Deseret News | Many U.S. presidents had LDS ties

Reader comments
My view: Many U.S. presidents had LDS ties

Goofy | 4:35 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

This is a goofy article. The big difference between a "Pres. Romney" and his predecessors is that Romney's a Mormon. Non LDS presidents could court the favor of Mormon Church presidents because they were not LDS. But if Romney were to place LDS folks in his cabinet, the public would smell a rat, as well they should. In a religion that places a heavy premium on obeying authority, it is not surprising that the public would be skeptical of such an arrangement.

lamonte | 6:36 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

Mr. Winder - this is an excellent essay and should be meaningful to most thoughtful people. Unfortunately it appears that prejudice still exist in the hearts and minds of many citizens of this country on many different levels - religion being just one of them. Or is it that those opposed to the Mormon Church are just beating the drums of political fear in order to legitimize their religious bigotry. In either case your essay illustrates the fallacy in the current concern about Mitt Romney.

I won't be voting for Mr. Romney because I disagree with his policy statements, not because I fear he will take orders from Salt Lake City.

hope you're right, but | 6:42 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

All the New Republic would have to do is observe Harry Reid to see how silly their comment about a political leader who considers himself active LDS taking orders from the church is.

There is no way Polk would have knowingly done any favors for the church; raising the Mormon Battalion was a loyalty check for people leaving the US, emigrating to enemy territory. There is even some suspicion he had cut a deal with a Missouri senator that if the battalion were not raised, the army would annihilate the saints.

Comments continue below

Anonymous | 7:36 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

I thought someone else in Eisenhowers cabinet served all eight years too. I don't think mormonism should disqualify a candidate from public office. Apostles won't serve as senators or cabinet members anymore anyway. Presidents now have better relations with the church than they have in early days.

I wouldn't mind getting the book presidents and prophets.

TRK | 8:15 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

If Mitt Romney practiced his religion as faithfully as Rudy or Bill C. practice theirs, and if he were as progressive as Harry Reid, he could do all of those things and more - and you wouldn't hear a thing. Problem with Mitt is he lives his religion (or tries to) and is much more conservative than progressive (how conservative is debatable - but unless you denounce all things conservative you are too conservative).

BH | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

Excellent article. Excellent observations.

This needs to hit the national news media.

Earl | 8:39 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

While it's interesting to speculate about a Romney presidency, I'd be willing to bet serious money that it will never happen. The Catholic and Mormon religions each have a person at the top of their hierarchy who is considered to be divinely chosen. JFK did not come across to the American people as one who had demonstrated that his church came first in his life. He was perceived as a casual member of the church, a reputation enhanced by his notorious womanizing. Romney, on the other hand, has devoted much of his time, effort and money to the Mormon church. He expresses his fervent devotion to its principles and to the prophet. He is anything but a casual member. And unlike many other religions, there is no room for interpretation of doctrines, no democratic debates of who should lead or what direction they should take. When the prophet speaks, the faithful follow. What would happen, for instance, if the prophet were to speak out against inhumane treatment of detainees at Guantanamo, which Romney said should be doubled in size? Or anything else that contradicts his current stances?

aqualad | 8:47 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

I'd be more afraid of a liberal taking orders from the New Republic.

KM | 9:16 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

I won't be voting for Romney, but not because he's Mormon. I don't agree with his stance on several issues. I do, however, have serious doubts about even like-minded Repubs. in America being open to an LDS leader in the White House. Mormons can be exclusionary to non-church members, and the secrets of the temple make folks suspicious about the church's activities. These two points alone are enough to dissuade voters from supporting Romney's candidacy. It certainly doesn't help that Warren Jeff's trial has highjacked the headlines. I'm amazed at how many people confuse LDS with FLDS.

This campaign was over before it started.

Anonymous | 11:33 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

What's the whine about? This sure isn't about beliefs and equality. We're a nation of bigots. Ninety-one percent of American won't vote for an atheist. The majority of Americans won't vote for a single candidate for president. Mormons don't find these bias disheartening.

Lets unveil the other lie. You're correct, we should vote for the person. We should accept diversity in faith like we should accept diversity in race, culture and life styles. How many Mormons will vote for Mitt because he shares their religion?

Rocky, who is disliked in every ward in Utah, misses a week and Mormons mutually whine that Rocky should be in SLC doing his job. Mitt misses 270 days as governor and these same Mormon see no issue. Everyday KSL and the Deseret News has their Mitt stories. Reid, a active Mormon, is lucky to get mentioned. If Reid is mentioned it's a terse or mean remark. The LDS Church doesn't try to put it's influence in politics. Sure!

Southern Utah | 11:40 a.m. Oct. 26, 2007

Wearing your religion on your sleeve makes many people very uncomfortable today.

Romney even if he is the Republican nominee will not win the Presidency as is true of Huckabee as well. I believe any conservative that appears to be or is like President Bush will not be elected.

The extremism shown by religious groups, especially Christian/Evangelical groups including the LDS church, in recent years has turned many people, including those that consider/considered themselves to be religous, away from candidates that appear/seem to be more concerned with religion and its dictates than people.

That is the problem that Romney has today, he may be an independent person from the leadership of the LDS church but when he constantly brings up the subject of his conservative religious background to get Republican primary votes he pushes others like me away.

Someones religion should not even be discussed, that should be a very private part of that individuals life. I will not vote for a candidate that seems to/intends to use his/her religion to base state or national policy on.

If religious groups continue on their current path they will create the very thing that they fear most - a GODLESS country.

Billy Bob | 12:10 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

To KM, you think that there are secrets being done in the temple? Why don't you join the Mormon church, become a upstanding member thereby gaining permission to enter the temple and see for yourself that it is not secret things going on in there rather sacred things.

porky | 12:56 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

To Goofy: you are!

KM | 2:54 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

Billy Bob-

Secret, sacred, it's semantics. You know full well what I mean.

Seeing how I no longer swallow nonsense about....oh, you almost had me there.

This is about Mitt romney's candidacy. Not the LDS faith.

Mark B | 2:55 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

Goofy has it right. Doing some little favor for a small group is one thing. It's done every day. Appearing to be taking orders (fairly or unfairly) from someone else is entirely different. Romney's tough spot is that the church over a long period of time has claimed exclusivity. Now Mitt has to say "C'mon, I'm just like you guys, only maybe a little richer." It's nobody's fault, but it's a tough sale.

Utah Native | 3:11 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

This article only serves to show how badly the Deseret Morning News and it's owners want Mitt in the White House. Mitt, Mitt, Mitt--day in and day out. Why not change your name to " The Mitt Morning News"?

Bookaholic | 3:50 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

I think Mitt would be a great president and will vote for him if given the chance. He's brilliant, hard-working, stable, decent and wise.

His values will guide him, not church leaders. As anyone in the Church knows, we are counseled, taught, encouraged, advised--but make our own choices.

Mitt will do what he feels is best for the country. He's got a history of success in turning around failing enterprises--businesses, the Olympics, Massachusetts, etc.

Our country is floundering due to social decay. Many are distrustful of those in power and negative in their expectations for the future of the country and the world. I think Mitt can turn the country around and can inspire the nation like Reagan did when he reversed the national malaise that Carter spoke about. We're fools if we pass this guy up.

Anonymous | 3:55 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

If a Romney presidency were really going to be less pro-Mormon than the Bush, etc. presidencies were, one wonders why Mormons want him to win so badly? If Mitt couldnï¿½t be pro-Mormon, youï¿½d think Mormons would vote against him.

The fact that he receives overwhelming support from members of his church proves that the Romney presidency would be very pro-Mormon. I agree that Romney would avoid the very appearance of taking orders from Salt Lake City, but thatï¿½s precisely what his prophet wants him to do!

Like everybody else, the president should carefully consider counsel from his religious mentors. The only caveat to that people should get a new religious mentor if he or she is in Left Field. Itï¿½s telling that Romneyï¿½s tactic is to avoid taking counsel from the Church. Apparently, he thinks itï¿½s easier to convince people that he wonï¿½t listen to the prophet than to convince them that there is nothing wrong with listening to him.

Leland Christensen | 5:03 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

With the balance of power between the Legislative, the Executive, and Judicial branches of government, how could Mitt or anyone else ever hope to influence the nation or foreign countries toward any sinister end (if it ever was their misguided intent in the first place)? But what do I see Mitt bringing to the whitehouse? Honesty, integrity, a drive to make the country better for all with the proven skills to do it. When you vote for a candidate, you show your confidence that the individual can do what they say they will do (probably why voters often don't show). No matter what I think about them personally (I like Barak, he seems like a shoot from the hip kind of guy), I don't trust Hillary, Rudy, or Barak to be able to do what they say they will. While some of the things Mitt says he will do, I can't ever see happening because of the other powers that be, I know he'll give it more than just a token show to say he tried. Mitt looks to me like the best candidate to come along in years. I believe I can really trust him.

MB | 7:57 p.m. Oct. 26, 2007

Sure, Mr. C. It's easy for YOU to trust Mitt. That's not the point. If this new book is somehow aimed at letting everyone know that other presidents have dealt successfully with Mormons, that holds interest only to the Mormons themselves. Think of the boundaries Mitt has to cross to make allies just within the GOP. If that miracle gets done and he's the nominee, then he has to try to cross another set of boundaries to reach a NEW set of voters - Democrats and independents. I know, YOU can't vote for Hillary and won't. But the idea is to appeal to as many different types of people as possible. Reagan had it, but so far, Mitt's no Gipper.

Mahershalalhashbaz | 7:18 a.m. Oct. 27, 2007

One thing is for certain, somebody has to beat Giuliani. He's evil. He's very much the same politically as Hillary. Why anyone would trust such a liar is beyond me. Give me Romney, give me Ron Paul, give me anybody. But not Giuliani. Or McCain actually. He's evil too. The only person who has the money or ability to beat Giuliani is Romney. If Giuliani wins the nod, I'm voting Hillary. A wolf in wolf's clothing (Hillary) will do far less damage than a wolf in sheeps clothing (Giuliani & McCain)!

BMER | 5:21 p.m. Jan. 28, 2008

Thank you Bookaholic!!! You expressed your thoughts more eloquently than I can. Mitt Romney will surely not take orders from LDS church Hq's. LDS church leadership has alway believed in the separation of church and state. Each member is encouraged to vote for the candidate that best represents his or her beliefs. The fact that members of the LDS faith are
inclined to vote for an LDS president doesn't have as much to do with their religious conviction as it does their connection to the high moral fiber of the candidate. If Mitt Romney were to receive direction from his spiritual leader how would that hurt the nation anyway? Strong families, financial resposibility, emphasis on education, acceptance of all people regardless of religion, ethnicity, gender, race etc; sounds like what our nation was founded on in the first place. We could do a lot worse.

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.