Quantcast
Utah

Coverage of Romney's Mormon religion appears more fair than in '08

Comments

Return To Article
  • Linda A Orem, UT
    June 23, 2011 1:02 a.m.

    WHO CARES what religion they are? They STILL would not make good Presidents of the U.S. Mitt doesn't stay congruent to his values (just look what he did with mandating health care in MA), and Huntsman was a horrible Governor (plus his family donated to Harry Reid's campaign). RON PAUL is the only viable candidate who knows anything about the Constitution and no one is going to question HIM about religion ...

  • ER in EUR Belgrade, Serbia
    June 23, 2011 1:49 a.m.

    cult (kʌlt)

    n
    1. a specific system of religious worship, esp with reference to its rites and deity
    2. a sect devoted to such a system
    3. a quasi-religious organization using devious psychological techniques to gain and control adherents
    4. social a group having an exclusive ideology and ritual practices centred on sacred symbols, esp one characterized by lack of organizational structure
    5. intense interest in and devotion to a person, idea, or activity: the cult of yoga
    6. the person, idea, etc, arousing such devotion
    7. a. something regarded as fashionable or significant by a particular group
    b. ( as modifier ): a cult show
    8. ( modifier ) of, relating to, or characteristic of a cult or cults: a cult figure


    By the World Dictionary, any religion could be called a cult. But let's get down to it. Cult has negative connotations that I do not believe are accurate to use for the LDS church. For example, if the Mormons are a cult then other religions should be held to the same definition and should be referred to as cults by the media too. If they are not, then the negative word should not be attached to the LDS Church.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    June 23, 2011 5:27 a.m.

    One of the themes of the article is that in the past, the media talked to non-members to get information when they should have been talking to members.

    Of course, that seems reasonable.

    However, in my experience, the LDS are oftentimes not straightforward with answers on many issues.

    Even Pres Hinckley's answers on 60 minutes were less than "complete" when dealing with some sensitive LDS issues.

    In those cases, one could get a more complete picture of beliefs by asking a non-member.

    I understand that some of these issues can be uncomfortable and even damaging to church image. I understand that the LDS church does not need to volunteer all the dirty laundry.

    But, when asked, spill the beans and let the chips fall as they will.

  • raybies Layton, UT
    June 23, 2011 5:55 a.m.

    Linda?

    What is Ron Paul's religious affiliation? I think it would affect my vote. :-P

  • DC Alexandria, VA
    June 23, 2011 6:19 a.m.

    Give it some time...

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:07 a.m.

    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.

    Good article. I hope we get better coverage. Mitt has a real shot this time. I hope the public has realized what a terrible mistake we made in 2008. Mitt's made a few mistake in the past which, I hope, he has learned from. But, he's the best man by far to solve our economic problems and get us back on the right track. He'll repeal Obamacare and get the economy moving in the right direction. He has actual executive experience. Go Mitt!

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:12 a.m.

    And the coverage of Mitt Romney on the DSNews...?

    I agree with the sentiment of others on this thread. If religion is 'not an issue'...

    then don't MAKE it one.

    I try very hard to look at the actions of the PERSON, not the group.

    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.
    - Think Progress Travis Waldron 06/02/11

    As for healthcare:
    Romney care support was up 10% to 63% in Massachusetts.
    -The Boston Globe by Kay Lazar - 06/05/11

    It is truly unfortunate that Romney is trying to run on his 'job creation'...which is 0.9% in MA...

    but due to the irrational view of the Republican party on healthcare, he cannot run on it's benifits and increasing populartity in MA.

  • CaliforniaCougar Lake Elsinore, CA
    June 23, 2011 7:18 a.m.

    'The Book of Mormon' show on Broadway was meant to poke fun at the Church. But, in my opinion, it has actually brought greater light to the Church. Let the stories come out and the truth will be sorted out.

  • dave31 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:37 a.m.

    @Pagan
    It seems to me that Mitt did a remarkable job in "Taxachusetts" when he was governor considering that he was a Republican Governor in the midst of the usual situation when both houses of the legislature were entirely controlled by the Democrats.

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    June 23, 2011 8:03 a.m.

    Dave31: You are correct. One needs to realize that Mitt was in Massachussetts, not Texas. It's a far-left state. Mitt could only do as much as was feasible in that state. Under the circumstances, he did quite well. If he'd been in another state, he could have been a lot more conservative in his governance. Everyone needs to realize that.

  • Springvillepoet Springville, UT
    June 23, 2011 8:09 a.m.

    The biggest reason Mormonism is being more fairly reported on in 2011 than it was in 2008, is because the GOP has no choice but to put Mormonism in a better light than it did four years ago. With Romney being out in front, and Huntsman being a viable VP pick, most GOP members have admitted to themselves that being a Mormon isn't as important as it used to be if it means beating President Obama in 2012.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    June 23, 2011 8:54 a.m.

    Are other religions reported fairly? Or are we supposed to only care if mormonism is reported fairly? We CHOOSE to be offended. I choose not to be. How the media decides to report about mormonism doesn't affect my faith one iota.

  • full disclosure Providence, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:02 a.m.

    I don't think the chrch is looking for fair. I think they are more looking for sheading the church in a positive light.
    Okay- Sorry President Hinckley Polygamy is doctrinal and was the main tenant of our religion before both the first vision story and the Book of Mormon. Read section 132 of the
    Doctrine and Covenants. It's still in there. Polygamy was practiced in the LDS church long after 1890. We still practice polygamy today in our temples. We believe that a man can have more than one wife in heaven and can be sealed to more than one person today. Isn't that polygamy. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:12 a.m.

    To Ms. Molli - who said anything about being offended? Can we not hope for, and be grateful for more fair media coverage of our faith, and be disappointed when it's not? I hope the reporting about all faiths is accurate, but I have a more vested interest in whether mine is portrayed in a fair manner. Most of us don't have much of a say in the accuracy of media coverage about any religion, including our own.

    I don't understand why you would ask if Mormons are only supposed to care about our own coverage. My guess is that you care more deeply about issues to which you are personally associated, so what's your point? If you're LDS, and you're not glad that coverage is more accurate, that would seem rather odd to me.

  • Ms Molli Bountiful, Utah
    June 23, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    @DSB , are you completely blind when it comes to reading the negative comments from many members of church when they are offended by how the press approaches mormonism?

  • EduardAE BUENA PARK, CA
    June 23, 2011 9:32 a.m.

    It is a very good start - Mitt Romney, Jon Hunt, the "Book of Mormon" Broadway play! I hope this will replace plural marriage; are Mormons are a Christian cult etcetera, etcetera?

    There is much more to the doctrines of Jesus, Christ as revealed to Joseph Smith, Jr. Is there a future for the doctrines of Jesus, Christ in our nation?

  • gizmo33 St. George, Utah
    June 23, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    I dont belong to any religous affiliation. religion is something I have no use for whatsoever. but that my choice and as far as what other peoples beleifs are is not for me to critisize anyone for being a member of a religious group all I can say is enjoy it have fun with it enjoy your practices. but I have never ragged on anyone for being a member of any church. in all my travels while in the Army for 20 yrs I have seen all out hatred for all kinds of religion but I never really thought that I would see the anti ( mormon ) position as I do here in Utah I was really surprised. its amazing how a religous group can take such a public bashing. but what I like is the LDS people just move on forward and they let nothing discourage them and they have my respect for that. I have a lot of LDS people as friends and thay have always been good to me and my family. and they have never critisized me for my way of life...

  • SSMD Silver Spring, MD
    June 23, 2011 9:38 a.m.

    full disclosure,
    I, too, was perplexed by Pres. Hinckley's comment on the Larry King interview, but in a later interview with the Associated Press he seemed to clarify his statement by saying that plural marriage was begun by revelation [in the 1830s] and ended by revelation. That statement agrees with D&C 132 and the Official Declaration 1. As you stated, plural sealings are performed in temples.

  • Elcapitan Ivins, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:44 a.m.

    A President who has access to a Prophet is far more valuable than one who looks to the streets of Chicago or the middle east for his inspiration. We do not realize how fortunate we are to have access to understanding Biblical Prophecy and preparing for the eventual outcomes. "Where there is no vision the people perish". (Proverbs)

  • ST Layton, UT
    June 23, 2011 9:46 a.m.

    The election is more than 16 months away... I'm sure in the months to come coverage will be more intense and incorrect.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    June 23, 2011 9:56 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 10:03 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 10:17 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 10:22 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 10:40 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 10:55 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 11:36 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 11:58 a.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 12:15 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 12:40 p.m.

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

  • albu1595 SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    June 23, 2011 1:07 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 1:09 p.m.

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

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2011 1:27 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 1:40 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 1:56 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 2:17 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 3:08 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 3:36 p.m.

    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
    June 23, 2011 4:20 p.m.

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

  • MidwestMormon Akron, OH
    June 23, 2011 5:56 p.m.

    @Wendy

    Well said.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    June 23, 2011 6:11 p.m.

    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.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    June 23, 2011 7:18 p.m.

    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?

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    June 23, 2011 8:22 p.m.

    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.

    NO_MORE_POSTS Left

  • BlueHusky Mission Viejo, CA
    June 24, 2011 12:07 a.m.

    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.

  • Spikey Layton, UT
    June 24, 2011 7:35 a.m.

    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.

  • MoJules Florissant, MO
    June 24, 2011 11:07 a.m.

    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?

  • larri3 Farmington, UT
    June 24, 2011 11:31 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2011 12:01 p.m.

    @MoJules

    "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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2011 12:05 p.m.

    "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...)

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    June 24, 2011 4:46 p.m.

    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.

  • LDSareChristians Anchorage, AK
    June 24, 2011 5:28 p.m.

    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
    June 25, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    LDSareChristians,

    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 SLC, UT
    June 25, 2011 8:58 p.m.

    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.