Reader comments
Impact of Romney bid on church assessed

If the LDS church is not endorsing Mitt, then why does the Deserst News (which is owned by the church) put Mitt stories on the LDS newsline. Not all Mormons are Republicans, and some of us do not plan to vote for Mitt. Why is he "News of the Church"?

Enough of Mitt on the LDS Newsline!!!! Please!!!

I think Mitt will make a great President. I find it amusing that some people think the Church is some how evolving into something it isn't. There have been some unique (predictions ?) to the effect that the people will at some point desire that honest upright worthy members of the Church will be sought out to serve this great nation as its leaders. In my opinion the time is growing short for that to happen, because of all of fraud and immoral conduct going on in all levels of the leadership of the government. It is my opinion that honest upright worthy God fearing people of other worthy faiths will be included in that desire for leaders of integrity.

I like Romney for President. I believe he has the characteristics and ideas our country can rally around and be proud of. Unlike many evangelicals, though, I don't believe it would be a positive thing for the LDS Church. I believe his Presidency would attract enough attention to the Mormon faith to help educate the public about the unique LDS teachings the world rarely gets to hear (God was not always God but once a man, the blood of Christ not sufficient to take away all sin, Jesus the brother of Lucifer rather than his creator, prophets who can change prior revelation, evolving scriptures, etc.). Most people, who have a little bit of biblical teaching in their growing up, are repulsed by those latter-day teachings and would not join.

I think the Deseret News puts Mitt on the LDS Newsline, or "News of the Church" because Mitt Romney is a Mormon who has made news. They do the same thing with Mormon child molesters who have made the news by molesting children in Primary class. I don't think they're endorsing child molestation by running such stories.

As for me .... kindda in response to one of the comments above (or below), I would like any anew article that has "LDS" or "Mormon" in LDS Newline. I feel that LDS Newsline should be different from LDS News because it should show the Public Relations part in the LDS News and the whatever part in LDS Newsline. I really don't want 2 different website posting 2 exactly the same thing. Doesn't make sense to me that way.

Meanwhile, people should know who Mitt is just like every other candidates out there before voting for them. That's why I can say I want Mitt to be the next President and have good reasons for it, not just because he is LDS.

At a dinner with a friend (devout member of the Church of Christ) I was asked how I felt about Romney for president. We did not get into our differences in religious beliefs as it should be, but he opined that Romney seemed to be the only one in the headlines who had integrity.

Mitt's values certainly reflect that of the LDS church. They are "modifiable" and are a prime example that your image is all really counts. As he is John Kerry re-incarnated, I hope he does win the nomination so we can finally quit debating the theory that Utah is a theocracy.

I have a Mormon friend from Utah,ask me if I would vote for a Mormon. Yes, I would; if they were people of integrity and I agreed with their stand and plans for this country. Is Mitt a man of integrity? I truly believe he thinks so.
My mormon friend is 'personally, pro-life but 'politically, pro-choice" because its the law.(free agency kick-in here, and the LDS Church accepts this position)
If there was a law that stated "parents are allowed to kill their children up to the age of two due to birth defects and due to hardship." Would being "politically, pro-choice" still be acceptable? God is pro-life. Would God be
pro-choice because its the law of the land? Are there pro-life mormons, both personally & politically? and, if so, what does that mean?

The theory of the panelist who is writing a book on Romney, that the LDS Church is becoming more "mainstream" to help Romney win the presidency, is simply bizarre. The unwillingness of people, even those in academia and the news media who are supposed to gather information and interpret it for the rest of society, to make the effort to learn the most basic facts about the LDS Church, has been indelibly demonstrated by the coverage of Romney and programs like "The Mormons" on PBS. Even if the Church did make changes, no one in the rest of the USA would know about it, because they enjoy wallowing in their portrayal of Mormons as polygamist racists who are "not Christian" and unthinking automatons. Repudiating something for a century (polygamy) or 30 years (withholding priesthood ordination to people of African ancestry) is not enough for the public. So such a hypothetical program would never be able to achieve its hypothetical objective of transforming the public image of Mormonism.

Clearly, the Church has done quite well in working toward its objectives of growth through conversion without ever having a Mormon in the White House. The Boston Globe, in its extensive biography of Romney, did not report any "surge" in LDS conversions in Massachusetts due to Romney's service as governor.

The Southern Baptists should relax. Their ability to portray Mormons as stupid and evil will undoubtedly persist, just as Democrats continue to portray George W. Bush (who was in the Harvard MBA program with Romney) as stupid and evil. Of course, the liberal media establishment is really ridiculing certain Southern Baptists in their fear that the fact that Mormons can be smart and good people might enter the public awareness! What a disaster for the expensive anti-Mormon slander campaigns that the "Christians" of the SBC have been conducting for decades.

Which raises the question: Exactly what part of the Bible warrants lying about another church and demanding that government officers be limited to your own church? There is no precedent in the actions of Christ or the apostles for it, since Christ is supposed to return and become ruler of the earth without the help of an election. Rather, the use of religious belief to exclude others from full political rights is a kind of tribalism that has more in common with the intimidating burning cross of the Ku Klux Klan than the inviting cross of Jesus.

Mormon's voting for Romney is like blacks voting for Obama and women voting for Clinton. I don't think enough LDS research and seek out information about other candidates because Romney is "their guy(LDS)." I am LDS, but I cannot support Romney. His pro-abortion stance in the past; his socialist health care program in MA; his anti-constitutional support of undeclared war; his stance that the Bill of Rights should be tossed out (Secret prisons, torture, no due process, spy programs, & "Patriot Actors"); and for his pro-big-government plans make him no better than Bill Clinton. Hold a finger to the wind of popularity and you'll find Romney's position. He does not stand on principles of limited government and constitutional rule of law.

If Romney wins, he'll be known round the world as the first "Mormon President of the USA," which is fine. However, if Romney proceeds to keep his "tough guy stance" and expand Bush's "War on Terror," it could have some immediate and harmful effects on the church in other countries. Opposing leaders could suspend Mormon missionary visas, and foreign congregations could be held to higher scrutiny, backlash, and/or attacks. If Mormon is equated with "American Imperialism," it could damage the church's growth rate. Not to mention, the IRS is just waiting for the church and or church members to slip-up and lose its not-for-profit status. Under greater scrutiny and blind Mormon support for Romney, the church could end-up owing billions in taxes and back-taxes. This could devastate the church's financial condition at home and abroad. Are these risks worth the bragging rights of having a Mormon in office? I would say "Yes," if Romney were a true, conservative, constitutionally-minded person, but he is not. He does not understand limited-government or "THE PROPER ROLE OF GOVERNMENT"!!!!!

Oh my, "Thought Man," talk about off-the-wall! Jumping to conclusions like you have shows no logical thought pattern. What solid evidence do you have that Mitt Romney is not "true, conservative, or constitutionally-minded?"