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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

AMEN to Greg R's comments!!

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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??

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!

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..

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.