CNN

I am not anti-mormon, I resent the implication I am a Momon hater. I am asking reasonable questions based on the teachings and doctrines of the LDS church, questions that a voter should be able to expect an answer to. Romney has asked voters in this country to trust him. He'll have to prove he is trustworthy if he wants to continue. Can you specifically point out what I have said that you consider hateful and not a part of Mormon teaching? If not, is your accusation fair?

Why is it LDS claim Mormon missionaries are motivated by a desire to share what they believe to be true when they approach Christians, but you will not give Christians the same courtesy?

Shawn, thank you for your answers. I don't understand the difference between believing LDS church members and the LDS church will "save" the Constitution (and who does is say is going to attack it?)

AJ says "To explain Hinduism with the Koran will not do much good. Furthermore, a Baptist minister will most definitely shed negative light (spin) on any faith that is not his own (mostly because that would mean dollar signs leaving out the door). To understand Mitt Romney's religion, we may have to begin first with those very principles that his church touts. Good families, active in community, support for those in need/underprivileged, church going, proactive (among many other positive attributes) reflect many of the characteristics of those "Mormons" that I know and have known."

I'm not sure anyone quoted the Koran or Baptist doctrine to shed a negative light on LDS. Only LDS prophecy, scriputre and teachings have been quoted. Your argument is a pat answer, but doesn't deal in the truth. As I have said many times, most Mormon people are good people, there is no doubt they are active and proactive. Is this to say Chrisian's are not? Most Christian people I know are good people. Consider the many philanthropic organizations, colleges, world relief, community support, etc. To say the evangelical Christian churches are not "fruitful" would be very naïve. It's equally naive to say because Christians are good people their beliefs must be true and not an "abomination" as Mormon teaching states. Obviously, good Mormons do not make Mormonism a true and rational belief system.

I agree with Susan. We made a mistake in 2000 and repeated the same mistake in 2004. This 2008 election should be about restoring sanity to our system and working for the American people. The past 8 years was spent talking about Afghanistan, Iraq and Ben Laden and this 2008 should be spent talking about fixing our domestic problems. Too many people have lost their homes in this country within the past 8 yrs and this nightmare will get worst if we elect the wrong president again. We need our factories back, our jobs back, our schools fixed, our roads and bridges fixed and hospitals and emergency rooms decongested, our elderly being taken care of and our war veterans given the best care in the world. I need a president to talk about these issues and not Ben Laden. Finally, I expect the next leader to be strong and ready to defend this nation by any means necessary.

Susan, I agree with you; however, old Willarfd will not be my choice. NO to Willard Mitt Romney NO to Willard.

McCain may be a war mongerer but Willard Romney is a lying, exaggerating, supporter of the pharmaceutical companies.

I hope Americans saw and heard Romney tell McCain to stop picking on the Pharmaceutical companies because they do so much good for us. HA HA

Good old expensive medicine. Yeah right, Willard. You can afford to pay $50 for a small prescription but most Americans cannot afford to do that. Use your wife's inherited money to make more money.

Did Willard Romney actually sell some of his company to china?

I would vote for Dr. Ron Paul if I thought he could win; however, I am voting for the WAR MONGERER instead of the CORPORATE MONGERER. I will vote for MdCain in spite of his support of the other WAR MONGERER Joe Lieberman.

This country is in a big mess. The question is who is going to clean this mess because none of these candidates can do it. America, you made a mistake in year 2000 and you never learned from your mistake of choosing a president based on his faith and promises to reach across the isle and touch someone.

America, you are doing it again..

Deb, if you have a problem with Mitt's religion, just don't vote for him. Why not start to call into question Huckabee's Baptist doctrine since he is the one wearing his "Christianity on his sleeve. My guess is you are an evangelical, and therefore predisposed to attack mormonism in general despite whatever context it comes in.

As a former resident of Massachusetts I can assure voters that Romney has nothing but his personal agenda to push forward. He was bad for Massachusetts and he is bad for the country. If he gets the nomination there is no doubt in my mind a democrat will take the white house.

I can care less that this guy believes in a religion that I don't. He's the right man to lead our Country! He's proved himself to me now. He gets my vote as of yesterday after seeing him at the FoxNews Debate and McCain lost mine. I was shocked to see McCain that way.

The floor has now been open to speculation! To understand the nuts and bolts of anyone's faith, we must first understand the principles of that faith. To explain Hinduism with the Koran will not do much good. Furthermore, a Baptist minister will most definitely shed negative light (spin) on any faith that is not his own (mostly because that would mean dollar signs leaving out the door). To understand Mitt Romney's religion, we may have to begin first with those very principles that his church touts. Good families, active in community, support for those in need/underprivileged, church going, proactive (among many other positive attributes) reflect many of the characteristics of those "Mormons" that I know and have known.

Invite those young fellows on bikes and ties in, I dare you. I think they have young women too.

Gee, we can choose between a guy who inspires his fellow citizens to do better and demand better, or take a guy who was successful in puttng together the olympics?

Puh-leaze

Romney is getting my vote. He's an experienced reformer, a economic genius and a leader whose knowledge and passion about the issues far exceeds his rivals.

McCain is a tired, Washington insider and war-mongerer who wants to keep us in Iraq "for 100 more years".

Take a look at McCain's personal life and you will realize how truly 'un-American' principles that guy has really got. How can you control a country if you can't control your own family? The guy should get his personal life in order before he tries to get the life of the nation back on track. A personal attack you say? The guy is a public figure – everything is public. And when running for public office, one's private life does and should matter. McCain and Guiliani look like they took a page out of Ross's character on the hit show 'Friends'. All married 3 times.

Romney's religious cult was started by a man who claimed in Journals and Discourses 7:333 "How many gods are there, I do not know. There has never been a time when there were not gods."

Also, Romney believes that God was once a man and progressed to be a god. And, further, that anyone(!) can progress to be a god.

These teachings aren't compatible with Christianity. This is not what America needs any more than we need an atheist running the country.

I have never seen a collection of half truths and lies promulgated in one place as I do here by Ms. Bruno and others of her ilk. I have no great love for Mitt Romney – he does a few things that personally irritate me, which frankly is petty on my part. But your mixing false statements and misrepresentation of historical events of the LDS church is a curious thing. However, as someone said long ago, referring to people like you, "The dogs bark but the caravan moves on."

And so it is with you Bruno and the other rabble like you. You can yap and snarl but history moves on. Romney has an amazing constructive track record in business, the Olympics and then with the Democratic state of Massachusets. His accomplishments are unassailable. No other candidate brings his combination of positive traits, abilities and track record. No one. And that will prove out in this election. Your misstatement of facts does not make them real. They simply reveal your lack of knowledge or ability to obfuscate along with career criminals like the Clintons.

There is so much concern over the way, timing and reason that Romney changed his positions that should worry people. How did he come to the conclusion that he changed from pro homosexuals to anti homosexual stance? Abortion he tried to explain. I don't know how many people believe that one.

Private sector experience is nice, but it differs from being president. If there is someone that isn't helping and is doing a poor job, you can fire them. You can't do that with members of the House and Senate.

Amazing. Mitt Romney has poured millions of his own money into this race so far, and he's still an also-ran.

We'd be better off if he had donated that money to charity.

Deb Bunno "Ask a non-Mormon about getting a job there"

Deb, do you realized that 60-70% of SLC residents are not LDS? If it were as difficult to get a job there as a non-Mormon as you are suggesting, why would that many people live there that aren't Mormon? Wouldn't you go elsewhere? If it's that difficult to get a job there as non-LDS, people must really love the oppression, as that's the kind of climate you're describing.

As far as having a temple recommend goes: aren't we all supposed to try to have faithful marriages, perform service to those in need, sacrifice a little for the benefit of others that don't have as much as us? That's what attending the temple stresses, but those acts aren't unique to Mormons, nor temple recommend-holding Mormons. So to say that by having a temple recommend you've signed your life and free will away to Church leaders is totally false. Temple recommend holder or not, Mormons try to live by the same golden rule, 10 commandments, Christ's beatitudes like anyone else.

Giving Obama a free ride is doing a disservice to the country. It really is about Obama's message. He can't point to a record of accomplishment so he talks about bringing people together and giving people hope. The media has forgotten their job! They are responsible to inform voters of the differences between candidates, not to endorse or support just ONE! As they have with obamaboy!
**CNN last night Lou Dobbs said they polled the young voters supporting obama (which is how he is winning the recent caucuses) NOT ONE COULD SAY WHERE HE STOOD ON ANY ISSUE?? With the country at odds with so many foreign countries, it is horrifying to think of Barrack “Hussein" Obama (Muslim) running our country. You think we are in trouble with bush/Chaney!
OBAMA CHEATED in the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama,in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could continue. Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory except when the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; he rejected the deal on "moral grounds," History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson only this time the deal was accepted. The Times article gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made. Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about hearing people going to Hillary. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts. The Effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish and Obama's would not had a victory in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in third and Richardson in fifth. Obama's would have placed second to Clinton, and the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden all would have come out of Iowa in stronger positions. Those who took advantage and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

Mitt Romney: the candidate for all seasons.

Are you pro-life or pro-abortion right? Mitt agrees with you.

Are you for the war in Iraq or against it? Mitt knows how you feel.

No matter what you think, Mitt is in your corner.

It's over, Mitt. You lost.

I am unnerved at having a president who is afraid to publicly state exactly what he believes to be true. While Hatch and Reid certainly do have divergent views on a variety of political topics, their views on the sanctity of life - against legal abortion, for federal funding of stem cell research - are very similar and seemed based in part on Mormon theology. So it's perfectly reasonable for traditionalist Christian voters concerned about these issues to interest themselves in Romney's Mormonism.

History shows that the LDS church is not into separation of church and state, from any information I can find. Isn’t it true that the founder of LDS also ran for president and that he was mayor of Navarro, Ill. at the time? That he burned down a newspaper because it was going to run derogatory information about him, and he declared Marshall Law in the ensuing “problem” his actions caused, leading eventually to his arrest, which led to an actual gun battle in which he was killed? (there is also documentation of teachers in Utah being fired for answering “because he was a criminal” when asked why Smith was arrested, instead of because he was a martyr. Google it). Let’s face it, government in Utah is like no other state, and that’s not a good thing. Ask a non-Mormon about getting a job there.

Ogrepete, I did watch that speech and I read the transcript too. Romney doesn’t answer my questions in it. When I can’t get a straight answer from a candidate, from any Mormon missionary I’ve talked to, I’m thinking double-talk and don’t trust the candidate.

These issues won’t be a problem for me if I run for president. Mitt is running, however, and if he won’t answer them – he can’t win. He said unequivocally no church leader would control him – I believe him. That is not my question. In talking to ex-Mormons, I am told that any LDS man with a temple recommend will be directed by the current “prophet” and bishops. Romney has a temple recommend – he even was a Bishop in the church. I have done my homework, as I have done with other candidates. Which is why I will not vote for Ron Paul. Not a lot of others will either.

I have asked if Romney believes his church writings, doctrines, beliefs – I have not made up those doctrines. Joseph Smith created them, I just want to know if the candidate believes them to be true. I got the information from the writings of Joseph Smith, not from anti-Mormon literature. I’d never get a straight answer from the LDS site, I’ve tried. The most anyone can get about why Mormon’s believe in polytheism is “We don’t concern ourselves with those other gods because we only worship the god of this world.” They never deny that their god has parents, grandparents, uncles etc because they believe it to be true.

Maybe not one Sunday service from "the pulpit" – but I live in a predominately Mormon community & the paper is full of the rah-rah for Mitt rhetoric. I guess I should assume it's only in the paper & not spoken of ANYWHERE else. That's a big fish to swallow.

Mitt Romney is a hugely successful proven business Leader, insider of US & Int’l financial markets, fairly successful Governor & a Political Leader, successful husband & father and a religious person; who stands shade taller than Mike. In the best interest of America Mike should put his ego aside and must accept Romney is better qualified to deal with present crisis and he can be a good team as Vice President with Mitt Romney. They can be a formidable team and will go down in the history as one of the best Team, American’s ever had.

Media is scared to discuss Romney’s all round fair achievements as compared to others in the field. Rather than discussing real Leader with a proven track record of hard work, experience, intelligence & character, under Semitism they are trashing him 24/7 for being a Mormon. As if elected he will force every one to convert to Mormon. This is the same Media who never raised any objections when a Mormon Democrat Harry Reid became Senate Majority Leader.

One more for Deb:

With so much concern in the public on this issue, I'm surprised it's focus is on a Mormon candidate. I am 36 and have been attending weekly service meeings as a Mormon all my life, and not once in an LDS congregation have the church leaders or any member of the congregation (since many sermons are delivered by assigned members, not priesthood leaders) ever told the members who to vote for. In fact, we almost never talk politics at all...the few rare exceptions are if there is a social issue or a proposed legislation that poses a critical threat to the moral state of our country (and I mean rare, I can only think of a couple in my lifetime) and then we are encouraged to voice concerns to our elected representatives.

There is such a strong commitment in the LDS church to respect the separation of Church and State...on the other hand I have heard that ministers of other faiths will speak openly about politics and candidates and sway their people to vote a certain way. I wonder how many evangelicals in Iowa heard sermons mentioning Huckabee?? Guaranteed not one LDS sunday service talked about Romney from the pulpit.

"MItt Romney is a brilliant, honest, hardworking man whom other world leaders will respect and listen to. He is presidential in looks, attitude and abilities."

******* I don't think so! He is not honest: the voters in Massachusetts elected one man who evolved into another; that's either lying to the voters or not knowing your core values. He flip-flops on major issues.

He said he was a "life-long hunter" – he wasn't. I don't care if he was or was not but don't lie to me! He stood calmly while an evangelical called his religion a cult because the preacher was going to endorse him. If your religion is not worth defending, what is? Then he states he watched his father marching with Martin Luther King – when he didn't. What fantasy world is Mitt living in?

The latest ads called out McCain for supporting "amnesty" – the buzz word that panders to the GOP base. McCain fought back. Mitt said "I didn't use the word amnesty in the ads" – then later admitted he made a mistake... because he hadn't seen the ads.

But the ads go out with Mitt's voice saying "I'm Mitt Romney and I approved this message." You either approved it or didn't know – can't be both ways!!!

As for "looking presidential" – how shallow can you get!!!! Paul probably voted for Bush because he thought he could sit down and have a beer with him ....

Mitt, like Bush, is trying to do better than his Daddy did. This father – son rivalry does not work for America.

Deb,
On the eve of a primary election I'm not sure whether you are sincere in your questions or not because of the way that it is phrased. I hope you are. Mitt is probably not going to be able read the Ticker and get around to answering your question with all that he has going on, so I will give it a shot.
I can say that the first quote you have up there is incorrect. I don't have it at hand but I know that it does not say that the "Church" will save it by establishing a theocracy. The intention of the quote is that members of the Church will be in position, etc to help "save" the Constitution as it is hanging by a thread (under attack). This would mean helping preserve the principles in the Constitution. It doesn't make sense to say that they are going to "save" the constitution by changing it to a theocracy, that would be an entirely new government and wouldn't be "saving" anything.
We believe (I'm speaking from an assumed shared belief) that President Hinckley is the mouthpiece of the Lord. He speaks for Jesus Christ here on earth. He speaks for the things relating to the Church and does not tell individual members of the Church what they should do in regard to individual choices. He gives principles to live by that are the same foundational principles that the Christian world lives by. The other side of that is that we believe that anyone can receive personal revelation (inspiration) for themselves about what they should do in any given circumstance. It would be improper for a church leader to approach a civil official and tell them how to do their job.
The church has some strong teachings about the roles of government and religion. The church's belief on government and laws in general is found in what is called the Doctrine and Covenants. In Section 134 it says a lot. Specifically in verse 9 it says: "We do not believe it is just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied."
I hope this helps with your questions.

Deb

You are way off base, spouting rhetoric from some anti-Mormon literature you got your hands on. That false info didn't come from personal investigation. You can get a lot more accurate info at lds.org or mormon.org

I hope when Romney drops out next week he endorses Ron Paul. Dr Paul was the only one that didn't try to cheap-shot him.

Deb Bunno, Romney unequivocally stated that he will not blur the lines between his faith and his presidency when he gave his "Faith in America" speech recently.

I think your post has more to do with misrepresenting mormon beliefs than politics.

Mitt Romney has a balanced approach and I am warning up to Mitt.

His experience in bringing the world together in the Olympics means he has
the balanced approach of consultation and acting in a prudent manner.

McCain a 3 generation soldier seems to want to make my generation soldiers.

Deb Bunno: Do yourself a favor and watch reruns of Mitt's "Faith in America" speech. It might cheer you up! It will certainly give you a greater admiration for the challenges our nation's Founding Fathers had.

Next time you're running for President, Deb, feel free to underline these issues.

He did win a state...Wyoming.

These are the questions I need answered by Mitt Romney.

"Do you intend to make this country a theocracy? The founder/prophet of your church prophesized that "The Constitution of the United States will ‘hang by a thread’ and the Church will save it by establishing a theocracy" You have vowed to live by your faith. Please no double-speak, either you believe Joseph Smith or you do not.

If you disagree and dissociate yourself from that teaching, how can you stay a Mormon? Moreover, if you refuse to disassociate yourself from these teachings of your church, how can you expect any sane person to vote for you?

Also, your faith believes your church president is the living Moses, that he is your god’s mouthpiece and that Elohim directs Earthly business through your current prophet. I understand that to mean that you will not let Gordon Hinckley, your president, dictate what you would do as president, but Hinckley does have the authority of the faith that governs your life,to let you know what Elohim (the Mormon god) expects you to do. You have vowed to follow this faith. Please be clear on these important subjects.

MItt Romney is a brilliant, honest, hardworking man whom other world leaders will respect and listen to. He is presidential in looks, attitude and abilities. He is of high moral caliber, respectful and can be trusted by the American people to make descisions that will benefit everyone. As he so clearly demonstrated in the ABC/WMUR/Facebook debate on Saturday, he can remain calm, cool and collected even under the most hostile and provocative attacks on his character and integrity. The president we need is found in Mitt Romney.

McCain is a WAR MONGER,. listent to McCain WAR WAR WAR.

Mitt Romneys experience in dealing with countries from all over the world in a contructive manner gives him the proper balance to be the best President.

McCain War history is impressive and yes he did call for more, troops and yes his Dad fought in wars and yes his Grampa fought in Wars,

McCain wants another generation of WAR – McCain is scary.

Mitt Romney would of benefitted from more time, remeber this is his first go around and he has been too much of a gentlemen, he needs to hit harder.

Obama is not that tough he is just has weak competition.

Go get em' Mitt!

GO MITT!!!

I caucussed for Barrack Obama in Iowa, just to latter catch my son smoking a jiont. During my reaction and punishment he argued back that it was ok to smoke Pot because Obama did and he is going to be President and will legalize it. So how do I argue with this. The only choice I have is to try to get Obama to explain to my child and the children around the United States that he used his past experence as a way to get votes. A political stunt that could create a loss of life for some child with an overdose of drugs. America, Barrack made a very large mistake at the expense of our children he DOES NOT NEED TO BE PRESIDENT> THAT WOULD SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE TO OUR YOUTH. I can not take back my vote, but can do every thing I can to get this message out. I have changed my position to John Edwards, until I watched the debate. Now I will Support SENATOR CLINTON FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES> Barrack go lead Kenya. You have as much tie there as you have here.

Peter, you got it wrong. Mitt Romney NEVER supported gay marriage! Check your facts on that! Let me also say that the deceit continues to pour off the mouth of McCain! There erroneous allegations that Romney is running a negative campaign are rediculous in the face of his personal attacks on Mitt! I hope that tomorrow, voters will see right through this nonsense and examine the facts. The fact is that everyone will bring change as they are new leaders, however, Mitt is absolutely the most capable of bringing about conservative fiscal change, conservative foriegn policy change (through experience with the 2002 Olympics and governing a state after 9-11-01, and the ability to assemble a team of advisors – just look at who is advising him currently on foreign policy – he has many of the best), and conservative social change while being the people's President! Romney/Hunter 08

Romney should drop out, he's too soft. He should endorse Ron Paul.

Like the folks in New Hampshire, who voted Mitt Romney as winner of the debate on Sunday, I too, will vote for him if Hillary is not the Democratic candidate.