Deseret News | Reader comments: Romney won't 'take orders' from church

Reader comments
Romney won't 'take orders' from church

Page:
1
2
Next >

Vegas Rick | 2:21 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I have long been a Mitt Romney fan--and before that a George Romney fan. But please, Mitt: Find a cure for your hoof-in-mouth disease. Back in May you told Mike Wallace, "I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy," thereby instantly denigrating and insulting your sainted Romney ancestors and the first six LDS prophets. There are countless things worse than polygamy, namely, war, murder, rape,
pedophilia, HIV, hundreds of other diseases, etc, etc. Now you tell "Face the Nation": "My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to our nation."
Of course, you would listen to your church--and any other USA church--and to millions of Americans as individuals and groups on issues related to our nation. What you meant was that you would not be dictated to by your church. Please be more careful and say what you mean the first time.

Jazz Fan Slapper | 2:27 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

To this headline I say: "Good."

lamonte | 6:02 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

"...and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue related to our nation." Isn't Governor Romney being a little harsh here? I would think he would be willing to listen to the feelings of all citizens on any issue whether they were private citizens or leaders of any church. Such a statement seems extremely narrow minded or it is just a political ploy meant to appease the Mormon haters. The American people deserve better than that.

Comments continue below

diamond ladi | 6:39 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I think I would like it if Romney did get input (if elected)- in certain situations- but not exclucively from our faith. After 9-11 Bush got input from a group of religious leaders which included Pres. Hinckley- Sort of a temporary "religious" cabinet.
Certainly these occasions would be rare (like in a 9/11 type catastrophy)

Lawrence Welk Slapper | 7:09 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I agree...but I wish I could say: To this headline I say: "Unfortunately"...that would sure make the world a better place in the long run.

Lake Havasu | 7:16 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I think it is funny that people will think that Mitt Romney will take orders from the church, but I don't hear people saying that of Harry Reid.

my2cents | 7:22 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Romney will no more take orders from Salt Lake than Harry Reid does. I think the fact we have 2 very opposing poltical views from active and honrable members of the church should be proof that no marching orders come down from the Prophet to the political characters.

Most of us | 7:44 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

We knew that already.

Anonymous | 7:56 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Kennedy did not take orders from the Pope either!

Anonymous | 8:01 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

So much for "sustaining the Prophet."

Thomas Jefferson | 8:12 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

To the Danbury Baptist preacher, I sent a letter which has been mis-construed to demand "separation of church and state". What I was assuring the Reverend was that the Federal Government would never dictate to any church what its theology should be. (Of course, Connecticut and most of the 13 colonies had State-supported churches at the time, and I was referencing only Federal policy.)

I would welcome comments by the clergy on issues of concern to them. I assume such issues would be relating to the morality of our citizenry, and how our laws could uphold the Lord's commandments.

Blake | 8:25 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

You can still sustain the prophet without taking orders from him. The Church will not endorse anyone, but does everyone know that? I think he told it how it is, he didn't say anything close to not following his religious leaders

Minnie | 8:29 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Romney is near perfect.
We hope he wins the election.
If he doesn't, America will be missing out on a rare talent that is VERY MUCH needed.

bdc | 8:29 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I agree, it seems extreme to suggest that he won't even accept 'input'. I'm sure he did not mean to suggest that he won't listen to voting citizens because they also happen to have a particular religious viewpoint.
Of course, the comments are a sop to those worried a Romney Presidency will be controlled out of SLC. Romney is walking a tightrope the way he is juggling the issue of religion. Of course, it's also somewhat offensive that he feels he needs to make such a statement - do the other candidates have to disavow input from their religious leaders!?!
Oh, and it has nothing to do with sustaining the Prophet. I'd listen to his views on my job - but I wouldn't feel obliged to conduct my business anyway the Prophet said. Nor, I am sure, would the Prophet presume to act in such a way.

Anonymous | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

How can you "not take orders from the Church" and do anything BUT "not follow your religious leaders?" Granted, the probability that an issue would arise where the Church leaders told Mitt Romney what to do would be etremely rare, but in principle the subordination of Mitt Romney to his priesthood superiors is fundamental to Romney being a Mormon. And in times of exigency, exceptions happen and demarcations of influence are often ignored at great cost.

BotchedExperiment | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Yeah, just like Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Pharma, and anyone else with money wouldn't have any influence. Please. I'm so tired of all the lies from politicians.

300 million people in this country, and Mitt and Hillary are the best we can do?

Anonymous | 8:52 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I'm sure Romney would accept "input" from the LDS church the same way that he would accept input from the Sierra Club or the ACLU or the Taxpayors Union or the NRA if elected president. That is if you have a large base of constituents you'll get any president's ear. The LDS church came out against the mobile nuclear missle plan and president Reagan dropped it within days. That didn't make Reagan a tool of the LDS church.

Romney probably feels compelled to use the strongest possible language about this issue so that his detractors can't misconstrue what he says.

lamonte | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

In previous interviews Harry Reid has stated that the First Presidency has approached him - when the Democrats control Congress - and they have approached Senator Hatch and the other Republican LDS Senators - when the Republicans are in control. Mitt Romney said he "would not listen." I hope he meant something less than that but the fact that he used those words tells me he is not very careful with his words. Such carelessness has been the cause of wars in past history. I think Governor Romney should be more careful with his words.

Anonymous | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

No, Mitt and Hillary are NOT the best we can do. That is why there are other excellent candidates on the tickets. Is it just in Utah that people think this comes down to Mitt vs Hillary? Wow! That says volumes about the mindset in this state!

Athena | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

It seems that Romney and the Church are in agreement with one thing. Didn't the Church already announce that it would not get involved in politics at all, no matter who was elected?

Perspective | 9:19 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I'm a non-religious voter who's had to vote for religious people for 40 years. So I've always had to look past any particular magic hokum that the candidate espouses. But I can tell you non-Mormons are uneasy about a Mormon candidate.

When I came to Utah, I met many bright, ethical Mormons--folks I like and see every day. But I was stunned when I few of them told me "I just believe what they tell me to believe". These are people who are totally capable of making good moral decisions for themselves, but who have abdicated to someone above them in the church hierarchy. That in a nutshell is why a lot of people are uncertain about Mitt's independence.

Do I think Mitt believes "what they tell him to believe". No. He's bright enough to do his own pandering without church input. But Mormons still have some work to do in explaining how their church works.

To Anonymous. | 9:19 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Please remember that priesthood authority and subordination goes is a direct line over what they have authority over. The President of the church is not in any line relating to the the line of authority of the President of the USA. He can direct on the CHURCH's position on a matter but cannot direct on the Nation's position on a matter. It falls outside his line of authority. The Elder's Quorum president doesn't tell the Relief Society's President what to cook for dinner or what kind of car to drive. Even if he did choose to, the Relief Society President would be well within her rights to tell him to take a hike.

Anonymous | 9:28 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Even if you don't believe they are "divinely called", there is no denying the business, academic, legal, political, and other credentials of the LDS Church leaders. These are no mere sunday school teachers (except for Packer)! They have a great, valuable brain trust in those leading quorums, and with the influence they have on millions of Americans, Mitt would be foolish to not listen to them! You don't have to believe they are "prophets, seers, and revelators" to believe that they might have something meaningful to say.

What's the difference? | 9:41 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Candidate Huckabee, who has been rising in the polls as of late, is a Baptist minister and hasn't had to answer how his church would influence his policies and decisions. A perspn's religion, regardless of which religion it is, influences a person's values. Would seem to me ALL the candidates sould have to answer the same question. But apparently not. Perhaps religious bigotry still exists today. When I make a loan, I cannot discriminate based on age, sex, race, national origin, RELIGION, color, or marital status (Equal Credit Opportunity Act). However, these same standards apparently do NOT apply in the ballot box or in the public media. Never has and probably never will.....

No Orders needed | 9:46 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

An order would not be necessary provided Mitt is only the same political wavelength of the church. This was more of a question when he ran against Kennedy and was not nearly as conservative. Now, however, he's on the same page as the church on many political issues.

No orders needed.

Reality | 9:51 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

American politicans are much better at getting elected than they are at doing their jobs once they are in office. If they have enough money and really want the privilege, prestige and power of office they will promise or do what ever is needed to obtain the office. Voters have to look beyond what they say and try to understand what they are and who they are and what their life is about. Mitt's life, like all good Mormons, is about being a Mormon. Voters have to decide if that is a good or bad thing.

Anonymous | 9:54 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

The question of whether the LDS prophet would have authority over a Mormon President is not unprecedented, and I don't just mean Kennedy. In the ancient world, the Bishops of the Catholic Church took confession and advised the political leaders. In fact, that is the norm. The exception is when political leaders try to lead without input from religious sages. But that is also what can lead to curruption and political intrigue. If Mitt gets elected, it might be interesting to see how it impacts the LDS Church in ways that are similar to how such connections affected the ancient Christian Church.

arizonamom | 10:21 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Why is it that the media has no problem with every recent former President taking counsel from the Rev. Billy Graham, famous Baptist preacher, but can't even countenance Mitt Romney counseling with Gordon B. Hinckley, friend and religious leader??

Scooter | 10:58 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

People who think that the church would tell Mitt Romney what to do are not to informed about the churches stance in politics they don't get involved in politics. Some people may think that is not true but the laws we have protect us.

Ray Wilsson | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Mitt Romney has less baggage than any of the rest in both fields.

sb | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

What's wrong with Mr. Romney receiving input put from Pres. Hinckley or any other religious leader? Pres. Bush and others before him have met with Pres. Hinckley and many other religious leaders. I'm sure the presidents have learn much from these people and then formed their own opinion besides.

Anonymous | 12:18 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

The LDS Church has a long history of meddling in politics directly and using the Church hierarchy to do so. Smoot, Young, Benson, and Joseph Smith himself. Given the Church's track record, it is not unreasonable to think that might happen again. Indeed, Mormons believe that the Prophet has the right and authority to speak out on any matter, religious, political, social, or otherwise!

B | 12:22 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Mitt will say anything to get elected. Just another sleazy politician.

Aaron | 12:38 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Mitt is an impressive person, but he's got to stop trying to coddle the religious right. People who don't like us are not going to change their minds, and we shouldn't care much anyway. I am so sick of the political machine the Evangelicals have become. It's possibly the single worst thing happening to American politics today.

To the anonymous poster who said there are other excellent candidates on the tickets besides Mitt and Hillary, show me where. Please don't say McCain or Giuliani or Thompson. Honestly, Obama and Huckabee are about the best candidates out there, but they're long shots. It's always those who are unlikely to run who would be the best candidates.

ladyblueyes | 12:41 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Dear Thomas Jefferson,

Please bring back the first few presidents and all those that signed the Declaration of Independence. I think we could use a shot in the arm here.

Freedom of Religion was granted to ALL and if the voters are going to discriminate against someone's religious beliefs, we have a serious issue. Barac Obama has different beliefs, but he would also be a good President. Mitt would be an excellent one.

And if either one steps out of bounds, I think a recall isn't out of the question. After all, it really IS a government BY the people and if a grassroots movement needs to be made - then, people, get on board!

Hilary scares me ... Fred Thompson might bring some maturity, McCain controversy (not a bad thing sometimes) and Edwards ... well ... give him a couple more years.

Roger | 12:44 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

As Romney knows, the Church doesnï¿½t hesitate to take positions on various moral issues, and it shares its views with political leaders on those occasions. I canï¿½t help but think Romney is being disingenuous when he says he wonï¿½t even listen to the churchï¿½s position. Heï¿½s telling voters what they want to hear, just like when he told the people of Massachusetts he was pro-Choice.

Fredd | 12:55 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I believe folks are missing the point. catholics and mormons ahave a single leader they believe is selected by God (at least God inspired selection) who represents God on earth. You find that in most other Christian religions. So when Catholics and mormons are told to behave a certain way by their Pope/Prophet it hold a greater weight then when told by your local minister. Other Christian sects are free to believe their leaders are fallable beings. The Pope is infallible and the Prophet speaks FOR God when he says he is. So if I'm a good catholic or a good mormon and my Pope/Prophet makes a declaration I should follow it if I'm being honest with myself. Kennedy came out and said he would not obey the Pope if it was contrary to the good of the country and his own belief. I sincerely doubt any LDS president would advocate for anything detrimental to the U.S. I think the fact harry Reid and Orrin Hatch are both members in good standing makes this a silly discussion.

Fredd | 12:57 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Sorry a couple errors. You "don't" find single inspired leaders in other Christain sects, at least not on a world wide level. I'm trying to say there is a real difference that could cause concern but all you have to do is look at Reid and Hatch and its obvious the LDS leadership is not trying to influence politics.

Doug | 12:58 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

The church may not have a history of telling politicians what to do. That doesn't mean it won't ever happen. Suppose the leaders of the church recieve a revelation to inform Romney of something or tell him something to do. And if it comes down to it Romney will have a choice between listening and doing what the prophet says or not. Afterall, Romney believes Pres. Hinkley is the voice of God. It is foolishness to say that you wouldn't listen to what the LDS church leaders say. Unless you didn't believe that they were the voice of God.

David Edward Garber | 12:59 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I'm not surprised. Romney's record already proved to my satisfaction that he rejects any counsel from the Brethren. I'm curious to know if he agrees with Harry Reid that the Brethren (or some of them, at least) have led the Church astray.

lamonte | 1:17 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Isaac, PhD - Spend some time in a committed membership at any local LDS ward and you'll find that all of the hyperbole you've been spewing is totally unfounded. My question is not whether Mitt will be bound to do what the LDS church leadership ask him to do but why he has to go so far as to say he "won't listen to them."? He should show some courage. I think Harry Reid did that just last week.

JOHN J | 1:24 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Putting all religion aside, wouldn't the American people say that they, the runners for president would do anything just to get there name in the history books. To myself none are sincere enough to run this boggled down country. Just the usual rhetoric that never gets done.

Anonymous | 1:59 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I would listen to the Church Leaders if I were President of the USA. They are a little more inspired than congress.

Doug | 2:15 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

In response to Fredd:

You said "other Christian sects are free to believe their leaders are fallable beings". Myself being a mormon know that I am free to believe the prophet could fall- thus making him fallable.

and

"you 'don't' find single inspired Christian leaders in other Christian sects" is a leap.
You don't think God can work miracles in the lives of non-Mormons or even inspire them? Being a Mormon I am sure you understand yourself that God could not only inspire the prophet but you yourself as individual. Well lets hope God hasn't stopped personal inspiration.

The Dark Knight | 2:35 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

If only Romney would distance himself from the Republican party . . . THEN I would vote for him.

Shame on Mitt | 2:53 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

And that's why I'm not voting for Mitt. Yes it would be nice to have an LDS president, but I want an LDS president who still believes that prophets, seers, and revelators exist. It is a shame that he went so far to appease his critics. He might win a few more Republican votes but I think he'll lose more support from LDS Church members.

Anonaymous | 4:05 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Romney said, "the church wouldn't tell you what to do, but even if they did I wouldn't listen to them anyway." You should always take the council from the church even if it isn't a popular option. The least you could do, is to keep it an option. It really bugs me that he would say he wouldn't listen. I agree with a comment from one of the other people, "so much for sustaining the prophet."

Lyle | 4:45 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Romney sounds a lot like Reid. "Face the Nation": "My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to our nation." I suppose he, like Reid, believes that when the Prophets speak concerning the US Constitution, as did Ezra Taft Benson, then they are leading the membership astray.

sb | 4:55 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

In November 2003 conference Elder Perry stated: ï¿½We have never been encouraged to be blindly obedient; it is an intelligent obedience that characterizes members of the Church.

Brigham Young is reported to have said that the greatest fear he had was that members of the Church would take what he said as the mind and will of God without first praying and obtaining a witness of the same for themselves. ï¿½

There may be some who follow blindly, but we are encouraged to find out for ourselves and follow after the dictates of own conscience.

Mr. Romney does stand for what he believes. He said he is "not going to try and distance myself in any way, shape or form from my faith." I believe when he says, "My church wouldn't endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn't listen to them on an issue that related to our nationï¿½ means that the church isnï¿½t going to tell him what to do and if it did that he isnï¿½t going to follow blindly. Mr. Romney is a smart guy and will do what is best for the country.

Kevin Duchansky | 5:57 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

I think the television interviewer may have recalled some of the peculiar habits of the Mormon people when he asked Mr. Romney the question. Similarly, Mr. Romney was asked recently if he'd "baptized the dead". I'd anticipate questions like "do you hoard food in your basement", or "what's up with the underwear". Its natural for people to be curious, and vital for them to consider the actions of one who would like to be their President. Lighten up, folks.

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.