Deseret News | Mitt needs to make JFK-style church speech, Hatch says

Reader comments
Mitt needs to make JFK-style church speech, Hatch says

Jersey boy | 2:25 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

If Mitt should have to give a speech on his religion, then all of the candidates should make church speeches. This is 2007. If people don't get it by now, they'll never get it.You can't teach people that don't want to learn. Bigots will always be bigots.Talk about flip flopping, how many of the candidates have changed religions?

Phil | 2:39 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Mitt said that like a couple of weeks ago and desnews reported it. Does he have to be just like JFK. I hope not.

Anonymous | 3:32 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

JFK didn't fly to the see the Pope's leadership ever other week. JFK never claimed to be a orthodox catholic ether. Mitt, is no JFK. JFK was likable.

Comments continue below

Matt | 3:49 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

I hope he does. The more people know about the gospel the better. Google 'mormon' and see what you get. Truth. Painful, unfortunate truth. Mitt will have the same effect on the mormon church that the 2002 olympics did. Convert membership dropped in 2003. numbers don't lie.

Mark B | 3:59 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

I wish I had been there. What was the toughest question Hatch was asked? Does having to take a pro-occupation stance help Romney outside of Utah? And can I correct the mention of an "Iowa Primary in 1999"? Iowa has party caucuses, but no presidential primary, and it is held in the same year as the election (2000). Would he endorse more funds for the training of torturers, I mean, tough guy questioners?

To Jersey Boy | 4:19 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Why should ALL the candidates have to make church speeches? The American public understands the major religions.....and they do *not* understand the Mormon Church.

Polygamy's not the issue; it's the temple rituals and secretive things that he CANNOT talk about, that the public is intrigued by. And yes, we do know about those things. Really.

No comparison | 4:24 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Oh no! Don't tell me people are trying to compare Mitt Romney with John F. Kennedy. That's the same as trying to compare George W. Bush with John F. Kennedy.
We live in times of phoney-baloney politicians who are in it for special interest groups - not statesmanship.

VA for Mitt | 4:39 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

I liked the articles and news reports showing Rudy G flip floping on his views on abortion. I hope the media catches up to him on his issues he has changed over from. I agree that the religion factor shouldn't be a part of the campaign, fortunately it is because almost on a daily basis the church is being discussed, which in my opinion can be a good thing.

Hatch who? | 4:54 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Does anyone care what Hatch thinks besides Hatch himself? Hasn't he been a senator, like, forever?

katamb | 5:16 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

In our little Utah world we can't see what's going on in other parts of the country. As someone originally from the New Jersey/New York area, they need the JFK-type statement. 90% of potential voters are not going to access LDS.org or Mormon.org for info on Mormonism. It needs to be a statement so the news will cover it for a week or so and get it drummed into everyone's heads.

Rich | 6:22 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

The rate of growth in the LDS church has slowed in recent years. But to blame the slower growth on the Olympics is simplistic and inaccurate. There are several far more likely reasons. Here are several: The church has emphasized that converts must be committed to living all of the gospel before baptism so that they will have a higher likelihood of lifelong activity. The church has raised the bar for missionary worthiness, and so the number of missionaries has declined. The internet has made it easier for people to spread falsehoods and misinformation about the church and its doctrines. Fewer people today are willing to live the high morals the church requires. The greatest challenge missionaries have nowadays in many parts of the world is the attitude that it's OK to live together without marriage. Many people also accept evil as good and consider good things evil. For example, pornography, marijuana use and visiting strip bars are acceptable in much of today's society. Even though people benefit from staying away from activities that harm them morally and spiritually, many do not understand that, incorrectly thinking that living the gospel takes away their freedoms.

Jessica | 6:36 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

How can Senator Hatch support Governor Romney, while in the same breath, despairing that the United States has not done enough to end the war in the Sudan. Governor Romney is the only presidential candidate to still have investments in companies found to be funding the genocide in Sudan. Does Senator Hatch believe that the United States will do more to end the genocide and turmoil in the country under Romney, whose investments are helping to fund it?

to the to the Jersey Boy | 6:38 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Mr. Theologist,
Without goggling, tell me what the other candidates' religions are and what their rituals are. I would bet that you have never been outside the state of Utah and don't have a clue of other's beliefs. Because you are a non believer and Mormon hater I'm sure you know....NOTHING.It is a shame that people like you have nothing positive to say about other's beliefs and what they hole sacred.

Sentinel | 7:08 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Some thoughts about Mitt versus JFK in the presidential role:

Catholics comprised a large percentage of the US population in 1960, while Mormons are very small percentage in 2007 (@3M active out of 300M).

Until 1960 a Roman Catholic had not been President, however, they had been rulers, kings and in other roles of national leadership in the world for a long, long, time.

Mormon missionaries are horrible PR for the LDS Church as nobody likes to be harassed by someone trying to convert them to another religion.

JFK was a war hero, while Mitt had a draft exemption for missionary work.

There is a current, and historical distrust between the Mormons and the "Gentiles" and it goes both ways.

So bottom line is that the JFK / Mitt comparison is tenuous at best, and even if Mitt gives a speech about religion it will not make a difference.

Henry Drummond | 7:40 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

I think there is a lot of truth to what "Sentinel" says. In most Evangelical circles missionary work is supposed to be strictly limited to the "un-churched" meaning those who do not belong to a church already. Trying to get people to change churches is not considered to be appropriate. Since Mormons believe their can only be one "true church" they proselyte everyone. This has caused a lot of hard feelings among some political powerful Evangelical leaders. They have countered with the "Mormons are not Christian" crusade which has been quite successful.

I don't think any single speech is going to change decades of resentment and misinformation. I know Governor Romney gets tired of answering the same questions over and over again, but frankly I think that will do more good than trying to settle everything with some landmark speech.

Gretzky | 7:52 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

We preach the gospel to everyone so that all can share in the blessings that Heavenly Father has for His children here on the earth. LDS folks are commanded to share the gospel by word and deed.
Gov. Romney is THE most presidential candidate in the field.
Now that Oprah is backing Obama, Clinton has more to worry about than Romney.
The Clinton News Network otherwise known as CNN has already anointed Clinton vs. Guliani with Clinton winning.
I believe Romney can beat both of them in the respective races. Who is going to want to be Clinton's VP besides her husband?

Oregon Ute | 9:17 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Call me a flaming liberal, at least that's what people called me when I lived in Utah for 30 years. But it shouldn't matter what a candidates religion is; protestant or Catholic, Buddhist or Baptist it makes no difference. The only measure should be the persons integrity and ability to do the job. If Romney was a Democratic (liberal) candidate this would be a minor issue. Could it be that the consevatives are having to deal w/ their own values Frankenstein? One final note. . .don't try to pass off a polytheistic religon as Christian. There is only one God and "as man is god once was and as God is man may become" sums it up for most christians. Just tell the truth!

MB | 9:35 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Maybe Mitt can give this speech with Donny & Marie on one side and Gladys Knight on the other. Or maybe they can pry Steve Young out of a Toyota and get LaVelle Edwards to stand in for the seniors. Hey, Gretzky, how are you going to get FOX NEWS to back anyone BUT Giuliani?

Commenter | 9:52 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

We don't need another JFK speech. His was sufficient to cover the subject, which it did nicely. What Mitt needs to do is put the JFK speech on his web page and refer everyone to it to read for themselves.

Robert | 10:32 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

I would think that a JFK style speach for Romney would be a great idea so he can tell everyone how much of an evangelical Christian he is. Romney gets himself deeper and deeper everytime he tries to line himself up with mainstream Christianity. Mormons are not Christians in the sense of Biblical Christianity because the Jesus they believe in is a different Jesus than that of Biblical Christianity. Even Gordon B. Hinckley says, "Those outside the Church who say Latter-day Saints do not believe in the traditional Christ, No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they speak is not the Christ of whom I speak." (LDS Church News June 20, 1998 & April 2002 LDS General Conference)
The Jesus of Mormonism is the literal offspring of God the Father and the literal brother of Lucifer. The Jesus of the Bible created Lucifer and everything in heaven and in the earth. The Jesus of the Bible IS God not one of three gods that make up the godhead. There are many significant doctrinal differences between Mormonism and mainstream Christianity. Can you call an apple an orange?

CJN | 10:47 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Senator Hatch (R-Utah), a member of the LDS Church, has served in the U. S. Senate for many years and gained the admiration and respect of his colleagues. Based on his knowlege, experience, and wisdom, the Senator has expressed the opinion that Mitt Romney (also LDS) will gain voter confidence if he speaks to the American people about his religious beliefs. The reference to John F. Kennedy is nothing more than a reminder that religious affiliation was an issue in the 1960 presidential campaign. The then-Senator Kennedy chose to give a speech assuring voters the powerful leaders of the Catholic Church would not govern our nation through the Oval Office if he were elected. Hence the phrase "JFK-like speech."

No one is suggesting the two candidates have more in common than dealing with the religious affiliation issue during a campaign. Mitt Romney's critics have called him "squeaky clean" because he lives his life in accordance with his religious beliefs. Sadly, the same cannot be said of John Kennedy.

whatever | 10:49 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Why do people have focus so much on a person's religion? No one is out there saying that someone else should have to explain their beliefs. If people are concerned about one aspect of any of the candidates, they should look into it for themselves in order to understand it better. If I didn't understand a candidate's view, religion, interests, etc. I would take the initiative to learn about it rather than expect them to clear everything up for me. Why can't we look at people as a whole, rather than from just one aspect?

Josh | 11:17 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

The Mormon thing is a valid issue to the rest of the country. Would Mitt heed to the advise of the LDS Church president? If not, would the Church be strong enough to refuse him the sacrament like the Catholic Church did to John Kerry? Do I want brother Hinkley running the U.S. Government? Can Mitt claim to be a believing Mormon and disregard the Church's positions? I think Mitt needs to make the speech. His problem is that he might lose the Utah vote and his Mormon contributors if he does. He would have to say that he will be independent of the Church. Are we ready for that in this very tolerant State?

Richard G. | 11:26 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

To those who say religion should not be a factor, I disagree. I don't want a president who believes religious fairy tales, Mormon or otherwise. I wouldn't trust his judgment. That applies not only to the Stepford candidate, Mitt Romney, but to Mike Huckabee, who doesn't believe in evolution, and -- at the other end of the spectrum -- Dennis Kucinish, who believes in UFOs.

Consists of four | 11:37 p.m. Nov. 27, 2007

Call Mitt into the 1st Presidency as a 3rd counselor, then we won't have to worry about him being controlled by the church.

On a serious note, I don't think Mitt is much concerned about what church leaders say or think. He just wants to be pres.

Utah Alumni | 12:02 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

There has been many intresting points expressed by everyone. But I think that we should be focus on the main question...Can Mitt run this country? You can not define a religion based on one or even a hand full of people. It does'nt matter what race, color,sex or religion we are. America is a melting pot of everything. Does Mitt represent America? As far a Mormonism goes. These people have great Integuity on the whole. I have come to find some mormons to be very poor examples of the pricipals they teach....but who is perfect? Most mormons are wonderful people as many other people of many other religions. My point here is Mitt should be under fire not his religion.

Flip Flopper? | 1:10 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I am sick to death of people calling Mitt a Flip Flopper. I mean he might well be, but stop calling him that!!

mccxxiii | 7:45 a.m. Nov. 28, 2007

I don't worry that Romney would obey the Church over the Constitution, and I think it's ridiculous to fight over who's "more Christian" than the other person. Who am I to say whose theology is right or wrong? That's for God to know.

But do I worry that the Church's restrictive views of women would be reflected in his policymaking. If he truly believes in a religion that doesn't offer women equal status to men (and that didn't make African-Americans "equal" until 1978) what will that mean for his lawmaking? I love his fiscal genius, but if he truly identifies on a deep, spiritual level with an organization that would not consider me an equal to my husband, I don't know if I want him to be my leader.

I would be very likely to vote for him if he would demonstrate, in word and action, that he is committed to a fully equal society where gender roles are not limited or prescribed. I want to hear him say it out loud and mean it.

San Francisco | 2:42 p.m. Nov. 30, 2007

To mccxxiii-

The Church has never said that women are not equal to men. In fact, I had a lesson the other week in church about how they are equal in everything. The Proclamation to the World on Families even says so. That is the official word of the Church.

I just wanted to clear that up. No flame wars, please.

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.