Quantcast

Comments about ‘Coverage of Romney's Mormon religion appears more fair than in '08’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 23 2011 12:27 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Henry Drummond
San Jose, CA

As someone who is non-LDS may I also say that the Church is being MUCH smarter in how they respond to negative comments on Mormonism. Four years ago the standard reply to any criticism was one of high indignation and rants about Governor Lilburn Boggs of Missouri. Today they are inviting people to come find out what Latter-day Saints really believe. They are using the "Book of Mormon" musical to get in the doors of people who never would have even answered the door before. Maybe most of them won't join the Church, but I bet the majority come away with more respect for the faith than they had before.

Floyd Johnson
Broken Arrow, OK

Springvillepoet - It isn't only the GOP that is dependent on a Mormon candidate, the media have changed their coverage also. The love afair with Obama has past and mahy in the media want Obama to be a one term president. A moderate GOP candidate is their best shot.

full disclosure - It is correct that widowed men may be sealed to another wife in the temple, but clearly that does not involve co-habitation laws. Most people are not too concerned with how Mormons will be running things after the resurection.

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

To Ms Molli - I guess I'm totally blind to any offense being taken either in this specific article, or in the responses to it. Yours was the only one referencing Mormons being offended. It gives the appearance to me that you're looking for a way put down your LDS brothers and sisters, and make yourself look better than the chip-on-the-shoulder masses.

Look at gizmo33 above - not even a member and sees the good in other people, and sees LDS people as good-natured and forward-moving despite any negativity that may come from anti-Mormons, or in your case, from our very own.

Dadof5sons
Montesano, WA

I say its early in the campaign and we should see what shakes out. I know who the front runners are not and they are Ron Paul to flipity flopity on what party he belongs to. Way to far out there advocating a free for all in morality and drug useage and he is to old. Herman Cain great man no chance. Newt to much baggage. Mitt has this election to lose as for Romney care that is a state issue the people of MASS wanted it begged for it voted for it and he signed it in to law. And now it blew up in the face of the very people who begged for it. Mitt can use that and show what Obama care will do to every single person in America. The only other person that can beat Mitt is the governor of Texas if he jumps in to the fray.

kirae
TRAVERSE CITY, MI

Dear Pagan,
As one who lived in Massachusetts during the time when Romney was governor, the rate of growth was tied to the high, corporate tax rates which he inherited and worked over time to improve despite the democrats control of the legislature. The health care in Massachusetts was a state solution to take the astronomical, state losses from previously legistated programs and indigent health costs to the commonwealth and the hospitals of Massachusetts where people used emergency rooms for basic, healthcare needs.

FDRfan
Sugar City, ID

Mormon records a situation where the Nephite society had certain lawyers and judges who were constantly stirring up strife for personal profit. They cared nothing for society only their personal gain. Today we have the media, especially talk show hosts, who create controversy for the same reason. Utah seems to be stirred up more than any other state Texas a distant second. We need to recognize these people for what they are. I think even Adam Smith would have trouble extolling this invisible hand.

Idaho Coug
Meridian, Idaho

It often seems like the church itself causes much of the confusion that is out there. A few posters have hit on one issue that represents an example of this.

In public comments and even correlated material the church does everything it can to minimize plural marriage as some outdated practice that was never doctrine and should not even be mentioned or worried about today. The article mentioned President Hinckley's comments, we all have heard the PR comments, and a few years ago the manual accompanying the study of Brigham Young did not even mention one of his plural wives by name. There definitely is an effort to minimize it almost into non-existence.

BUT - literally hundreds if not thousands of LDS men have been sealed to multiple women in LDS temples upon death or divorce of a former spouse. LDS men can and do have multiple wives (spiritually) sealed to them. Some current LDS apostles included. LDS women can only be sealed to one man on earth regardless of circumstances.

One one hand, we publically minimize this doctrine. On the other, we continue to practice it in our temple sealings daily.

Can anyone help me understand this?

The Authority
Richfield, UT

I'm being serious here. Huntsman is too nice of a guy. I think he was a fine governor, but he's not projecting the strength it takes to be the president. I really think he's not going to win because he's not presidential enough, he's too thin.
Romney is a bit tougher, but his eyebrows make him look a little too mean. i know it sounds stupid, but his eyebrows are too heavy to win the presidency. Dumb, yes, but just watch.

In the end neither of these guys will win, or even get the nomination. It will be for stupid reasons like the one's I just mentioned, but people vote for persona, not the person. It's wrongheaded, but at least its consistent. I'm okay with both of them losing based on these things.

If they lose based on their Mormonism, that'd just be showing how ignorant and intolerant we are as a country. Lose because of being skinny or having eyebrows that aren't, that's okay. Lose because your a Mormon, that's just wrong.

no fit in SG
St.George, Utah

Re: Idaho Craig

Agree that this will come up as a problem for Romney......
How can he promote "traditional marriage" as he is doing, when the practices of his religion, requires attendance at a LDS Temple, where spiritually plural marriage is practiced and promoted. Not long ago, LDS women's Relief Society discussed "plural marriage in the Celestial Kingdom".
How will Mr. Romney tell Gay and Lesbian constituents that they cannot be married, if his own religious practices are questionable?

SpanishImmersed
Mesa, AZ

Romney-Huntsman 2012 is way prophetic, but is the Constitution hanging by a thread yet?

albu1595
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

So is your question on why we still practice it in our sealings or why we minimize the doctrine?

This is not doctrine(world according to me)--I understand that why we practice this is because they are more righteous women then men. Celestial marriage(marriage in the temple) is one of the ordinances required for the highest degree of the celestial kingdom.

As far as minimization: I don't think we minimize the doctrine for any reason other than that the doctrine above is a deeper doctrine and is not easily understood by men. We follow the law of the land and modern revelation has discontinued living polygamy.

Larry
Willard, UT

They can not win and run as aMormon, It just wont Happen!

DSB
Cedar Hills, UT

To no fit in SG - except for Log Cabin Republicans, no gays are going to vote for ANY Republican candidate, and I think we all all know that. Although, as The Authority said above, people will vote, or withhold their vote, based on a variety of personal reasons (eyebrows, height, and yes - religion too), I highly doubt the specific doctrine of Celestial Marriage will be the defining point for very many. For those to whom marriage fidelity is important, I strongly suspect Romney's devotion to one wife and the absence of any infidelities will garner far more supporters than the largely obscure doctrine of his religion on eternal plural marriage.

I don't suppose he'd lose any more votes because of the LDS doctrine of eternal plural marriage than a Baptist would lose over the doctrine of predestination.

Idaho Coug
Meridian, Idaho

albu1595 - thank you for explaining your understanding of why we practice spirtual plural sealings today. To be honest, the explanation that there are more righteous women than men sounds a lot like the explanation of living plural marriage that there were more women than men in the church when in reality all census records of early Utah show the opposite.

IMO it continues because the doctrine of plural marriage continues and this is the only way we can legally continue it. Therefore, my discomfort is not so much with this reality (although I do think it was instituted via man not God) but with the fact that it seems we portray something to the world for PR purposes and being mainstream while believing and practicing something different. I actually know people who have left the church because they believe we have strayed so far from revealed truth in the name of public acceptance.

If Romney and Huntsman were to be honest if asked if we still practice the doctrine of plural marriage through temple sealing policies - they would have to say yes. But that is entirely contradictory to the public image they and the church want to portray.

FDRfan
Sugar City, ID

This people begin to wax in iniquity; they understand not the scriptures, for they seek to excuse themselves in committing whoredoms because of the things which were written concerning David, and Solomon his son.Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the LordWherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
These things were spoken by a Book of Mormon prophet named Jacob. Almost all of the missionaries I served with were descendants of polygamous families (before the Manifesto abolishing it). It was started and stopped by commandment of the Lord. Jacob also proclaimed the word of the Lord on wealth distribution that may be of interest to some.

Abeille
West Haven, Utah

Idaho Coug -

Before we can answer your question, we have to understand three important things:

1. This question is more complex than can be explained with an answer of 'Yes' or 'No'. Answering either 'Yes' or 'No' would result in misunderstandings.

2. Not all people are on the same level of understanding when it comes to Mormon Doctrine. Someone who doesn't understand Eternal Marriage, the Priesthood, and the sealing power would be lost by an answer that might explain things to you.

3. When it comes to the Eternities, we only have a glimpse into some of it. There are still many things we don't fully understand. The only knowledge we have to give is the knowledge that has been revealed to us. Anything more or less than this would be opinion only.

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God." (9th Article of Faith)

I could give you an answer, but be prepared for a half-hour sermon! ;-)

Idaho Coug
Meridian, Idaho

Thanks Abeille. I agree with your statement. But I also think that as a church we then have to understand that Mormon doctrine is much deeper and more complicated than we like to or than we can potray to the public. And for those who know this, that can be why it is just so difficult to accept what we "believe" while appreciating how we live and what we "do". Mormonism is far more complicated, deep and nuanced than the standard message we like to give the world, investigators or even teach in our basic Sunday classes. That can be exciting for some but daunting and even become a negative for others. It can't help but appear that we say one thing publically and teach and believe another privately.

Abeille
West Haven, Utah

I agree with you, Idaho Coug. Funny thing is, I have no problem at all explaining this seeming inconsistency to either Members or Non-Members. However, for me to answer the question effectively requires a lot of 'ground-laying' before understanding of the principle can take place.

Wendy Braithwaite
LINDON, UT

Its about time!!! Give the LDS people a break!!!!

MidwestMormon
Akron, OH

@Wendy

Well said.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments