Reader comments
Romney should give a JFK-style speech, Hatch says at UVSC

Greg R | 12:32 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Too bad America can't see that Mormons in politics have been around a long time and are no threat to the country. Being a mormon should be an asset, not a liability for the high moral values and encouragement of strong families we so desperately need in this country.

Re: Greg R | 1:53 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Great point Greg, I think the nation will see this esp. as he wins Iowa and NH.

Carl | 6:57 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Yes, he should give the clarification speech.
He's only a threat is to the other candidates.
He's less of a flip-flopper than Missus Clinton.

But Ron Paul will make a better president.

Comments continue below

Illinois Cougar | 7:36 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Life isn't fair... but, we don't have to like it!

Although I am still undecided about which Republican I will vote for, Mitt is a sentimental favorite if for no other reason than because of all of the religious bigotry that seems to permeate the country presently. I have never utlized religion as a tool to judge political canidates (as long as thier actions indicated some form of personal values). So, it really irks me to see the increasing undertone of intolerance directed at an individual who appears to live his values. I am also not so naive to believe that anyone can live live without a few skeletons finding thier way to the closet.

Furthermore, when did it become a liability to have a "squeeky Clean" personal life. It is almost like we want sex addicts and liars to represent us.

Debbie | 7:43 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Romney's advisors don't think he should give "the speech" but it is apparent in this country that people need to have their prejudices spelled out to them. They need to be told the obvious and they need to be reminded of what they are doing and saying when they rule out a candidate because of his religious views even though the information is based on someone's interpretation that they are not "mainstream" Christianity. It seems apparent to many of us - kind of a "duh" moment in political dirt, but there are those who, in their own self-importance, feel justified, qualified and appointed to expose their misguided analysis of Romney's beliefs. It should be obvious that members of the LDS Church know more about what they believe than any evangelical preacher. So, while Romney does not need to defend his faith and beliefs - they should stand alone - he needs to remind Americans of what is happening here and assure them of his commitment to America and the Constitution when the opponents are hurling the religious mud. He stands out as being above the pettiness of his opponents and hasn't needed to throw anything back. That is commendable.

A E | 8:14 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

AMEN to Greg R's comments!!

Mass Resident | 8:25 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

While I would love to see a Mormon in office what I have seen from Romney in Massachusetts leaves me quite disappointed. Romney has consistently instituted policies which favor big business to the neglect of the poor. I would much rather see a Mormon in office who would govern in a way more in line with the ideals of King Benjamin's Address

Utah Native | 9:02 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Clearly, Mr. Romney is being question on the facts of his beliefs. What is interesting is that when mormons are treated as they treat non-mormons they cry fowl. The facts.... LDS members control the political landscape in Utah. BYU and the LDS church smother the educational system with unqualified, untrained teachers with religious agendas. THE PROOF... very few non - LDS administrators, although 50% of the state is not LDS. You people are scary!!! That is why Mitt is being questioned on the facts. As far as Mr. Hatch... any senator that lets workers die needlessly in coal mines and sides with the mine owner and supports the killing of our soldiers in IRAQ... well that speaks for itself.

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

The argument being made with a straight face by opponents to Romney's being nominated and elected is that it would make Mormonism "legitimate" and "credible" in the eyes of Amnerica and the world. In other words, they won't be able to deceive people about Mormons when they see one in the White House. That is an argument of people who want to protect the structure of lies they have built up over 177 years to keep people from getting too close to Mormonism.

The irony is that all the negative propaganda about the Church increases the number of people who will investigate more and eventually become Mormons. Ask your friends who are converts, and I will bet that at least 10% began looking into the Church because they were exposed to outrageous anti-Mormon propaganda. So whether Romney becomes President or not, the campaign of bigotry against him will lead to increased Church membership.

Anonymous | 9:14 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I'll read articles on Romney any time. Financial genius, family man, successful and honest, what other candidate would we want, certainly not a life time politician who is making their money off the government, but someone who is genuinely looking to serve and is not compromised by money or power.

bob | 9:18 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

The last person Mitt should take advice from is Hatch, he has no credibility. I agree Ron Paul is the better candidate

life outside the zion curtain | 9:37 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Hate to be the one to break this to you AE and Greg R, but Americans could care less about mormonism and mormons.
I know you'd be thrilled if one of your own was nominated but this will never happen for a host of reasons. Romney is just another wealthy elitist who just happens to be mormon.
We the People is hungry for somebody they can relate to.

Any Publicity | 9:40 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

There is an old saying, "Any publicity is good publicity."

Advertising costs money, publicity is free.

Given the amount of attention it is getting, why would Romney give that speech, and if he did, why not wait until the last possible moment?

Dan Knudsen | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Will Mormon Church leaders give Mitt Romney different orders than theyï¿½ve given Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch? (Oops, Senator Hatch was quoted in this article that heï¿½s never received any orders from the church; is that because heï¿½s not high enough up the ladder?) Has anyone asked Senator Reed what his orders from the church have been?

Ken Baguley | 10:27 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

It's time Mitt. Go For It!!!

Randall | 10:32 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I would like to vote for a mormon president, but Romney will not win my vote because of his calculated move from the middle to the right. He used to value the legal right to abortion (while personally oppossing it-while I also personally oppose it) and he was pro gay rights (which I support it). He has succumbed to the sickness of the evangical right.

I would much rather vote for a Mormon Democrat.

me | 10:39 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I feel that the speech would clarify a lot of things for a lot of people.
As far as flip-flopping, I consider that as a kind of repentance, you make a mistake and then have the opportunity to amend for it. Apparently the American public is not as forgiving as our Lord.
Who out there has not ever changed their mind about something, including who you will vote for??

Carlos | 11:07 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

If it were not for businesses, we would all be the poor. The problem is that many poor are waiting for someone successful to bail them out. The LDS church is right on so many issues. To all they say get an education and work your way out of poverty. Most people who have anything, got it by following that formula, not banking on some governmental entity to rescue them. Mitt seems perfect!

wallyworld | 11:22 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

So if Mitt gives the "JFK speech" so should the other people running for PRESIDENT, How do we know the other guys won't take orders from their church leaders?? Give Mitt a break and worry about the real issuses. I'm still not clear on what he wants to do as president, he's always giving answers and defending his LDS beliefs..

Thomas | 11:24 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Romney's "JFK speech" should be limited to a declaration like JFK's that he will not seek or accept specific instruction from the Church on how to govern.

The LDS Church would, I'm sure, be happy to issue a press release declaring that it would under no circumstances presume to give any such instruction.

Romney should absolutely *not* try to defend or explain Mormon doctrine as a candidate. He should refer all of those questions to the people responsible for declaring Church doctrine. Unless a convincing case can be made that a specific Mormon doctrine automatically makes a Mormon unfit to govern (good luck with that), Mormon doctrine is simply irrelevant to the question of whether Mitt should be elected.

And no, the argument that because Romney is a Mormon, he must believe in some doctrine or other that critics deem absurd or unjust (i.e. a Hebrew origin for the Indians, or the blacks-and-the-priesthood doctrine), and that this reflects poorly on his judgment, is not a good argument. As Romney should emphasize, people adhere to their faiths for other reasons than being convinced logically of their founding stories. Romney's brilliant career shows there's nothing wrong with his rational judgment.

TYLER | 11:25 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I agree Romney has got to make that speech eventually, but he needs to do so with caution. People deserve clarification and a basic understanding on the LDS religion, but if he goes into too much detail people will just be confused and afraid. I'd say stick to the basics; ie, who we worship, belief in the Godhead, word of wisdom, basic synopsis of Joseph Smith, etc.

Anonymous | 11:26 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

The term "flip-flopping" was the way the dorky president we have today got elected. He continually used that against his opponent.
Like the other "dirty" word, liberal, this is what our wonderful neocons have used to perfection.

Moot Point | 12:12 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Romney, nor any Republican, is going to be elected president, so this is all just fanfare anyway.

Mitt can either make his speech, or not. Whatever.

Anonymous | 12:40 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Anyone who believes in the New Testament should adhere to Jesus' saying "Seek ye first the kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:33) and therefore should they not be questioned on it? Of course, there may be different interpretations.

Stewart | 12:46 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

This is not about the LDS Church. For those that wish to know about the Church and doctrine, they can simply go to lds.org or momon.org for Church position. If they want to read information from the detractors there is plenty of that also.

If Romney wishes to make a short statement, I suppose that is OK, but this has already been done by JFK. Any discussion of devoutness or doctrine should be left until other candidates are questioned on this issue.

Romney has bigger problems such as weakness on illegal immigration and the abortion issue in his past campaigns. All the candidates are saying about the same thing on these issues. I am a Duncan Hunter supporter myself.

dh | 12:51 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mitt will of course have to uncover his hair and show his horns, introduce his 20 other wives and perhaps explain that mormons only worship the devil on tuesdays and thursday's in their secret temples and not every day as most everyone understands in the main stream media. This bull and propaganda is all being stirred up by the "so called" religious right extreamists of the GOP who already feel threatened of losing their cash cow by the army of missionaires through out the world. Make no mistake, these shady characters want to protect their turf and keep the money pouring into their pockets and the only way to do that is not allow their flock to understand the truth about mormons.

Flip Flop? | 12:59 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Flip Flop means you continuously keep changing your mind. As I understand it he only changed his mind from pro abortion to anti abortion after a closer study of the issue and looking at the principles he was raised on. Changing it once is not flip flopping.

People need to understand the English language better before they start misusing terms.

Stubborn? | 1:01 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Apparently all these people calling him a flip flopper want him to stand by a position no matter what the outcome, even if it turns out to be wrong.

These same people are accusing President Bush of being too stubborn and not willing to change his mind, but they continue to criticise Romnyy when he rethinks and analyzes his position and takes a new stance.

What hyprocrites!!!!!!

Standards | 1:14 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I know many LDS members that are going to vote for him just because he is mormon, so why is it so absurd to not vote for him because he is mormon? Hold yourselves to the same standards you hold others.

Utah mormons will cry foul anytime anyone shows mistrust for the LDS church bet yet they will not associate with non-mormon indivuals that live here solely because the are not mormon. Hold yourselves to the same standards you hold others.

FYI.. when people talk about mormons being polygamous, they don't think they still are polygs, its just them poking fun at the mormons past.

Thanks, Sen. Hatch | 1:58 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I suppose Senator Hatch is an expert on being a presidential candidate. Funny, because he has never been one before.

I'm not a Romney supporter, but in what way is Orrin Hatch endowed with some special insight into running a presidential campaign? He's been a senator since the roaring 20's, but he doesn't know a thing about running for president.

Order of operations | 2:00 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

This is all pointless rantings. The U.S. just isn't going to be willing to vote for a Mormon.

This is the order of traits that the American public would vote for:

1) elect a woman
2) elect someone with the middle name of "Osama"
3) elect anyone but a Mormon
4) elect a Mormon

Mormon Voter | 2:25 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Nobody should vote for or against somebody just because he is a member of the LDS Church. If they do, then they are foolish. Rather everybody SHOULD look at all candidates and their experience before making a decision. But then again, this isn't a perfect world either.............

Jennifer in Alaska | 2:38 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

You Utahns are funny. I lived in Utah for 32 years until I moved to Alaska. Now I know why I left. There are other "issues" going on in the world. Who cares if Mitt Romney makes the speach or not.

truthmonger | 2:57 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I'm still waiting for him to explain exactly how he saved the olympics. He sure like taking credit for that when all he was was a new pretty face on top.

RE: truthmonger | 3:24 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

You can come out of your cave now if you don't understand what Romney did for the Olympics. Yes "save" is an excellent word.

It's easy | 3:28 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Romney doesn't need to give a speech about his religion. If people are so interested in his religion, peel your eyes off the internet hate-mormon sites and read the Book of Mormon. It's not hard to find a copy. Go ahead, expand your horizons a bit, stop being so narrow minded.

Re: Thanks, Sen. Hatch | 3:31 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Actually Hatch did run for president in 2000.

flip and flop | 3:41 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Maybe bragging about his Olympic gig will take the spotlight away from his pro-choice gig.

Voice of the people=flip floppin | 4:17 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Bill Clinton was the ultimate Flip-Flopper and served his whole office by opinion poles. When the people got sick of the Democrats, and elected a Republican Congress, What did Clinton do? He adopted the reforms the republicans had and made them his own and took credit for the economic turn around. I would hope what ever president gets elected can be smart enough to listen to the voice of the people and make changes if needed, after all, isn't that the job of the president. Romney has a personal belief against abortion, but it is unlikely that Roe vs. Wade will ever get repealed.

The Ogre | 4:56 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

If Mitt does succombe to pressure and give "The Speech", this is what he ought to say: (I personally would be more concerned with what Huckabee believes.)
1- Because of the teachings of my religion I am a better husband, father, businessman, governor, and person.
2- If I ask the Prophet for his opinion on something, he would give it no strings attached. He has that right just like any other citizen.
3- My church no longer practices polygamy. I don't feel the need to justify why my ancestors did.
4- How I would govern is directly influenced by my religious standards and beliefs because that is who and what I am just like Washington, Lincol, Reagan and others. In the long run, my standards are very compatable with yours.
5- I'm not talking about my underware.
6- I believe that the Constitution is an inspired document.
7- I am running for President. Not Pastor or Pope.
8- I don't feel the need to justify what my church teaches.

wrong facts | 5:07 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Standards
Very untrue that Mormons do not associate with non-mormons

Anonymous | 5:10 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mormon Voter

I agree entirely

What flip flop means | 5:32 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

To me, flip flopping means saying what the voters want you to hear. I mean really. This guy has always a conservative, stake-president style Mormon.

He took a pro-Choice position when he needed to do so to win the vote in Mass, and is now taking the pro-Life position now that he needs to do so in order to win the Republican nomination. Maybe he had a big conversion experience. But the timing of it seems just a little too convenient, doesn't it?

People like him make up their minds about the abortion issue before they graduate from high school.

Mitt, don't give the speech | 5:43 p.m. Nov. 28, 2007

Mitt has so far been able to separate his religious life from his professional and political life. I would fully expect the same if he were to become president. The reality is, however, that specific details about certain LDS doctrines would hurt him among Christian conservatives. That's why he's been steering clear of discussions regarding his religion. Like it or not, the priesthood ban, polygamy (yes, just saying we don't practice it anymore isn't enough), temple doctrines, among other doctrines and practices are better left out of the public arena. Mitt should continue what he's doing and not muddy the waters with a defensive speech about Mormonism.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.