go to Juliani. And that my friend is a truly scary thought.

A few points of clarification for people interested in the continued evolution of the "On Faith" blog:

1. Panelists are invited by the Washington Post-Newsweek to post a specific answer to the question of the week, preferably in about 250 words (that seems to be a fairly loose rule).

2. It's assumed panelists' responses will trigger a relevant debate on the topic, but few if any panelists have the time to do more than post the initial response. That's pretty evident across the site. No disrespect is intended by panelists not responding - the idea is simply to draw as many other people as possible into a truly national (or even international) conversation once we've had our say.

3. Our posts are our own opinions, and are drawn from panelists with a wide variety of backgrounds and religious beliefs. Of course, anyone is perfectly free to disagree - and I assume that will also sometimes include active members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who see things differently from me.

4. Panelists don't control the headlines. I agree that changing them in mid-stream can send the wrong signal and also change the emphasis. I'll take it up with the moderator.

5. We don't control the threads either. Everyone is welcome to post.

6. I have just read through the more than 100 posts on this thread. Many of you are concerned at the lack of civility in some cases. So is Washington Post-Newsweek because it's a problem across the whole site and I know that many potential contributors have opted out rather than insert themselves into a screaming match. That's a shame, and it may indeed prompt the owners to change the site design at some point. The balance between encouraging freedom of expression and discouraging offensive or boorish behavior isn't an easy line to walk, and journalists have been struggling with that long before the Internet. We all know there's been a coarsening of conversation - maybe that has something to do with the anonymity of pseudonyms.

All I can suggest to people who are offended is not to be turned off by the rudeness of a minority. When thoughtful people withdraw from a conversation, it doesn't raise the bar. And there have been some very thoughtful posts on this site across the whole spectrum of opinion. So, my unsolicited advice is to ignore any nastiness, and contribute to the topic in whatever way seems best to you.

Forgive the interruption to the discussion.

Where did every one go?

I just want a president with stereotypical female qualities, and we all know that Mitt is a manly Mormon man.

May God Bless you and your entire Church! amen.

Brother Otterson, I am not pandering when I relay to you that my Mormon classmates were extremely professional, consistently excellent students. In a word, impressive. No less so is your contribution to today's subject matter. Allow me to add the source of my concern:
8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. Source: George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm
God Bless you Brother.

Wowser,

"Too late, it's already been done by the mobs in Nauvoo, Illinois and Carthage. The Prophet Joseph was murdered by an angry mob."

Wowser - JS was killed in blaze of glory in a gunfight. A gun was smuggled into jail to him. Hardly the actions of a "martyr"?? "....Praise to his memory he died as a martyr....earth must atone for the blood of that man....." JS was having sex with children, destroying printing presses, etc, etc.. Are you surprised people were angry? I am not justifying his killing. He should have had due process in a court of law by a fair and impartial judge and jury.

"If some of your words had been bullets you could have accomplished the same with Mitt."

Wowser - this is a typical TBM defense - the victim complex.

"Don't worry the church will continue on until it has "penetrated every clime and sounded in every ear". Those of you who supposedly have Left the Church but just can't Leave the Church alone are sad to behold."

Ever wonder why they can't leave it alone? Reason - we have seen the devastation and ruined lives this organization leaves in its path. It is not because people want to sin or love satan as goosesteppers would have you believe.

..."to forget the (not so long ago, previous)Clinton administration, THAT WAS ENOUGH SHAME FOR THE REST OF ALL OUR lives put together!!!"

I will take Hillary any day over Romney even though I detest Hillary with all my being.

Congrats, Wowser, you managed to invoke Godwin's Law, Mormon version: you compared those who dare criticize the church, its belief, and its practices to the mob who killed Joseph.

The depth of the Mormon persecution complex never fail to surprise me, and this after having lived 36 years as one. I'm sure when Romney goes down in flames you'll blame it on the modern day Governors Ford and Boggs.

I'd also suggest a reality check, Wowser--more information out there on the church has led to fewer baptisms, not more.

JC Superstar,

"This is all rather funny. I have read through all 100+ posts and it is rather amuzing that this is a church (LDS) that has existed for well over 100 years, and still people do not know or understand the basic core beliefs."

JC, I know the mormon church quite well. In fact, I probably know it better than you do. I attended Church schools served in various leadership positions and have read just about everything I can get my hands on both pro and against.

"Yes, there are things in our past that are sour, but the crusades, witch burning, Ku Klux Klan, and things other religions have actively participated in are not exactly rosy."

JC, ok this is a lesson I would give to a 5-year old. You can't justify bad behavior by pointing to other bad behavior. Brigham Youngs actions were contemptible on many levels, I could write volumes on this but I know it would be useless. Even Hinckley actions back in the 80s are contemptible with the whole salamander affair. 2 people were murdered because of Hinckley's corruption and dishonesty.

"Yes, Our actuall world-wide membership is over 12 million and is the fastest growing religion in the world."

JC - BS! This myth is a common lie told by the church. Everyone in the know is aware that activity levels are about 33% of the official numbers. Most of the "inactives" don't even consider themselves mormon.

"Yes, there are many people, like in other religions, who are religious zealots, and give the LDS church a bad name."

JC, unfortantely, "The Brethren" are the zealots. Goosesteppers like Packer and Bednar give the mormon church a bad name.

"...my wife and I are both educators, and in no way does the church influence how I teach nor dictate how I interact with my peers or students."

JC - again, BS! Talk to any non-mormon high school student in Utah about how they are treated.

"There is simply too much mis-information about the LDS church"

JC - the misinformation is put out by PR hacks like Otterson that lie about the past history of the LDS church.

"However, we have endured hard times before (see govenor Boggs extermination order in Missouri)"

JC, unfortunately, much of the hard times you speak of are self-inflicted. When Joseph Smith is going around having sex with 14 year old children and others mens' wives, people tend to get upset.

Regarding Mitt Romney and the Constitution: As I understand it, the Constitution is literally regarded in LDS doctrine as a sacred document. I can't imagine what scenario would arise where Mitt Romney would be pitted against the Constitution.

Regarding Obama, he attended a public school in Indonesia (an Islamic country) for two years when he was six years old, and then a Catholic school. According to CNN, at the public school, he took a course in Islam and a course in Christianity. He is not a Muslim, but a baptised and practicing Christian of the liberal persuasion. He is likely somewhat sympathetic to Islam and Muslims.

All this dialogue for what exactly?

To demean a religion? Too late, it's already been done by the mobs in Nauvoo, Illinois and Carthage.
The Prophet Joseph was murdered by an angry mob. If some of your words had been bullets you could have accomplished the same with Mitt.

Don't worry the church will continue on until it has "penetrated every clime and sounded in every ear". Those of you who supposedly have Left the Church but just can't Leave the Church alone are sad to behold.

Ironically, all your ranting just might evoke true interest in what the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is really about. Please check it out LDS.org.

Check out Mitt's track record. That's what I'm going to do. And while I'm at it, I'm not going to forget the (not so long ago, previous)Clinton administration, THAT WAS ENOUGH SHAME FOR THE REST OF ALL OUR lives put together!!!

Thank you Joy and Al

This is all rather funny. I have read through all 100+ posts and it is rather amuzing that this is a church (LDS) that has existed for well over 100 years, and still people do not know or understand the basic core beliefs. I am a social-democrat, a pay-as-you-go republican, an independant thinker, and a temple attending, return missionary, every sunday participating member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Yes, the majority of members are very conservative. Yes, when compared with other religions we may seem strange. Yes, there are things in our past that are sour, but the crusades, witch burning, Ku Klux Klan, and things other religions have actively participated in are not exactly rosy. Yes, for those who are not members of the LDS church we seem like a cult, becuase we USUALLY are not so flippent about our religion. Yes, Our actuall world-wide membership is over 12 million and is the fastest growing religion in the world. Yes, there are many people, like in other religions, who are religious zealots, and give the LDS church a bad name.
What should be analyzed is why we are so enthralled with "a first women president", "a first black president", or a "first Mormon president." Isn't the true question, "who will best serve our country?" My family are devote LDS members and have worked in public service for 20+ years, my wife and I are both educators, and in no way does the church influence how I teach nor dictate how I interact with my peers or students. What it does influence is my core persona. Do I truly strive to "love my neighbor as myself" or to lift up those in need, or allow others to excersise their freedom of religion, choice, expression, and action? I would hope that I do. One would not believe the number of times I have been asked what religion I belong to and the surprised looks and then questions that follow, mis-information and an exchange of ideas that follows. There is simply too much mis-information about the LDS church, but that also is the same with Muslim and Far Eastern religions.
What should happen, what anyone who wants to know the truth about anything should do, is investigate it. Not from solely the LDS or Non-LDS perspective, but both sides. The BBC has a great link that is very truthful yet not biased towards or against the LDS truth. Check it out.
I won't vote for Romney becuase I happen to believe that it is not my place to tell someone how to use their bodies. I believe that the government should stay out of everyones bedroom, I believe that war is evil, that a balanced budget is essential,that universal healthcare and a good education is a right, and that campaign finance is the most important thing to save our republic. I will probably vote for Edwards or Clinton, and hope that something will change in our country.
All who have said that the LDS church will have a tough battle with bad press are right, there will be hard times ahead. However, we have endured hard times before (see govenor Boggs extermination order in Missouri), and all will pass, it won't matter, becuase Romney won't be elected president.

Andrew,

Thank you for your post. That was awesome!

I am taking the assumption that most people on this thread are believers of Jesus Christ. If so, then please read.

The Proverbs 13:10 "Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom".

The Proverbs 6:16-19 "16:These six things doth the Lord hate: yeah, seven are an abomination unto him: 17: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, 18: An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, 19: A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth DISCORD among my brethren.

I don't expect to get many replies to this but I do want to express my opinion. If you are for a canidate (presidency, as this is what has been discussed) then stand by their side and advocate their positive traits. However, would you forsee Christ bashing other candidates for their religious beliefs? The founders of this country were men of Christ. They did however have faults, different opinions and views. But they didn't spend their time only finding the fault (or their opinion of fault) in others.

Take the higher road.

Today's American politics: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/30587

As strange as it might sound to some folks, I intend to do research for a good while and then eventually support a specific candidate (with backup plans, of course). In the meantime, I'll leave the outspoken speculation, assorted bigotry, skepticism, fanaticism, and the rest of ignorance's varied accouterments to the know-it-alls (goodness knows we have more than our fair share). And hey, if my candidate doesn't make it, I also aim to support the winner wholeheartedly.

How un-American, huh?

Since when has the LDS Church been concerned about being exposed? It actively seeks exposure through the missionary program. There are many here who seem to know the so-called "secrets" of the church (some on this board, apparently). Nothing will come out in the media that wasn't out there before. If journalists and/or political opportunists want to put these "issues" front and center in the national media, so be it. Although it has a director of PR the LDS Church has never been primarily a PR firm.

I understand the concerns that people have, but it really seems funny to try and intimidate Mitt from running or LDS people from supporting him on the grounds that his campaign might "expose" the church!

PS I'm obviously a Mormon, and I'm not at all sure that I'd vote for Mitt if the opportunity presented itself.

Can anyone think of a time a Mormon in office gave up political expediency to follow their church?

Harry Reid didn't.

Obvoiusly Romney hasn't. His position on abortion violates the church position. He said he would sign a bill making abortion illegal even in the case of rape or incest.

That violates my Mormon values.

I don't think we need to worry too much about a Mormon politician sacrificing political clout to follow their church. It may sound like a Mormon thing to do, but it is not a politician thing to do. These men are as much politicians as they are Mormons.

>I have stated that my understanding was that Obama was schooled in his youth in a facility run by a
> radical faction.

That lie is being spread by the right wing in an attempt to swiftboat Obama. I'm tired of the lies.
The liars are not interested in anything but power - by their lies they show who they really are. It's time for the American people to tell the liars "ENOUGH".

I do have one question, though. Why are people so uncomfortable with the Mormons? And I mean from a civil standpoint, not from a religious standpoint.

It is obvious that many on this board are uncomfortable with what they believe, or with what their leaders did and said almost two centuries ago. But can someone give me a good explanation as to why we should be so terrified of these people nowadays? Or more specifically, how exactly they pose such a threat to the way of life that you are comfortable with?

A couple of Mormons came to my door one time. I said, no, not interested. They thanked me and left. It was as easy as that.

I am amazed at the smugness and apparent arrogance of those of you who are - um - "uncomfortable" with the Mormon Church. I'm all up for honest debate (I'm not necessarily questioning what you're saying), but I think it can be done in a more civil manner. Even on an internet chat board.

Unfortunately some posters do not read other people's comments carefully before making accusations. I have already qualified my concerned statements about Islam to refer to radical factions. I have stated that my understanding was that Obama was schooled in his youth in a facility run by a radical faction. Too bad political correctness does not extend to inflamatory statements made about Mormons.

Joy,

shame on you. holy hell. that was awful prejudice. we are not here discussing the acts of brigham young and others related to the mormon meadows massacres, because it is, while awful, an abhoration.

your blanket assessment of muslims is the moral equivalent of labeling ALL CHRISTIANS as murderers based on the acts of mark hofmann and brigham young. shame. on. you.

no one is denying mit the opportunity to run, nor is anyone saying a mormon, by association, is unfit. rather, there is demand for full disclosure as to his beliefs and values, as well as disclosure of what promises/covenants he has made to any group and how that will effect his decisions.

also, as some point out, his candidacy will expose some of the underbelly of "the church."

"the church" is an acceptable abbreviation, yours is not. get with it.

The Mormon church has always been under scrutiny. Personally this is not a concern for me, as a Mormon. Ironically, it is the truth of the gospel that sets me free to not worry, not the dogma that former member of the church will spew at every opportunity.

Again, how ironic that people question Romney's committment to his church and his committment to uphold the Constitution, but these same people did not feel the need to question Obama's committment to his religion and his committment to uphold the Constitution (referring to some of the earlier postings in this thread) Would Obama if elected be lenient to terror activities at the prompting of his religious leaders? Again, this is the religion who trains suicide bombers, preaches to kill others not of their faith, and wages open war against all that will not comform to their ideals. These are the undistroted reality about some Muslims. These ideas seem a little bit more threatening and worrisome to me than what happens in the temple, how many wives Joseph Smith had, or beliefs about a life before this one. Those who are have such tunnel vision against the Mormon church continue to reveal their own agenda which is filled with dogma and venomous mantras.

Joy and Obama

Joy
I think we should treat Romney and Obama the same.

We should know what their background is, what religious traditions they grew up in,how they think about their religious traditions now.

We should know, as Jack Kennedy said, "that I don't speak for my religion on public matters, and my church does not speak for me."

I would certainly vote for Romney if I agreed with his positions.

if Harry Reid were running against John McCain, I would vote for Reid in a heartbeat.

I think both Romney and Obama should be asked about their policy towards Islamic terrorists.

My point is: by Romney running, the Mormon church will be put under lots of public scrutiny.

I hope the church spokesmen will tell the TRUTH about the Church. They often don't.

But I am not scared of Romney because he is a Mormon. I think few other ex mormons on here are either.

Many have said Reid is fiine with them because they agree with his politics.

It is the Church and its cover ups/distortions that we have a problem with. And PR guys like Otterson are the ones who distort the reality.

Hello Patrick,

Sorry, misleading statement.

Lots of these posters know A LOT (too much) about the Mormon Church, and don't want to know more.

Mayan, Myself, Wes, Yockel others know the doctrine and the practice backwards and backwards.

Some don't.

Correct one bit of information if you can.

Many of us thing the Mormon Church has some serious problems, and this post is a place to be polite but also to be truthful

The truth hurts often. We understand that.

Let's clear-up the name thing before I go. I used the term "Mormon" because it is commonly understood.

Officially though, the church provides a style guide (http://www.lds.org/newsroom/page/0,15606,4043-1---15-168,00.html)for the media and writers in general that includes the following:

The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838.

While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines:

* In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
* Please avoid the use of “Mormon Church,” “LDS Church” or “the Church of the Latter-day Saints.”
* When a shortened reference is needed, the terms “the Church” or “the Church of Jesus Christ” are encouraged.
* When referring to Church members, the term “Latter-day Saints” is preferred, though “Mormons” is acceptable.
* "Mormon” is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as “Mormon pioneers.”
* The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
* When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms “Mormons,” “Mormon fundamentalist,” “Mormon dissidents,” etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: “The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other ... churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith’s death.”

Is there anyone who would like to answer my question about Obama. I find it funny (not ha-ha), that people on this blog are so worked up about a candidate who is a Mormon. I find it funny (not ha-ha) that some people would choose to be afraid of his religion, a religion that has not declared war on the United States, attacked American citizens on US soil, or continues to make threats against the US and other western nations. Yet there has not been one response about the candidate who belongs to this religion. I understand that there are different factions of Islam and that Obama may not believe the things that the radical extremist believe. I just don't understand why there is not an intelligent discussion about this topic. Whatever you believe about the way the war in Iraq is going or the reasons we are there, it still remains a fact that we were attacked and thousands of people died. How would Obama address the issue of terrorism.

bye bob, before you go, could you edit your last post? patrick doesnt think this is really called the "mormon church".

Voodew asked; "Here’s the rub, what do you consider an attack on someone’s honest opinions and beliefs?."

I guess even that is a matter of opinion, but I'll use GERRY to illustrate where I'm coming from.

He presented several paragraphs of his clear disdain and intolerance for religion, inferring that those of faith are stupid then declaring his "hatred for stupidity".

He indicated that he has a "happily atheistic attitude" then follows that with "And I don't tolerate anyone to regard me as a bad person for this attitude."

Then to sum it all up, "I know how it feels to "believe", of course, having been brainwashed like most everybody else in my childhood, so I can feel very well from own experience how the religious protagonists feel. I know the feeling, but I also know the feeling of freedom after having gotten rid of the bigotry."

No bigotry there. No sir.

He certainly has the right to believe what he wants and express it in open forums such as this. How, though, does this type of attack and post upon post of trashing the Mormon church and religion in general add anything to the original theme of the thread or contribute to anything good at all?

One last thought. The panelists for this site seem to have been intentionally selected to represent a variety of faiths. Why is it that Mr. Otterson seems less allowed to express his views without a barrage of attacks on HIS faith than the others? This thread quickly veered off topic and into Mormon bashing though there was nothing that I could see in his original post that might not have been expressed by someone of any of a number of other faiths.

Well that's it for me. I will leave it at that and let this thread spiral further downward without me.

Chris,
Your a case in point. You don't know anything about what we believe. I would tell you, but your obviously a pinhead and couldn't grasp the concept. Its interesting how people hate us for supposedly hating others (which isn't even true).

Patrick,

gimme a freakin break. are you kidding me? what about those tv spots. "the mormons"

and what about hinckley chastising nelson in general conference with his "mormon is like more-good" schtick. cmon. spare us.

anything else on here that you disagree with? feel free to point it out.

feel free to explain that 10 million number as well. i dont think there is anything near that number if you include those that self-identify as mormons. not even close. but, you threw it out there, so have it at. show us the money pat.

Chris,

hmmm. what rights? how about the right to marry and share property the same as heterosexuals, for starters.

thanks for posting. you are the poster child for the otterson/lds PR effort. be sure to shine up that CTR ring tonight chris, wear it proud. you should frame otterson/oaks/wickman and hang it next to the proclamation on the family.

at least you can see the parallels of the treatment of slaves to the treatment of homosexuals. its just a pity that you think gay people deserve to be treated that way. hey, at least you dont still proclaim that slaves deserve it, that is progress.

I am reading these posts and I find it appalling, as a member of the LDS church, how little people actually know about the "Mormon" church. First of all, its not even called the "Mormon" church. Second, people have made references to all these so-called ceremonies, much of them I have never even heard of. Third, calling it a cult is outright bigotry. We are a church of over 10 million members. Please try to have a civilized conversation without bringing down another person's religion, especially when you obviously know so little about it.

In my opinion, take it or leave it, what it boils down to is this:

A person's religious or spiritual beliefs or lack thereof are a part of who they presently are. I don't think that a public official should deny such a valid aspect of themselves. But I also don't think it's right for them to instruct or "guide" others as to the correct way of believing or thinking. Hence, the incredibly valuable separation of church and state. Politicians have the right to express that they believe a certain way, but when they start preaching or influencing legislation with those beliefs is when the abuse of office begins.

Personally, I am a spiritual person, but not a religious person. If I had to choose the closest "category" to describe my beliefs I would have to say agnostic. I have many friends whose religions I don't follow or agree with, but we get along very well because of mutual respect for each others' rights and freedoms. We don't feel the need to change each others' minds. And that is the kind of distinction I would expect and hope for from my president and other elected officials.

I am curious what the posters here think about scrutinizing the religion of all the candidates. Some of you have mentioned a few of them. Does anyone know much about Obama? I understood that he was educated in a radical islamic school overseas. I am concerned about his lack of experience and therefore track record, that I can look at to see if he walks his talk.

That's it!!! What does the candidate believe? WEll you could ask him or assume that those he takes council from he agrees with. Not a good idea in my book, but thats why I like the televised debates. Who does he get advice from? Who does the President get his advice from? Who do any of the presidential candidates listen to and what do they actually do? Either you go to the effort to find out or you can listen to the gossip and "I heards" that others tell you they know. I think we all do a little of both. So ask yourself, who do you get your info from? The paper journalists? these "discussions"? I hope you are all doing more homework than that.

Mayan Elephant,
Exactly what civil rights are being denied people based on their sexual preference? I think the original civil rights pioneers are rolling over in their graves by the fact that a group of people try to equate themselves to people who were treated as slaves based upon personal choices about who they have sex with.

Amazing

sherrie. i too agree with your last point. so, what is so wrong about finding out more about what romney, or any other candidate believes? including, whether he believes hinckley, or joseph smith, or oaks, or packer?

after all, its his right to effect change according to his beliefs, so what does he believe? i believe packer is an asshat and would lobby diligently for laws that promote education, women's rights and homosexuals rights. what about romney? does he believe packer is a prophet, and does he believe the same things packer believes? if so, would he not encourage intellectual pursuits, feminism, or civil rights for all people, including gays?

again, well said sherrie.

Sherrie wrote: "Now trying to change them to what he believes is his and everyone elses right."

Agreed

For those of you who think that Romney has contradicted himself, read joshua's comment again. He upholds the laws (abortion/ gay marriage) weather he believes in them or not. That is every Americans duty to do. Now trying to change them to what he believes is his and everyone elses right.

Bob L. wrote: "It never ends."

My wife can't stand it when I listen to the TV pundits. I agree with you, some the formats for punditry and debates are seriously lame.

"Like an eternal series of no-win tic-tac-toe games."

I sorta agree with your characterization. As soon as humans could form an idea I suspect they fought over which ideas were going to determine their lives. Here is where I disagree with your analogy, some ideas win and continue to win to this day.

If you just look at this micro-environment (this blog thread) then I can see how the discussion feels like a useless game of tic-tac-toe.

Wouldn't you agree that there is a war on over ideas, I'd be surprised if you surprised by this. But I totally understand why you get tired over it.

Eventually it becomes easy for people to leave these forms because it just gets so exhausting being in the middle of a fray (as opposed to just watching on the LCD). I retreat to be with like-minded individuals for comfort and solace. This is how we are designed to find some inner peace in my opinion.

Central-American Pachyderm, you really should look into getting your shift keys repaired. Seriously.

Bob L.'s last post could be interpreted as a mature version of my original point. Except my head isn't going to explode... I hope.

Wow there is a lot of accusations flying around based on pure speculation.

1) The panel was addressing a specific question which was: As the presidential campaign begins to take shape, do you think it is appropriate and or important for the candidates to express their personal religious views and to use religious rhetoric? Why?

2) The panel represented several different faiths, but of all the faiths only Mr. Otterson has been subjected to questions regarding his motives. 73 responses vs a maximum of 11 for the other members of the panel.

3) The Washington post posed a question to the panel members who answered according to their own conscience.

I would ask the question - those who are attacking Mr. Otterson and the Mormon Church - Why?
All religous beliefs are based on matters of faith that cannot be touched or verified in any other manner. What are you trying to achieve, and what does it have to do with the original question?
Why are you so threatened by things that you percieve to be different that you have to attack them, rather than engage in thoughtful dialog?

I guess I just don't understand.

I am a mormon and I am not going to vote for Mitt Romney. I don't agree with most of his political views. I am a mormon and I don't agree with almost all of the political views of Harry Reid and didn't vote for him either. I am also a military officer and was required to take an oath to defend the constitution of the united states. My military unit plays one of the most important roles in the Global War On Terror. I have seen the horrors of war and have participated in the killing of those who threaten our country's security. My oath to defend the Constitution has never, and will never conflict with my oath to serve my God. I know them to be one and the same. I serve my country because I love it. I serve my God because I love him. From my experience, those two loves will never conflict with one another.

Bob L. wrote: “It would seem that getting this thread to come back around to the topic is a futile exercise and I'm a little disappointed in myself for adding to the whole mess.”

I think your comments below don’t add to the “whole mess”, rather they articulate a point of view that has some merit.

“However - I think the fact that people DO take a candidate's beliefs into account has been more than validated.”

Agreed

“Any candidate brings with him or her a life's worth of experiences, values, and opinions - religious and otherwise.”

Agreed

“If they did not, we would have nothing but superficial attributes with which to base our decisions.”

I wouldn’t word it that way, but I agree with the essence of your observation.

“What I find interesting (and sad) is that the posters on this thread who choose to attack and berate others based upon their honest opinions and beliefs”

Here’s the rub, what do you consider an attack on someone’s honest opinions and beliefs? While I would agree that people can honestly hold an opinion or a belief, the opinion or belief itself my not represent reality and may in fact represent something detrimental to running the Country. Every candidate’s opinion or belief is open to scrutiny. Simply by scrutinizing a candidate’s opinions or beliefs, am I by your definition attacking and berating? If I say to you, “honestly Bob, I don’t think it is a good thing to have a true believing Mormon in the White House because their core dogma is at odds with what I value in a President”, is that berating and attacking the candidate?

“would clearly not stand up to their own level of scrutiny and would have little or no chance of being elected to public office themselves.”

Perhaps, but I don’t think that is a valid argument for not scrutinizing candidates running for the highest office in the land.

“Overall, I am saddened by the lack of civility in today's public discourse and would ask that we try to employ a little respect and decency toward others.”

I agree.

Decency is obviously desired. Respect for individuals is obviously desired.

Ideas, opinions, and beliefs should not be treated the same way we treat people. Some ideas, opinions and beliefs are wrong and dangerous. For example, I suspect that you believe it is dangerous to give gay people the right to get married. The idea that being gay is not a choice is dangerous, yes? (Even if that is not your opinion Bob, work with me, you get the point; people have strongly held honestly come-by beliefs.) I on the other hand find the treatment of gays by the Mormon Church exceedingly dangerous. If I vigorously challenge your idea about gays are you automatically inclined to say you are being attack as though the attack was inappropriate? I am attacking the dangerous idea, not you the person. I can be decent toward you-the-person and respect you-the-person, but I do not have to respect what I consider a dangerous idea. I will attack dangerous ideas and this alone is not indicative of “lack of civility”.

“Ironically, I will probably be attacked for suggesting this.”

Not by me, I think it is a good suggestion.

For those who want an accurate view of Church policies from a lifelong Mormon, I'd like to clarify some items:

However, let me be clear that I am not speaking for the Church.

First, I have never heard the Church endorse of imply an endorsement of any candidate - ever.

Second, I actually work for the Church as a web developer,and I have a Church e-mail address. Never have I received communication from our leaders endorse any candidate either.

Third, the Church does in fact take official positions on political subjects which cross over into important moral considerations, such as favoring a consistutional ammendment defining marriage as between man and a woman. This is consistent with their policy written in "The Family: A Proclamation to the World" written by Church leaders in 1995. However, taking stances on official political positions are still quite rare.

Fourth, if the Church were mounting a serious bid to elect Romney, they may have a lot of pursuading to do - among Mormons. For example, I believe Senator Brownback - a Catholic - has been more consistent and sincere in some conservative issues, such as being prolife. Some believe Romney's positions on being pro-life and anti gay marriage have become more conservative in order to position him amongst pro-life conservatives. I for one share those same concerns, even though I applaud Romney's work in Massachusetts against gay marriage. In his 1994 run against Ted Kennedy for the Senate, Romney's views were more moderate, if not outright liberal (describing himself as "not pro-life", and being sympathetic to gay marriage).

Lastly, for those who are concerned that Romney would have more allegience to the Church doctrine than to his office of Presidency, I beleive you would have to look at his record. If that was the case, why has taken in the past, some of these positions when they don't completely square with Church doctrine?

Having said that, I do welcome Romney's bid and want to hear more from him. I certainly have not rubber-stamped his presidency, and I believe other Mormons haven't exactly done that either (e.g. Governor Huntsman said he support McCain for President).

My nicest neighbors here are Mormons. They helped us move in when they saw our truck and they say hello when we meet at the mailbox. Don't see much of them elsewhere, but one day the Mormon wife brought over a package for me that was delivered to her place instead. Trust me, none of our other neighbors would do that. They don't take care of their own families, let alone their neighbors.

I like Mormons. I don't want to be a Mormon, but I wouldn't mind if more other people were.

VOODEW,

You've actually hit on the main problem with the forum/blog format. Everyone feels that they need to "mount an argument" (or attack) rather than just be able to post a simple opinion, observation, or reflection.

This desire is fed by the 24-hour news channels that need to fill programming time by putting a never-ending supply of talking heads up against each other to rant on and on.

It never ends. Like an eternal series of no-win tic-tac-toe games.

My head is going to explode.

bob,

same goes for you. what is untrue? specifically?

I have read all of the postings and I am amazed at how we are focusing on the ideals of a particular religion instead of the credentials of the person. I happen to be a mormon, but only after trying other religions for 50 years. When I vote, I will vote for the person that I think will be able to lead this country, not for a church. By the way, many of the things said about the mormon church are untrue. They do have different beliefs, but then so does every religion. If every religion was the same, then we would only have one church and one religion. Vote for the person!!

Andrew, you sound like you just got out of the missionary training center. its ok pal. you can step away from the routine, its really ok to debate and discuss things, or ask questions. and really, you can do it without insulting people or bearing a little testimony or telling people how much better you are for knowing all the truths while the rest of us debate in our little hells under your feet.

we may be swine, but we would love to trample your pearls, precious. that is, if you have any pearls. i suspect you dont, but give it a try. are you midgley? he likes to insult people when he has no substance. you remind me of him.

i noticed the title change again. also, ottersons pic and the title of this thread are on the main page of On Faith again. is it possible that the washington post is editing these titles before moving the thread to the main page? seems odd, but maybe they were yawning at the last title as much as the rest of us.

sandra, seperation of church and state is great. we love it. i dont see anyone here asking for anything else, do you?

some want to pick a churchy candidate that will be more loyal to their own churchy views, but i dont see anyone advocating a comingling of management by the government and a church. well, with one exception, all those folks that believe the elders of the church will rescue that thread hanging constitution. but, they are delusional so that belief really doesnt carry much weight. oh wait - does mitt believe that too? i cant remember how he answered that question.

just as many apologists and defenders of the church come on here and declare whether a mormon prophet's views and comments on a topic are doctrinal/prophetic or worldly/just-a-man-ish, it is fair to ask the same of mit. criminy, the church is full of people figuring out whether every word from one of umpteen prophets was inspired by god, or just another patriarch running at the mouth.

hell, ottersons piece with oaks and wickman only took about 24 hours for the message to be sent out that the elders were just talking and really didnt have any inspiration or qualification for their words.

so, its fair to ask a candidate, one who thinks that there is another human, or 15, on the earth that talk to god and can offer trade secrets, what his loyalties are to that person, or 15 persons. and its fair to determine whether he is loyal to them, and will govern accordingly, or whether he is not loyal to them, and will govern accordingly. and along those lines, its worth exploring where his hypocrisies lie. because, as is pointed out here, he apparently says things in public that for damn certain wouldnt be welcome if spoken in a mormon general conference.

Nah, I don't think anyone here trusts me. This particular venue is futile, as far as I'm concerned. The internet provides a lot of opportunities for communication and information exchange, but "discussion" like this gets tiring.

I just get snarky sometimes and throw in a comment intended to make people step back and be more thoughtful than opinionated, but I just end up throwing fuel into the fire I loathe.

Besides, I don't think my own opinion would be well-taken at this point. I'll reserve such dialogue for those who trust me.

Wow. After reading through all the conspiracy theories and bigot posts, one almost forgets what the initial post by Otterson was about. The truth is President Bush has been the worst demonstration of sincerity as a president that I can think of. He claims to be a good Christian but thinks it justifiable to lie to the American people to pursue his vision of a democratic middle east and find those ever elusive weapons of mass destruction. Never has religion been so blatantly used by a President to further his personal agenda. Bush claims that Jesus is his inspriation and savior but he seems to have not read about that whole "Prince of Peace" thing.

As for Mitt Romney, I think that it is sad that when the Republicans finally get a descent intelligent candidate without a DUI or divorce, that can actually speak without fumbling his own words, they think "Oh we can't vote for him. He's a Mormon." Romney will face more blatant prejudice because of his faith than any other canditate, including Hillary or Obama. I do find it interesting that no one really mentions Pastor-Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson when they talk about religion in 2008 politics. Possibly becuase Mitt actually has a chance at ot doing something.

And as for the unusual beliefs of Mormons, Catholics believe thier actually eating Christ, and Evangelical Christians have thier speaking in tongues. Now that's creepy.

Mormons are good people just like Baptists, Jews and Catholics. I don't mind someone of faith in the Oval Office, in fact, I think it's important that people have a moral compass of some sort, especially when they are handling my tax dollars. The important thing is that they live by that compass and use it to help the American people.

I want a plan to get out of Iraq, a descent health care system, better schools, a good economy, and president of my country that doesn't make every other country in the world hate us. If Mitt Romney can do that, lets put him in office.

Andrew, can we expect more troll-like commentary from you in the future? Do you have anything substantive to say rather than telling us how stupid everybody is? I suspect you can't mount an argument without resorting to aggressive attack. It would be interesting to see you prove me wrong. Why don't you start by picking one of the "stupid" comments and provide a reasoned response to it? While you might be able to provide a good argument, my money is on your inability to do it without personal attack. Come on Andrew, what do you stand for? You've got some attention, step up.

It would seem that getting this thread to come back around to the topic is a futile exercise and I'm a little disappointed in myself for adding to the whole mess.

However - I think the fact that people DO take a candidate's beliefs into account has been more than validated.

Any candidate brings with him or her a life's worth of experiences, values, and opinions - religious and otherwise. If they did not, we would have nothing but superficial attributes with which to base our decisions.

What I find interesting (and sad) is that the posters on this thread who choose to attack and berate others based upon their honest opinions and beliefs would clearly not stand up to their own level of scrutiny and would have little or no chance of being elected to public office themselves.

Overall, I am saddened by the lack of civility in today's public discourse and would ask that we try to employ a little respect and decency toward others. Ironically, I will probably be attacked for suggesting this.

Andrew

Are you next going to quote
"Stupid is as Stupid does." ?

Most of us can tell the stupid from the unstupid without your help.

and it is
the price of a democracy.

How many times must it be said, "Seperation of church and state","Seperation of church and state." "Seperation of church and state" I don't want politics in my religion and I don't want religion in my politics. I believe that faith is a deeply personal matter and to try and use it to your advantage is inappropriate. Did't the Lord himself say render to God what is God's and
render unto Caesar what is Ceasar's. I also do not understand the discrepencies in "political faith". No, we don't like gays or pro-choice but it's alright to cheat, lie, accept bribes, use your own agenda to enter a war based on untruths
that kills thousands of our own and many many more thousands of innocent Iraqui civilians.
Please Dear God, save me from this kind
of religious hipocracy.

There are some intelligent comments here about the original post (which I enjoyed and agree with), but the others present a case in point: any idiot can use the internet to spread their otherwise private stupidity.

If you happen to be sure that that last sentence does not apply to you in any way, it really does. Trust me.

Headline: Mr Otterson Changes Headline Again

This is the second time MrO has changed a headline.

We have to expect that there is a PR reason behind it.

Mr O is the PR man for the Mormon Church, and PR men tend to do PR.

I have not noticed any other columnist who has done this even once, has anyone else?

Wes,

You might have noticed that Mr. Otterson's original headline quoted Mitt Romney's line about the role of religion in politics. The remainder of the post then explicates the Romney position. Since Mr. Otterson is paid to speak for the LDS Church, there is reason to suspect that Mr. Romney is not only a Mormon but also the Mormon candidate.

I have no problems supporting Mormon candidates such as Harry Reid because Reid has demonstrated that he serves all his constituents. Reid does not wear his religion on his sleeve and does not rely on the support of ecclesiastical leaders.

Government ought to serve all Americans. Reid understands that. Otterson and Romney, on the other hand, are advocating positions on religion and politics that exclude citizens who happen to be atheists or subscribe to south and east Asian religious traditions.

It is a mistake for Mormon officials to interject themselves into the presidential campaign as Mr. Otterson does on this blog. It hurts Romney as well as the LDS Church.

Mr. Otterson,

Why have you changed the headline of this essay? When you do that it changes the meaning not only of your own words but also deprives your respondents of the original context of your words.

If you give it some thought, I am sure that you will understand that editing blog posts without indicating that the text has changed is problematic.

I applaud your ability to change your opinion but you should do so in a responsible way where you are accountable for your actions rather than creating a situation where your respondents incur the costs of your behavior.

I apologize for raising this issue publicly. Unfortunately, I have no way to reach you privately. Since you have also changed the headline of your previous post, I thought it better to advise you of the netiquette immediately.

I wish you all the best with your future posts.

Thank you very much!

I am an atheist, and I would have no problem voting for a Mormon assuming that I agreed with their policy choices. LDS theology is no goofier and no less plausible than anybody else's.

Since Mr. Romney's name has been mentioned, however, it bears noting that he is blatantly pandering to the religious right by trying to disavow positions he has held for years. With Google we can easily enough find out what a candidate said or did ten, five, or three years ago. (Oddly enough, this seems to come as a surprise to candidates who are confronted with this.) Mr. Romney's apparent excuse is that he HAD to support all those things in order to get elected Governor of Bad Liberal Massachusetts; but if he was President he could support ALL the people, especially the Good Ones. Is that the strong moral fiber you want in your President?

I'm not trying to single out Romney, since John McCain is even worse; just compare what he has said about Jerry Falwell in 2000 and 2004, and compare with the New McCain 2006-7.

one thing i might suggest is that if one has an identifiable religious system - when they do not act i accordance with it- they can easily be identified as acting hypocritically-

if one doesnt have a codified ethic system-(that is measurable publicly) we would all probably measure their sincerity of purpose through our OWN religious (or moral) yardsticks whatever they may be-

it might make some people uncomfortable as they dont really have any way to gauge a persons moral compass- (from their own perception)

atheists may consider this a tenable insecurity that might preclude theists from knowing where they (hypothetical atheist candidate) stand or will stand on issues of importance-

while it is easy to mock or invalidate in ones mind the intelligence of the religious- is is not wise politics and could alienate the people who would have thepower to vote one into any office.

as a muslim- ifind myself constantly defining my beliefs to the majority of non-muslims that simply are misinformed about what islam actually is-

it requires a great deal of patience and repeating myslef and showing respect for those who are opne minded enough to learn-

atheists must also show this common respect in their dealings with theists-
and realize that many people simply dont know what ateists believe and hence their fear or hesitancy-

it is work- but if one lives in a society where one is in the minority- sometimes the extra effort is necessary.
salaams

Mr Otterson.
I applaud you. Of all the postings I have read, your is the most relevant to the question. Thank you for your clear minded approach.
My other comment- wow, I didn't know this question was referring to Mr. Romney. Many of the responses on here either refer directly to Mitt Romney, or the the Church which he is a member of. I guess those people agree by default that religion should be a litmus test, if not the litmus test for political office. My question to those of you who have slashed and tryed to slander the LDS church is what religion should a President profess? Go ahead and list the values he should adhere to. Go ahead, I will take notes. One tip, try to leave your venim out- just list the desirable values a President to adhere to. Or if your open to only one religion represented in your exclusive politic, which should it be. You've stated it shouldn't be LDS, then which ones are ok, and why.

Someone stated that they wouldn't vote for Mitt because he is a Mormon and Mormons make promises to give there all to the church. It is interesting to see that according to your perspective about Mitt; Peter, Paul, and even Jesus were in a cult. I guess mabye Peter and Paul shouldn't have been so devoted. Peter was crucified upside down. Paul was also a martyr. Each could have chosen not to give there all. You miss the whole point in your accusation. Mormons don't promise to give there all in a blind bliss. There promise is symbolic of there committment to he whom they profess to believe in, even Jesus Christ. These Mormons who you bash are commited to live the kind of life the Lord Jesus Christ desires for them to live. That is the Promise they make. I for one would be proud to have a leader who lives up to there commitments, whatever there religion, wouldn't you.
Now, the point of the question posted isn't about Mormons or Baptists or Catholics. It is about whether a Presidential candidate should use religion in his campaigning dialogue. I don't think it is necessar. Of course, I want to know his core values, his track record, and his plan for the future, but if religion isn't to be used as a litmus test, then why should it be a part of the dialogue in the first place? Values and action should be in the dialogue. Membership in a church doesn't gaurantee any course of action by the candidate.

Excerpt from article, I thought relevant as I started searching for his views and the mormon influence. I wanted the facts no religious bias.
I am voting for the President of the US not the
LDS Church.
"In 2008, Will it be Mormon in America" www.weeklystandard.com - a non-mormon view
"Romney hasn't felt compelled to regard the church's guidance to its members as sufficient in matters of public policy. He emphasizes his independence in assessing issues. He points out that he doesn't drink, consistent with what his church advises, yet he signed a bill permitting liquor sales on Sunday because "there is nothing wrong with drinking alcohol if you do it properly and responsibly." He notes, too, that he doesn't smoke, again as his church counsels, but that it was public-health arguments that caused him to approve a ban on smoking in public places.

On a more momentous issue, abortion, Romney told voters when he ran for the Senate in 1994 that he was personally opposed to abortion but that abortion should be "safe and legal in this country," and that "we should sustain and support" Roe v. Wade because it had been law for 20 years. When Romney ran for governor in 2002, he maintained his position on Roe, but also indicated that he didn't want to be known as "pro-choice." He promised voters that he would honor a "moratorium," meaning he would not try to move state abortion law in one direction or the other, and he's kept his word. Romney speaks of the moratorium as an act of deference to "an overwhelmingly pro-choice state" and not as reflecting any commitment he might still have to a pro-abortion rights position. "I recognize the right for a state to choose its own course," he says. Romney describes himself as "pro-life," but his own moratorium has prevented him from moving abortion policy in that direction, were he inclined to do so. On abortion, Romney's church is in favor of life but permissive of abortion in cases of incest or rape or when the mother's life or health is threatened (that last a very roomy loophole). Suffice to say, Romney has not seen fit to advance his church's policy.

On the question of when life begins, Romney is actually to the right of some members of his church, since, invoking science, he says life begins at conception ("when all the genetic elements are in place for a human being to develop"), while some co-religionists say it doesn't begin until implantation occurs, because "there's no soul" until then. Romney's position on when life begins has shaped his response to the therapeutic cloning legislation just passed by the Massachusetts legislature. Romney says it would sanction "the creation of life with the intent of destroying it. For me, that's the line I draw. Other people, other Republicans"--including other Mormons--"draw the line in different places."

Romney's opposition to same-sex marriage is consistent with that of the General Authorities in Salt Lake City. But his arguments against same-sex marriage don't use religious language. And he makes an arresting observation. He says the disposition of the federal marriage amendment is likely to turn not on what people think about "individuals who are gay being married" but on how they regard an implication of accepting same-sex marriage, namely that schools will have to teach "indifference" as to whether parents of the same or the opposite sex will be raising children. "The area of focus will be . . . what is the ideal setting for raising a child and [whether] we are indifferent as a society about having a mother and father, and I don't think we are. I think most Americans will insist on maintaining that dual gender conception.""

Though I am an ex mormon

when I heard a BU professor on the radio talk about the Mormons' "Strange beliefs"
i wrote him an email and said
they aren't much stranger than many other religions.

he apologized.

However, this quote James noted earlier from the American Spectator is a preview of what the press will do in characterizing Mormon beliefs.

Yet beyond Christian-sounding platitudes, the Mormon version of Christianity is pretty novel. To Mormons, the Book of Mormon is equivalent to, if not preeminent over, the Bible. Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." Mormons reject the Holy Trinity, instead believing God, Son, and Holy Spirit to be separate beings. People preexisted as God's "spirit children" until we assumed human bodies on Earth. Adam is the same person as Michael the Archangel. Married couples can become gods in the afterlife.

AI

I agree that Romney should be judged on his merits, and I am not afraid he would defer to Salt Lake too much.

I would never vote for him, but that is based on his political positions. I would vote for Harry Reid if i lived in Nevada.

Again,
I just think Romney's candidacy will be a PR disaster for the Mormon Church, rightly or wrongly.

The press will dredge up POlygamy, black and the priesthood, "strange mormon beliefs" which i agree aren't a lot stranger than other christians but they are of more recent vintage, frequent excommuinications.

the catholics have dealt with this with Kennedy.
with Romney, the mormons will get a lot of scrutiny.
it may not be too much fun for the church.

and i would recommend that they get someone besides Otterson to be their PR man

Al,

As you learn more about Romney and mormons, you may feel differently as time progresses. Mormons are counseled to "Pay, Pray, and Obey." They are counseled to "Follow the Prophet" no matter what. Is this the type of person you want as a president?

There are several high-profile, long serving Mormons already in Congress. Ezra Taft Benson served for 8 years as Secretary of Agriculture under Eisenhower while he was on the Council of Twelve Apostles (the second highest council in the lds church). The list could go and on showing mormons who have served in public positions with distinction and honor. Never have I heard that those who have served in government had some secret agenda. Never has it caused serious, if any conflict, as they fulfilled their office. Sure Romney is a Mormon. Mormons may have some different and strange beliefs. Christians believe Adam and Eve were tempted by a snake who spoke! That Jesus walked on water! Jews believe that they are the chosen people and that Moses separated the Red Sea! Gosh!
So what if Mormons believe something strange, let them. The issue is - what is Romney's vision, public experience and record and integrity like.
Attack or support any candidate as we wish, but leave religious debate to religious forums.
However, in comparison I do believe religions can comment on political issues. I believe they live in our community and have ever right to comment and publicly campaign on any issue. I hope we never get to point of "stoning the prophets".
Not that I am saying ..., but the Bible is full of prophets who spoke out against the political leaders on very big issues.
If the LDS Church comments on one issue would Romney be bound to the church? Ask him? Would you believe him? What does his past record as Governor show?
What is Hilary's past record as Senator show about her? I don't consider her religious beliefs as relevant. Has anyone raised them? Who cares?
The issue is - It's your decision who you can trust the greatest.
My view, at the moment, is that Romney's past performance record is far more credible as someone I can place my trust in. But I still have time to decide.

Should we vote for someone who supports baptizing dead Jews?

http://tracingthetribe.blogspot.com/2006/12/anger-over-baptism-of-simon-wiesenthal.html

Should we have a president with views like this?

"The inhabitants of the moon are more of a uniform size than the inhabitants of the earth, being about 6 feet in height. They dress very much like the Quaker style and are quite general in style, or fashion of dress. They live to be very old; coming generally, near a thousand years." Joseph Smith Jr.

http://www.watchman.org/lds/moonmen.htm

If Romney could Hie to Kolob.........

If You Could Hie to Kolob, 284 - William W. Phelps

1. If you could hie to Kolob In the twinkling of an eye, And then continue onward With that same speed to fly, Do you think that you could ever, Through all eternity, Find out the generation Where Gods began to be?

2. Or see the grand beginning, Where space did not extend? Or view the last creation, Where Gods and matter end? Me thinks the Spirit whispers, “No man has found ‘pure space,’
Nor seen the outside curtains, Where nothing has a place.”

3. The works of God continue, And worlds and lives abound; Improvement and progression Have one eternal round. There is no end to matter; There is no end to space; There is no end to spirit; There is no end to race.

4. There is no end to virtue; There is no end to might; There is no end to wisdom; There is no end to light. There is no end to union; There is no end to youth; There is no end to priesthood; There is no end to truth.

5. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love; There is no end to being; There is no death above. There is no end to glory; There is no end to love; There is no end to being; There is no death above.

ADAM ONDI-AHMAN

Meet me in Adam Ondi-Ahman for further instructions...........

LDS CHURCH TAX EXEMPT STATUS

What does everyone think of the LDS church's political stumping on this board for Romney? They did not mention him by name but it is obvious what the purpose of the thread is, isn't it? They better be careful or the church is going to run afoul of regs governing tax exempt orgs and politics. I can remember sitting in several sacrament meetings and listening to the Bishop endorse a specific candidate right from the pulpit. Has anyone else had this experience?

Joy,

I have said nothing of the kind. I did challenge your assertion that Mormon leaders do not tell members who to vote for.

It turns out that Mormon culture and organization provides leaders ample opportunities to coordinate Mormon voting behavior short of explicit endorsements, be it consciously or subconsciously.

Mr. Otterson's essay, by the way, is a case in point. Mormon opinion leaders will notice that the spokesperson of the LDS Church is using Romney's language on the Post Newsweek blog. Many will interprete Otterson's assistance to Romney to imply the Mormon leadership's endorsement. No public relations officer would be allowed to support a candidate in this manner without the tacit or explicit approval of headquarters.

These readers will return to their congregations and share their assessment that the Brethren have anointed Romney's campaign with their brothers and sisters. Mission accomplished and the LDS Church's tax exempt status was never in danger.

Rather than relying merely on my opinion, I pointed you to relevant public opinion research. Professor David Magleby, by the way, is a public opinion expert at Brigham Young University and the dean of the Family, Home, and Social Sciences College. You might enjoy his work about the voting behavior of Mormons. His exit polls document that Mormons are overwhelmingly Republican and tend to support the same candidates.

Magleby also related the episode of how the father of childhood friend was blacklisted by his bishop's wife during an election for state office. He considered that fairly typical behavior and regretted that similar episodes continues today.

Surely, you will know that Utah is the Republican state in the union. Only last month has a majority of Utah voters become willing to reveal their dissatisfaction with the war of Iraq lacking far behind the rest of the nation. Even so, the share of Utah voters supporting Bush's management of the war remains twice as high as the national average.

Cohesiveness at such high levels is what one would expect of people who are socialized to adore their religious leaders. It is largely a matter of a crude but calculated program that indoctrinates Mormon children from a young age. Even if you distance yourself from Mormonism, the results of such an upbringing will affect individuals for the remainder of their lifes.

That's why the liberal Mormon is an endangered species. More importantly, it explains how Mormon leaders exercise influence in ways that are difficult to observe for outsiders.

Of course, in light of the results outsiders suspect as much already. Those of us who are familiar with Mormon culture can confirm the suspicions and identify the observables that track how Mormon leaders influence the voting behavior of their followers.

"Free Exchange of Ideas" by members? Come on. Anytime you raise legitimate issues that question the foundations of mormonism, TBMs circle the wagons and start throwing out Ad hominens and labels like "anti-mormon."

James,

I think once the media sinks its teeth into the Mormon story when Romney is front and center, the church is going to have a PR nighmare on their hands. They are either going to have to justify some pretty terrible doctrines and behavior or disavow them altogether and risk alienating the fundies in their midst.

Why are religious people so verbose and simplistic? Can't we get to the point? I would frame the issue this way:

People who find comfort in any political candidate's religious beliefs are stupid, weak and lazy by nature. Candidates who use their religious beliefs or practice public piety must be recognized as the hypocritical disgrace and insult they truly are to rest of us.

Thank you.

Otterson's point is that religious rhetoric is fine coming from a political contender as long as the contender is consistent. I'm interested if people agree.

On one hand, the vid-bites of candidates going to church or singing in the choir or whatever are annoying to me since I think it's mostly irrelevant (or should be) to the question of whether or not someone can lead. On the other hand I kinda want a candidate to disclose so I can judge for myself whether I think his beliefs will get in the way.

Romney's Mormon PR Problem

If you doubt the Romney candidacy is going to be a PR problem for him and the church, Google "Romney mormon"
One the the first articles you'll find is here
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=9157

contiaining this paragraph.

Yet beyond Christian-sounding platitudes, the Mormon version of Christianity is pretty novel. To Mormons, the Book of Mormon is equivalent to, if not preeminent over, the Bible. Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." Mormons reject the Holy Trinity, instead believing God, Son, and Holy Spirit to be separate beings. People preexisted as God's "spirit children" until we assumed human bodies on Earth. Adam is the same person as Michael the Archangel. Married couples can become gods in the afterlife.

And this is a fairly responsible website.
Wait till the tabliods get going with their sensational headlines.

Joy
Yockel and I know MOrmons come in variety.
My brother is an active mormon, as are about 500 of my close relatives.

My brother thinks a fair amount. He always ends up pretty much agreeing with Mormon doctrine. So do my other 500 relatives. I know them pretty well.

I have known Mormons going back to the Joseph Smith days (I may be one of the 3 nephites)

I agree that the question SHOULD be about his qualifications.

But what the WILL be about is not going to be fun for the Mormon church's image outside of the faith.

If you and I could wave a magic wand , we could change it.

But the media and the country are going to want to tell, and want to know.

I happen to like Harry Reid a lot, because of his policies. I don't like Mitt alot, because of his policies.

Ummm shouldn't the question be about Mitt's qualifications and not his faith? What kind of governer is he? What are his stances on different issues? Is he a good leader and adminstrator? That is what I want to know...

BTW Senator Harry Reid is also Mormon... go figure

You would have it appear that Mormons are mindless, non-thinking people who are only too grateful to have all decisions dictated by their oppressive leaders. You have obviously not been present at any of the discussions where I have participated in the free exchange of ideas between different Mormons and where very different viewpoints were debated. I suppose it is easy to paint a picture of any type of religion with very broad, though inaccurate strokes.

Joy,

It is true that the LDS Church has not endorsed specific candidates in a long time. It is also true, however, that few constituencies are as reliably Republican as Mormons (see the work of David Magleby published in Public Opinion Quarterly, for example).

Mormon society is so cohesive that members pick up on quite subtle signals to determine what their leaders want them to do.

Moreover, there are plenty of examples where local Mormon leaders or their wives called voters to inform them who the Mormon and who the Catholic candidate was.

It is no accident that the LDS Church is pushing all these referenda to discriminate against gay citizens. The purpose is to increase the turnout of socially conservative voters that will vote for Republican candidates.

Finally, you will be aware that every Mormon child has to memorize songs about obedience to Mormon leaders as young as two and three years old.

Of course, Mormons are free to do what they want. Most Mormons will want to meet the expectations of their leaders, which would not be a problem had that state of mind not been carefully conditioned since childhood rather than deliberation among equals who are free to speak their mind.

Romney and PR

I am not sure you are right Poser.

CNN has lots of hours to fill.

Imagine this
Wolf, tell us about this Mormon Church Romney comes from.

Wolf: Well Paula, it is an interesting American Phenomena like secret religious rituals involving dis(((**** etc , etc.

Will look great in the National Enquirer, as will stories like
"Romney's Grandfather had 14 wives"
and
"Mormon Founder Married 14 year Old Girl"

It's all VERY spicy copy. Let's make a bet.

A sufficient statement by my candidates would be: "I follow the Eight Commandments" i.e. the non-God commandments plus "I love my neighbor as myself".

It is very difficult indeed to know the true religious beliefs of any politician. It is far too easy for politicians to pander (especially since the word seems to have lost all of its collective memory). A recent obvious case in point: John McCain and his recent puke-inducing chats with the likes of James Dobson and Jerry Falwell, as he tries to gather support from the fund-o right. A little Google searching reveals that his earlier comments about these men were scathing.

John McCain: He was against them before he was for them. (Or maybe he thinks finding God now is more expedient to his campaign).

Lehi,

Looks your vote and mine will cancel each other out. As much as I detest Hillary, I would rather have her than the mormon church's candidate Romney.

Pssst--hey, Betty, transcripts and audio of the temple endowment ceremony is easily available on the Internet, and I suspect that the vast majority of Middle America doesn't give a hoot about it anyway. Also, anybody who imputes Joseph Smith's sex life to Mitt Romney will come off sounding like a nut.

Wes,

I am aware of the prophecy. Do you think the Constitution is hanging by a thread now, or soon will be? Do you think Mitt Romney is the Elder to save it? I expect some in the Church do, I would be supprise if it were more then 5%.

I myself still have faith in the American Government. There is no other country in the world I would live in. I am glad to have one vote and glad you have one vote.

Lehi,

I assure you I am real and not a shadow poster. You are defending the indefensible with Romney. Are you aware of JS' doomsday prophecy? Open your eyes and stopping swallowing the morg line hook, line, and sinker.

Romney Campaign will be Mormon PR Disaster.

Stipulating that Romney has every right to run, and voters have every right to judge him on his life history, including his mormonism (as they judged George Bush on his Born Againness)

His campaign WILL be a PR disaster for the Mormon Church.

In the intense light of a Presidential Campaign

we KNOW that
• loads of Temple Ceremony Secrets will come out, and the public will be titallated and incredulous
• Polygamy will be resurrected. Many non mormons can't tell the difference between LDS and FLDS
and people love sex stories. joseph smith will be the Casanova of the 19th century.
• Women's inequality in the Church will dovetail with the polygamy issue and be PR smear.
• Rumors of child abuse, catholic style, will, justifiably or not, be raised.
• the trigger happy excommunication of academics who write True History rather than Faithful History

And tone-deaf PR men like Otterson will try to defend the undefendable, and evoke cries of "cover-up", obfuscation, etc just as he has on this site.

As with anything I learn about in the Mormon church, I am oblilgated and encouraged to determine what I believe for myself. Despite any postings here to the contrary, Mormons are not told to blindly follow anything. I vote and live my life according to my own conscience and would hope that anyone in the office of the president would do the same.

lehi,

reread your liahona translator buddy. the amendment would fall under "issue." as suggested by joy, above. i agree with you lehi. candidate or political party is not in the instructions, they have wiggle room for' issues' and didnt tell the members how to vote, but told them to tell their senators how to vote.

we are on the same page here, laman sr.

Mayan Elephant:

Please tell us what "candidate or political party" the marriage amendment is.

You left out the president with the most "bully pulpit" religious statements.

9-11-2001 "Go to your churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and pray" - the president responding to the most damaging sneak attack ever.

I don't have dates but here is a sample of George W Bush's "religion at the drive in church known as the white house"

One that seems to be a favorite "the Almighty" referring to what, God or the dollar?

One that's without precident, "we are all sinners" and I can't help but notice that Mr Chavez agrees with him stating, "I can smell the brimstone" at the UN.

Is Chavez onto something? http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul Was that really God in the ball of fire? We can't deny it was a supernatural being. But which supernatural being was it, God of Devil? Without Devil religion is redundant, all go to the next life regardless. That includes those who do not believe in God.

Are you saying Romney will uphold an oath made in his temple so he can NOT uphold an oath to defend the Constitution and the office of the President?

Joy:

the facts. the facts. the facts. donchya hate it when the facts get in the way. one, i said "encourage senators to vote", so please dont put words in my mouth.

two. it did happen from the pulpit, from the deseret news:

(great irony - otterson refused to comment on it to the deseret news!!!)
============================
Voice your support for a federal marriage amendment, the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints urges in a letter to be read in LDS sacrament meetings Sunday.

The letter, sent to priesthood leaders in the United States, calls on Latter-day Saints to contact their senators to support a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment that would limit lawful marriages to those between a man and a woman.

To further spell out its opposition to same-sex marriages, the amendment states that: "Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman."

A Senate vote on the resolution is expected the week of June 5. A previous vote failed in the Senate but passed the House. Any future amendment would require approval by two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states.

The LDS Church posted its letter to priesthood leaders on its Web site, but its communications office declined to comment further.

"We, as the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have repeatedly set forth our position that the marriage of a man and a woman is the only acceptable marriage relationship," the letter reads.

"Disappointing," says openly gay state Sen. Scott McCoy about the letter. "It's no surprise as to what the church's position is on same-sex marriage and the amendment," says McCoy, D-Salt Lake. "But I find it disappointing that the church is being drawn into what is nothing more than election year grandstanding on the part of the Republican Party. It's an attempt to distract voters from the total mismanagement of the country they've been responsible for in the past two years."

News of the letter was received with a "Great!" at the conservative, Colorado-based Focus on the Family. "The timing is wonderful," says Peter Brandt, senior director of public policy. Focus on the Family has sent out its own letter to 135,000 U.S. pastors, offering them pre-printed postcards in support of the amendment. "We've distributed a million or so postcards," Brandt says. The group has also launched phone campaigns in 14 states where Senate members voted against the amendment the last time. Utah is not on the list.

Religious groups are also lining up for and against the proposed amendment.

A coalition calling itself Clergy for Fairness is campaigning against it. Among its members are leaders of Reform Judaism, the Episcopal Church, the United Methodist Church and the United Church of Christ.

Last month the LDS Church officially signed on to another letter, written on behalf of the Religious Coalition for Marriage, that called for a national marriage amendment. Elder Russell M. Nelson, a member of the church's Quorum of the Twelve, signed the letter along with 49 other religious leaders from around the country.

In 2004, two-thirds of Utah voters passed a state version of the marriage amendment, which changed the Utah Constitution to specifically ban gay marriages. Four months earlier, the First Presidency of the LDS Church issued a brief statement saying that the church "favors a constitutional amendment preserving marriage as the lawful union of a man and a woman."

Certainly when I vote I am voting for a candidate and their views, just like you do when you vote. The point is that the church does not tell me WHO or HOW I should vote on any issue or candidate. So that Idea that they are dictating it from the pulpit is terribly misinformed. You can believe that or not.

"The First Presidency of the Mormon church has officially stated numerous occasions that it does not endorse any candidate or political party."

choke. cough. deep breath. whew. that was close. but, i think i missed the keyboard after reading this.

word-splitting at its best, the above line clearly leaves wiggle room that allows the mormon church to encourage members, through instructions from the prophet given from the pulpit of their chapels, to encourage their senators to vote a particular way on a constitutional amendment.

yeah. no endorsement. sure.

The First Presidency of the Mormon church has officially stated numerous occasions that it does not endorse any candidate or political party. They do, however, repeatedly encourage members of the church to exercise their right to vote. Currently there are several high-profile, long serving Mormons in Congress. These people come from both sides of the aisle with vastly differing views on policy issues in this country. The two that I am thinking of are men who belong to the Mormon church and are following their own conscience. They do not take directives about their service from Salt Lake City. I think that the issue is whether a candidate is true to his conscience - not whether he of a particular religion.

I have to agree with Betty on this one.... yaaaaaaaaaaaawn, stretch, pause, yaaaaaaaawn.

It would be interesting to see who really wants to see a Romney Campaign. Clearly he has no shot at winning, so what is to be gained by a campaign? My conversations on the topic have produced mixed reactions. Family members in Utah think it is the fulfillment of prophecy. (they also thought that Katrina and Rita were prophecied and sent by God, FWIW) More liberal minded Mormon family members think it will possibly be the worst thing to ever happen to the church on a PR level. The resulting exposure and inspections into the Mormon Church will not come from a sympathetic 'investigator' point of view. Instead, there will excruciating and competitive research into the history of the Mormon Church and its current doctrines and practices. The role of women in the church will not be easily dismissed by the general public. The temple ceremony will be disected like a chemically preserved frog in a biology class.

Ottersen, in his say-nothing way, says something meaningful here, I think. He says something about walking the talk. If Mr. Romney can claim to represent all people equally, perhaps he can show how he has 'sincerely' walked that talk in his past life, and how he dutifully represented all people, women, gays and minorities, including how he did so in is religious roles.

Religious Freedom and Poliltical Candidates

I am old enough to remember a similar situation when another Presidential Candidate from Massachusetts 46 years ago said

"I do not speak for my church on public matters, and they do not speak for me."

I am an ex Mormon, think Romney is as much of a hypocrite as most politicians,
but he certainly has a right to run, being a Mormon, and letting the people decide.

He also has the right to be asked
"Your church does not allow women to be in the top 15 leadership positions. Will you enforce such a position with your cabinet."

But definitely Run Mitt Run. Bring it on.

"Are you Wes also?"

No.

"Questioning one loyalties is far from knowing."

I'm not questioning. The man pantomimed slitting his throat, having his tongue torn out by it's roots, and being disemboweled by his own hand as part of a ceremony that swore allegiance and promised his abilities and time to be used to building up the church's goals.

What is there to question?

it seems from just a short perusal of the responses here- that the issue of religious identity is necessary- it also has the benefit of alerting one to agendas that one may consider at cross purposes to their own- so being informed of the religious affiliation of any candidate- and the degree to which they adhere totheir particular faith gives some sort of insight into how a prospective candidate may form policy that affects the public and what their decision making criteria may be-

all good things to know.
BETTY-
Jimmy Carter was a good example of a man who follows his faith but remains a dedicated public servant.
Whatever one amy think about his politics is another issue- but he does try to be genuine.
His religious beliefs are relevant to his politics- there is a framework within which we know he will form his decision making processes-

i think the issue is more about if the individual is a hypocrite or not- which transcends relgion.

Irony of Ironies

"LEHI" asks,
how many real people are on this forum.

first, lehi, i am sure that is your real name.
second, lehi is a character in the book of Mormon
which a legion of non mormon scholars
believe
is totally a work of Fantasy from the mind of the "Prophet."

Lehi
I think what matters most is the truth of the propositions here,
not ad "Ad hominem " of who expresses them.

Wes seems much more real to me than Lehi does.

pirate petey,

Questioning one loyalties is far from knowing. Are you Wes also? I wonder how many real people are on this forum.

That's a great question, Poser. This piece is ambiguous. Rather than formulating a tight argument Mr. Otterson is fumbling the language of the Mitt Romney campaign.

Otterson's essay also appears to be contradicting itself. First, he celebrates religious freedom. Then Otterson proceeds to celebrate "public religion," which excludes some American citizens.

That's the line of the Romney campaign, which is also willing to benefit from the discrimination of atheists, south and east Asian Americans.

It is sad that Romney and Otterson attempt to assert their right of religious freedom at the expense of other people's freedom.

Kay : "Mr. Otterson points out with his reference to “no religious test” described in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution."

I would like to point out that there are in fact states in the union where you cannot hold an elected position if you identify yourself as an atheist.

Texas, Massachusetts, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Tennessee spring to mind as they require candidates to have a chosen religious belief.

I want to go back to the initial question given, and that takes us to some serious Constitutional questions.

A study last year found that 22% of Americans could name all five Simpson family members. When you compare that to 2% of Americans who could name four to five of the First Amendment freedoms, we begin to see that perhaps the problem is not a candidates religious views, but the American people’s lack of understanding that religion should not be used as a basis of determining who our leaders should be.

The study from the McCormick Tribune Freedom Museum did indicate that “Americans often come face-to-face with First Amendment freedoms in one form or another every day – even though we may not recognize them as such.”

The real question should be, “What should be done to help Americans learn more about the Constitution.”

Further, the study concluded that “less than one-fourth (23%) recall (unaided) that freedom of religion is among the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.”

The United States of America is a country that guarantees a person’s right to practice their religion. Political candidates also receive that same guarantee, as Mr. Otterson points out with his reference to “no religious test” described in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution.

As a people, we need to acknowledge that our fellow citizens (including political candidates) have a right to practice their religion. If we move to a place where we require our political candidates to express their personal religious views, we will move all Americans to a slippery slope of religious discrimination.

History has proved again and again that religiosity does not further any human, political or spiritual development. In most cases it was desaster that followed from religion, starting with the genocides the Old Testament so vividly recounts. It is so evident that I hardly have to go into details (crusades, witch burning, Galilei, Bruno etc. etc.) The latest, and one of the worst examples, of course, is Bush.

The Christian religion has cost humanity 1800 years of development and progress since the already very enlightened hellenistic period. A huge part of the antique knowledge and art was forever destroyed by the christian zealots. Luther also wanted to destroy all science in favor of belief.

May I modestly voice that I am not interest neither in Heaven nor in Hell nor in any other fictitious sort of “Salvation” or eternal life. The whole concept is non-existing in my very active, interesting and happy, already pretty long life of art and science with a fine family and a lot of wonderful friends, most of whom share my happily atheist attitude. And I don't tolerate anyone to regard me as a bad person for this attitude. The "Gott mit uns" belt buckles of the millions of German soldiers in World War II did not spare us Stalingrad nor Auschwitz.

I feel at least as much accountibility as any Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter or Ted Swaggard or the criminal and born-again illusionist Bush. I feel full accountibility both for my own life and for the welfare of my surrounding. My morals stem from my social shaping and my deep hatred against stupidity. (Einstein: There are two things that are infinite: The universe and stupidity. And I am even not so sure about the universe). I am happy to have the privilege to be a part of the universal consciousness of nature for the time allotted to me – in the space-time frame nature works with through evolution and its generations.

I know how it feels to "believe", of course, having been brainwashed like most everybody else in my childhood, so I can feel very well from own experience how the religious protagonists feel. I know the feeling, but I also know the feeling of freedom after having gotten rid of the bigotry.

Lehi wrote : "Can you please expound on how you "KNOW WHERE ROMNEY'S HIGHEST LOYALTY LIES"? Are you empowered with Godly knowledge? Is it just Romney or are there others? Can you tell us where Bin Laden is?"

You may not like this answer as it contains elements of the temple ceremony.

I, personally, cannot bring myself to vote a man into public office that pantomimed slitting his own throat as part of a church ceremony in which he swore to dedicate all of his talents and means to the church's end-goals and growth.

That's weighty stuff right there and enough to make *me* question where his loyalties lie.

There's also the small matter of Romney's office consulting with various church officials through BYU's social network.

Mr. Otterson wrote:

"In today's America, politicians can choose to be religious or not. But they can’t choose sincerity. If they choose to express themselves in religious terms, they’d better be walking the talk."

What does that mean? If Otterson is against blatant hypocricy, fine. But he doesn't indicate what he means by "walking the talk." Does he man that politicians who use "religious terms" must hew to a particular political ideology consistent with Otterson's own definitions of those terms? Does he mean that a politician who claims to be affiliated with a particular tradition and uses the language of that tradition must at all times behave consistently with the tenents of that tradition? It's unclear to me.

Wes,

Can you please expound on how you "KNOW WHERE ROMNEY'S HIGHEST LOYALTY LIES"? Are you empowered with Godly knowledge? Is it just Romney or are there others? Can you tell us where Bin Laden is?

Dear Mr. Otterson,

Thank you for your advertisement for the Mormon candidate for President, Mitt Romney. You must think we are foolish to not see the purpose of this thread? We all know the mormon Church is running Romney for the presidency. I am a conservative, but I will vote for Hillary before I vote for Romney. Why? Because I know where Romney's highest loyalty lies and it is not with the country or the constitution. His highest loyalty will be to Salt Lake City and the mormon church. Mormons have this doomsday prophecy given by Joseph Smith that in the last days the constitution will "hang by a thread" and the "Elders" of the church will rise up and save it. Many mormons see Romney's candidacy as a fullfillment of JS' doomsday prophecy.

Also, Mr. Otterson, as I am sure you are well aware, evangelical Christians would never vote for a Mormon even if it means handing Hillary a victory. They understand that having a cult member in the highest office in the land is not in the best interests of the country. I fall into that camp as well. Looks like we will be saying "President Clinton" again if Romney gets the Republican nomination.

Otterson wrote: " Where the American public becomes uncomfortable is when a candidate or president goes beyond those generalized values and begins talking about their personal religious beliefs in a way that sounds like advocacy."

I think the more telling question with regard to Romney's potential candidacy, and one I'd love to see the media explore in all its splendor is this:

"How comfortable should the American public be with a candidate who has made blood oaths to offer his time, talents, efforts, and everything with which the Lord might bless him, to the building up of the Kingdom of Zion(TM)?"

In otherwords, does a blood oath, such as Romney made in the temple, to the LDS Corporation of the President (LDS President) trump an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic? Does the candidate see any potential conflict between these oaths?

Let'ss take, for instance, the historic precedent of the MX missile. If US military leaders recommend to the Commander in Chief a ballistic missile defense system based chiefly in the Intermountain West (i.e. Utah), but the Corporation of the President (LDS President) opposes this, where do Mr. Romney's loyalties lie?

Julianne wrote: "If everyone in the world simply practiced their religion, what a better place this would be."

Some religions preach war and the adherents are living their religion. How does that make the world a better place? (And that is just the most obvious example; there are hundreds of examples of how competing religious ideals do not make the world a better place.)

Otterson wrote: " Where the American public becomes uncomfortable is when a candidate or president goes beyond those generalized values and begins talking about their personal religious beliefs in a way that sounds like advocacy."

Or in the case of a Mormon candidate it would be when he tells the nation that Joseph Smith prophesized that the mormon leaders would one day rescue the constitution. Can I get an Amen Danites!

I know Mike, you claim "There may be some members of the church who think that in supporting a Mormon candidate and seeing the possibility of a Mormon president, there may be some sort of scriptural validation. It begins to take on almost a zealous tone that I find a little worrisome."

Keep it up, some day the spin will completely rebrand Mormonism.

Is Mitt Romney a member of the mormon cult?

Mormon or Maverick to run on the Republican ticket?

Is religion going to be a factor for Mitt Romney as he continues on with his campaign? If so, to what degree? He actually does go to church and from what I understand walks the talk. How will Americans feel about that? And I think we could maybe even use the "mainstream active mormon" thingy with him?

For myself, I would be happy to vote for a man of integrity and whose political views I generally lean to. Mormon or Maverick.

I do believe that for which is sought (lds member chat) or at least for my own curiosity, is to know IF the public will actually accept a truly religious man as our next President and precisely WHAT issues will he face along that bumpy pioneer trail? Who better to approach than you all? (she said with a twang)

Regarding the tough religious issues... should he throw in the towel or stand like a man and shoot straight from the hip?

I am thankful for this free country where we have the right to choose our leaders and choose which, if any, religion we are to practice.

There is a reason for the prohibition against using the name of the Lord in vain. It's cheap to proclaim Jesus a hero and it trivializes our faith if we allow politicians to pursue office by taking the name of the Lord in vain.

Wouldn't we be better off if we focused on how we treat each other? For Christians that shouldn't be a problem since Christians have an obligation to love their neighbors as themselves.

Your choice of a double negation "not . . . uncomfortable" is interesting. There are good reasons for you to be insecure about the future of public religion in America.

First, America has surpassed the public religion of the Civil War and World War II. There are more and more Americans that subscribe to believes beyond the confines of monotheism. If Lincoln were alive today, he would embrace the Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists in our midst. Lincoln that in the public square citizenship is a more important institution that should not be compromised by people's subjective feelings.

The second development is that Americans need religion a lot less than ever before. Generation Next has grown up with the bigotry of the right and they don't like it. While scapegoating gays remains an effective strategy for right wing churches to remain in the spotlight, the bigotry has poisoned organized religion for the lion share of young people. With time, literalists will pay the price for gay baiting and find that Americans do not tolerate discrimination forever.

When George Bush took the name of the Lord in vain in national TV, he attracted a lot of people only to lead the nation into the morass. A lot of people will not get over that disappointment.

The third development is that enough literalists are realizing how right wing Christian entrepreneurs are manipulating their faith while selling out their economic interests to the Republican establishment. People in places like Ohio, Tennessee, southern Virginia, and the Rocky Mountain west are realizing that feeding their families and educating their children is a matter of morality.

I suppose in a sense that speaks to your last paragraph. People are expecting politicians to walk the talk.

Jesus was about feeding the hungry, comforting the widows, spending time with children, and healing the sick. People who act like that earn my vote.

Jesus healed the sick with miracles. It would be a modern day miracle for Americans to come together and do what every developed country does for its people: health for every citizen. That would be Christlike leadership.

As Christians we ought to conduct ourselves in a manner that includes everyone, most of all those who disagree with us. And our actions can express our faith more sincerely than any cheesy expression of faith ever will.

If we are good citizens, our faith will take care of itself. I hope that our civic rituals will one day accomodate the fact that everyone is a citizen regardless of their believes.

America is for everyone. If there is a public religion then it ought to be about the pursuit of universal values and the celebration of shared institutions. If we are good citizens then God can do without our lip service.

When are Religious Values tied to Good Decisions

Most politicians have expressed relgious values because they had to to get elected.

Reagan never went to church. John Kennedy was, as Jackie said, such a bad catholic. Does anyone believe Nixon favored God over the Devil?

I agree with Flashlight: the Religious BS candidates give us is just religious BS.

Even Jesus-loving George Bush cynically exploits litmus test issues to fundamentalists while ignoring them in terms of real policy. See the fate of the Faith based office that John Kuo just wrote a book about.

Mr Otterson's title is so banal that it can't add anything to the discussion.
Here it is again:
"Religious Beliefs are Relevant to Values"
Asleep yet?

Voters have "litmus tests" which we often pay more attention to than the record, attitudes or even value systems of the politicians we're voting for.

* Does he support the environment?
* Is she for or against unions?
* Where does he stand on a woman's right to choose?

How often will a policy decision actually be affected by a politician's stand on these litmus tests?

I'm far less worried about how a candidate stands on these issues than I am about things like how honest he is, how smart she is, whether or not he's into big government, how fiscally conservative she is, how well he gets things done, etc.

So they can talk about their religious values all they want, but what I care about is their effectiveness.

I personally feel the world would be a better place if people practiced less religion, but that's just me I suppose.

Mr Otterson, are you planning on participating on this thread, or is this more of an op-ed enviroment for you?

I agree with Michael. The chosen religion of my elected officials is a lot less important to me, than their sincerity about those beliefs. If everyone in the world simply practiced their religion, what a better place this would be.