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

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, June 23 2011 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Miami Area, Fl

Abeille writes "However, for me to answer the question effectively requires a lot of 'ground-laying' before understanding of the principle can take place."

I can sympathize with that, but in many cases, by the time the "ground-laying" is done, the answer becomes so convoluted that one can not decipher it. Which in many cases is the reason for the "ground-laying"

How about this for the start of an answer.

YES, but let me clarify.

Or, how about

NO, but let me clarify.

Perfect example

Question - "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

Answer - "I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse.............but I don't know a lot about it"

How would you have answered that question? I know it is a tough one, and I can sympathize. But I believe that there is a DEFINITIVE answer.

But an answer that would rather not be stated.

Sorry to be blunt, but that is the crux of the discussion.

Cedar Hills, UT

To JoeBlow - as long as you're asking theological questions that you think should have simple answers, how about these, to other believers:

"Is this the teaching of the Catholic Church today, that the concept of transubstantiation is literally true?"

"Is this the teaching of the Islamic faith today, that martyrs inherit a heaven full of virgins?"

"Is this the teaching of the Presbyterian faith today, that every person is totally depraved?"

"Sorry to be so blunt," but why do you pretend that Mormons' unique beliefs are any more "convoluted" than those of other religions? Why must deep and thorough answers to the questions about Mormon doctrine be palatable to shallow thinkers, when you probably give a pass to the odd doctrines of other religions?

What faith do you follow, so we can ask you to justify, in a sound bite, one of your doctrines that others might find perplexing?

Miami Area, Fl

Really DSB? That is your equivalence of convoluted beliefs?

1) I have no idea what transubstantiation is and am not going to bother to research it.

2) Do I think the 911 bombers will get 27 virgins?

No, I think that line of thinking is a way to control others.

3) Total depravity? Got me there. Have not had a sit down discussion about that either.

If your point is that there is a lot of weirdness in other religions, we agree.

Are there are some religions more convoluted than the LDS? Certainly.

But that was not what the article was about. The article in question was about who the media should ask about the beliefs of the LDS.

Every one of my posts was on point and valid. My point was that the LDS have some beliefs that they wish to sidestep when asked.

And I understand why that is. And, on some of these beliefs, one is more likely to get a more accurate description by asking someone that is not LDS.

And lastly, I do not strictly follow any faith. Yours may be true. I dont know, and I don't believe anyone does.


Mission Viejo, CA

I worked for Romney in the CA primary. He ran on healthcare and described it on his site. Obama copied it and that is now Obamacare to GOP. Among the the GOP lies is that Romneycare in MS is unpopular. In fact, it is working very well. My company's HQ is in Boston and I wish i in CA could get the same.

Romney was a liberal Republican who felt that he had to repudiate what he stood for in order to gain the GOP nomination. When he was defeated in CA, I switched to Obama and worked for him. And I'm glad I did.

If the GOP does not moderate, they will be looking at 4 more years of Obama. A centrist Romney or Huntsman could win. None of the others would have a chance. So Romney, go ahead and claim Romneycare and defend it. You'll win in the end if you do. Try to out crazy the rest of the GOP candidates will just get you beat.

Layton, UT

Ms.Molli: Like you, I am not offended and couldn't care less. I think the point (for me anyway) is that we wouldn't know what anybody else's religion is (just by relying on the media) because it's not reported. Unless you're Mitt or Jon.

FullDisclosure: I think what President Hinckley meant was that once polygamy was taken out, practicing it is not a doctrinal practice. I don't think he meant it was never doctrinal, and I am not speaking of heavenly things. If you practiced polygamy today as a Latter-day Saint, you'd get the boot, right? That's just my point of view.

Florissant, MO

First of all GIZMO, you are awesome!!! In the early days of the church, when there were so many people seeking to kill and destroy the members, even some of the "members" were turning on their own. But there were some wonderful people who were not members of the LDS church who were friends to them and you are that kind of person. Thank you Gizmo for being a classy good person.

As to all you people that are making this a discussion about Polygamy, give it a rest. There were people in the Old Testament that had plural wives, but that was not always the practice. And after the Savior came to the earth and gave his life for all of us, they stopped practicing the Law of Moses and didn't do animal sacrifice anymore. There is a time and a season for different practices and practicing plural marriage while on this earth did end in the LDS church. As to the eternal practice, that is a practice that continues and me personally, I am not going to be so bold as to council God on that, are you?

Farmington, UT

As a Latter-day Saint, I would vote for a president who is Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu as long as he had moral standards that reflected my own, namely, a respect for life, liberty and the freedom of choice. My choice for president should respect my right to worship the God or gods I revere and would be accurate in describing members of my religion. My choice for president would not refuse to wear an American flag pin until he discovers that doing so is politically incorrect. My choice for president would be presidential and would use the bully pulpit to address and solve American problems, not to campaign for his party and its ideologies. My president would not apologize for America. My president would not saddle my children and grandchildren with mountains of debt to pay for benefits to those who financially support his party. Nor would he plunge America into a recession by buying into an unproven theory that the most economically feasible energy sources are causing the globe to heat dangerously. My president would believe in the freedom and benefits of capitalism, not the economically disastrous policies of socialism.

Salt Lake City, UT


"As to the eternal practice, that is a practice that continues and me personally, I am not going to be so bold as to council God on that, are you? "

I'm not going to council God on that because I don't believe polygamy is an eternal practice, therefore there's nothing to council God on. Answering yes to that question requires believing that God has that in heaven.

Salt Lake City, UT

"My president would not saddle my children and grandchildren with mountains of debt to pay for benefits to those who financially support his party."

Then you can't want the Republicans either who want more tax cuts for the rich.

"Nor would he plunge America into a recession"

Okay so you won't vote for Bush. (Obama inherited the recession you know...)

Anchorage, AK

Pagan posted:
Mitt Romney on Job creation:
From 2003-2007 job growth0.9%.
In rankings with the rest of the country
MA was 47th in Job creation when Mitt Romney was there.
The above is not relevant. Taken in context.....

Did MA have population growth during that same time?

2000 to 2010 MA had 3.1% population growth, US had 9.7%

.9% job growth for 4 year period not to far off (1.24%) track for 3.1% pop growth for a 10 year period.

You just throw out numbers, implying they mean something bad, when that isn't even the case.

Anchorage, AK

A belief in a practice that takes place after we leave this earth is breaking which law here and now?

Does anyone (Govenment, people) care what happens after death? Do they have the authority to manage events after death?

LDS do NOT practice polygamy here and now. Whats the beef folks?

Idaho Coug
Meridian, Idaho


For me at least, the only beef is with how the church presents things differently to the public. I think it can and does damage the reputation of the church when there is a sense that public relations and mainstream acceptance is the primary driver in today's LDS church.

The plural marriage issue is actually a good example. Public comments portray it as something far in the past and absolutely irrelevant now - "nothing to see here folks, move on." While the reality is that hundreds of living LDS men have been sealed to multiple wives in the case of death or divorce. The doctrine and accompanying practice through temple sealings has NEVER stopped.

I have my personal feeling about the doctrine of plural marriage. But I believe the church has every right to teach, practice and believe whatever it wants to. I just wish they would be more transparent about what that is.

Why can't the church just say, "We follow the laws of the land and do not practice plural marriage. However, the doctrine remains important to us and is reflected through our sealing practices in the temple."

Maybe not PR but absolutely honest and correct.

Wally West

re: Cats | 7:07 a.m. June 23, 2011

"Dear Linda A: Viable is the key word. Unfortunately, Ron Paul isn't. He's a good man. I like him. But, he's just a little too far out there. He's also a little too old. He's also gone back and forth between being a Republican and a Libertarian."

If Dr. Paul would forget about being a Republican; he'd be a lot more viable.

RP has done more for politics w/ his grass roots movement to Audit the Fed than Mitt will EVER do.

to comment

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