Deseret News | Reader comments: Mitt undecided on a speech about his faith

Reader comments
Mitt undecided on a speech about his faith

Concerned in Colorado | 12:41 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

I believe that Mitt should indeed make a speech including some variation of the following points:

1) "My religion has no more role in my political life than any other religious person in public office--it provides a framework for my moral judgment and the ethical lens through which I make decisions, but I do not and will not take political direction from the Church."

2) "Though I recognize that there are differences between Mormonism and other Judeo-Christian faiths, I choose not to speak to those doctrinal differences. The Church has a website and a missionary force to do that."

3) "Though I recognize that there are differences between Mormonism and other Christian faiths, and I further recognize that some folks will even disagree with the way I conceive of my own beliefs, I maintain that we believe in the same God and Jesus Christ. All I'll say on that point is that we have more in common than most people think. For further questions, look at point 2."

He needs to get it out of the way soon so that there's no more room for speculation. It'll come off the table soon after.

Bot | 2:35 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

I agree with "Concerned in Colorado". I might add one additional sentence: "My Jesus Christ is based on the New Testament Jesus Christ"

I think he probably believes every word of the original Greek New Testament (which doesn't support the Nicene Creed).

The public is not aware that Mormons spend twice as much time studying the Bible (2 of 4 years) as they do studying the Book of Mormon (1 of 4 years). The average person probably believes Mormons have replaced the Bible with the Book of Mormon.

Guitarboy | 3:39 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

To Concerned in Colorado:

I cannot resist remarking that your points are well thought out and impressively phrased. You are a good writer. Thanks for the post.

Comments continue below

Oregonian LDS | 6:34 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Depending on how high he climbs in the polls there will come a time when Mitt will HAVE TO give such a speech, simply because most Americans are unfamiliar with LDS doctrine

Wyman in NWA | 8:01 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

If a political candidate discusses personal values and religious beliefs because they are called into question by those who discriminate, or are not in possession of more accurate facts upon which to base a fairer judgment, or who are simply uneducated and swayed by popular opinion rather than personal reason, then he should not hesitate to do so, whatever the result would prove to be.

Kennedy spoke for Kennedy. Romney should speak for Romney. One speech settled the dust around the issue, the second speech should do the same. As right thinking Americans and devotees to just causes, we should then take our personal concerns about the future state of the Union, our assessment on our candidateï¿½s ability to lead out on the issues and ï¿½faithfully execute the officeï¿½, and our fair judgments on the character and moral values of the candidate to the privacy of the ballot box, and make our best and conscience driven choice.

Prejudice and political expediency are passionate bed fellows who can infect and cripple us with their form of ï¿½auto-intelligence deficiency syndromeï¿½.

A bit idealistic and principled, you may think, but that is the issue at the end of the day, is it not.

Ken | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

If a possible president of the United States of America is unable to make a speach regarding something so trivial as his religious affiliation.. How is he ever going to be capable of handling the dire consequences of speaking about a nation and the nature of its own activities? Quite sure the candidacy shall indeed go to someone with a bit more vitality, if he is to only do what his 'advisors' tell him to do, rather than grow a spine and face the situation head on...

Carl | 8:46 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Good points, C in C and Bot.
Write to his campaign people and suggest those.

And a few more:
Harry Reid and the other LDS in Congress, are not directed by the church. Not even Bob Bennett, Orrin Hatch, etc. from Utah.

Targeting Romney is just a red herring by people who must be worried they don't have anything else to cause "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".
They are nervous he has such a clean marriage and family record they can't blab about anything else but the peculiarities about LDS.

NO OTHER candidate is being even asked to explain his/her faith. The media and other critics must actually have a lot of respect for the influence of his faith.

Reality | 9:03 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

To concerned in Colorado, maybe it would be best if Mitt would just answer honestly that his religion is, for the most part, no more deceptive, divisive or destructive than most other world religions. It would be refreshing to have a politican to speak to the truth.

Reality | 9:39 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

It is doubtful that our politicians need coaching in duplicity

TNCAREORBUST@YAHOO.COM | 10:37 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

I COULD CARELESS ABOUT MITT'S FAITH. HOWEVER, TO WILL-NILLY AROUND THE QUESTION ON HIS BEHALF IS NUTS. EITHER YOU ARE LDS OR NOT. TRUE, THE CHURCH HAS THE BEST TOOL IN THE WORLD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE LDS FAITH: THE MISSIONARIES. BUT MOST FOLKS WHO ARE NON-LDS, WOULD NEVER CALL ON THEM FOR ANY ANSWERS FOR FEAR OF BEING "INDOCTRINATION", WHICH IS JUST NOT SO, THE MISSIONARIES KNOW YOU CANNOT FORCE YOUR FAITH ON ANYONE. MITT NEEDS TO QUIT THE DANCING AROUND, AND EXPLAIN HIS FAITH TO THE VOTERS IN A STRAIGHT FORWARD, AND LET THE PIECES FALL WHERE THEY MAY. ANYONE WHO IS NOT LDS, AND WAS AROUND DURING THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION, KNOWS JOHN KENNEDY'S FAITH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIS OFFICE, THE POPE DIDN'T TAKE UP RESIDENCY IN THE WHITE HOUSE, AND NEITHER WOULD CHURCH PRESIDENT GORDON B.HINCKLEY, IF MITT WAS ELECTED. I'M REALLY TIRED OF THE RAGGING OF THE PRESS ON WHOSE FAITH IS WHOSE, AND WHAT IT COULD MEAN TO THE OVAL OFFICE; AND I'M LDS, BUT I SURE WON'T VOTE FOR MITT, SO YOU CAN'T TAG ME ON THAT ONE. 'NUFF SAID!!!

NonLDS | 11:26 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Probably wouldn't hurt for Mr. Romney to define aspects of his religion before someone else does it for him. I didn't know much about Mormons before I got to Utah. I learned that there are indeed some aspects of the faith that are rather different from other Christian groups. But I (a non-Christian) don't find them to be any more harmful or unusual than lots of other faiths.

Generally, exposure to groups of people (group them how you like: religion, race, sexual orientation) gives people a chance to get comfortable with one another. I think that Romney could take advantage of a non-proselytizing forum to help the rest of Americans get comfortable with Mormons. I'd like to see him come out and address some of those issues (celestial marriage, posthumous baptism, etc) that make non-Mormons uncomfortable. Good for Romney, good for the country.

Romney's not my choice for president, but there's certainly nothing sinister in his religion.

Mimi | 11:44 a.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Romney's statement in New Hampshire should be sufficient for the average voter, who I seriously doubt is really interested in specific doctrine. If they are, the Church has made it very easy for them (AND THE MEDIA)to get it.

Religion is not the problem with Romney--it's merely the only thing his opponents can find with him that they can manufacture a negative out of.

A political speech on the specific doctrine of ANY religion is just inappropriate.

If an official statement were necessary, the above comment by "Concerned in Colorado" would be an excellent example.

Conservative Mormon Against Mitt | 2:16 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Religion IS NOT the "only thing" the "opponents" of Mitt Romney "can find with him". The statement that "Mimi" made (see above) is a gimmick which the Romney campaign has manufactured as to why Mitt cannot get elected.

Mitt Romney is a liberal - first and foremost.

Mitt Romney has a history of championing Pro-Abortion causes.

Mitt Romney raised the capital gains tax on Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney signed into legislation the largest measure of gun control in the history of Massachusetts.

Mitt Romney told Ted Kennedy in their Senate debate, that he didn't want to "return to Reagan/Bush" and that he was an independent during that era.

Mitt Romney used Larry Craig as his top dawg for his Mountain West campaign.

Nobody cares if Mitt Romney is a Mormon or not. Liberals will vote for him regardless - JUST LIKE HARRY REID. Let me say this again... Nobody cares if Harry Reid is a Mormon, and nobody cares if Mitt Romney is a Mormon. It will simply be Mitt's gimmick as to why he lost.

By the way ï¿½ when did Mitt Romney become an ambassador for the LDS Faith? He isnï¿½t!

Plain Talk | 2:26 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Just because you are a Mormon, doesn't mean that you represent Mormons or the Mormon Church.

Just because you are a Mormon, doesn't mean that you need to support a Mormon.

Most importantly:

Just because you are against a liberal like Mitt Romney, does not mean you are an ANTI-MORMON.

A real liberal | 2:37 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Yes folks, I'm a liberal. Like most other liberals, I'm for the rule of law, national security, and fiscal responsibility. That used to be the conservative thing, didn't it? Oh yeah, I'm for gay marriage too.

Mitt Romney is no liberal. His support of Gitmo and Bush's unconstitutional abominations keep him out of that club.

Aaron | 6:40 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Mitt is no liberal. That is ridiculous. Just because you are a far-right nut job. But the man does need to grow a spine and stop trying to be all things to all people.

Canaan | 8:55 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

How can Mitt possibly defend his faith adequately? First of all, he would have to speak to non-members on their terms. But doing so would not do justice to the beliefs as members understand them. So, he will be caught in a pinch between losing the support of non-members if he explains things as fully as members understand them, or losing the support of members if he explains things in the simplistic terms needed for non-members to understand them.

It is a no-win proposition. Mitt should just talk to the issues and deal with comments or questions about religion by simply saying, "I don't believe that to be relevant to my ability to lead this country."

Mark B | 9:30 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

In this imaginary (so far) address, could we include something like:
The LDS Church, as I had every right to expect, has bent over backwards in an effort to NOT favor ANY candidate. Therefore, I owe them nothing in terms of any issue I would face as president. We are both comfortable with this arrangement.

A presidential campaign is a poor forum to explain religious beliefs. I honestly invite all who are curious about any belief of the church to contact them in your local area for answers to your questions. I am confident that they will do their best to give you the answers you seek. .

I will continue to explain my personal stands on every issue facing our country. I am open to questions as to how or if my religious beliefs influence these stands, as I did with the voters of Mass. I invite all other candidates for president to answer similar questions.

Thanks to C in C for opening the discussion.

Mitt the Missionary | 9:52 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

Mitt has the best missionary position on the planet right now and can explain and open the eyes of the world about our faith. I'm doubtful he'll win Presidency but should use this opportunity to share our faith before he loses and no longer has the platform to do it. We are to use every opportunity to share the gospel and never hesitate as we are taught this continuously in the church.

valerie maseuli | 10:25 p.m. Nov. 11, 2007

i think that Mitt Romney should answer the questions as they come, honestly and share the truth with the world about how much his faith has influenced his life it is an opportunity that cannot be missed.

suzyk | 8:53 a.m. Nov. 12, 2007

I wholeheartedly agree with valerie...maybe Mitt feels expounding on the subject may negatively effect his chance in the White House. That is possible..it would be a concern, however I don't believe that would happen. We are not in his shoes and therefore do not know what he is thinking. My hat goes off to him for his courage to enter the race...ohhhhh, they can be brutal.

LKO | 4:18 p.m. Nov. 12, 2007

I don't think he needs to make an address in the primary. He may need to make an address in the general election, but that would be up to him and his advisors. He is well capable of determining when and if an address needs to be made. Mitt is a Conservative and will obtain the votes of many Conservatives, both social and fiscal. He is an optimist and capable of leading our great country for the next 8 years. He has shown his capabilities in his marriage, his family, in business, the olympics, and in government. Elect Mitt Romney, our next AMERICAN President.

ray | 12:11 a.m. Nov. 13, 2007

Somebody just needs to say WHO CARES about what his religion is if he doesn't think that by killing inocent people he will get more virgins after he dies... A loving wife is better than 500 virgins!

Dean Youngkeit | 2:00 p.m. Nov. 21, 2007

As a convert to the LDS faith, I can say that partial answers to questions are more damaging than leaving the questions unanswered. Media does not present the whole story given to them, therefore the public gets a damaging partial answer.

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.