Dennis: wow. for those of us who actually know something about Mormonism, your post displays remarkable ignorance and bigotry. Mitt Romney is part of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (the Mormons) headquartered in Salt Lake City with over 13 million adherents world wide. Yup, there are a bunch of break offs (Reorganized Church, Fundamentalist Church, Church of Christ, Pure Church of Christ, etc.) but like most break offs, they rejected the main church and went their own way. Do you know how many break offs of the Catholic Church there are? Thousands. Do you know how many varieties of Christian faiths there are? Thousands. Give me a break.

And why would Mitt Romney, born in 1947, former Governor of Massachussetts and former CEO of Bain & Company have to answer for those idiots at Mountain Meadows or for any other person . . . especially for events in the mid 1800s?

Thats like saying: "We know what Americans are all about. Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Richard Ramirez, and the list goes on."

Criticizing Mitt Romney for things that other Mormons have done is just as silly as giving him credit for the fact that the Mormon church is giving over 163 countries humanitarian aid, over $201 million dollars cash since 1985, over $705 million dollars worth of material assistance, with 3,552 welfare service missionaries serving world wide, speaking over 178 languages. Yup, he is responsible for this too. Give me a break.

Mitt Romney is an individual and should be judged on his own merits not on the nonsense in your bigotted post.

I agree Mitt should be judged on his merits. The only real elective office he has ever held was as Gov. of MA. during which term Mitt was a strong advocate for Gun Control, Supported Abortion on Demand, Instituted a state system of Socialized Medicine and presided over a State with the highest taxes in the nation. With a track record like this why would ANY Conservative Republican vote for him? The only thing Mitt's record shows is he is just as incompetant as the Democrats when it involves politics.

Whether one agrees with Clyde's assessment and conclusions or not, that's the type of discussion Romney's candidacy should generate - not those about his religion.

I'm prejudiced, not bigoted.

I was sandbagging, hoping to illicit a response. My stepfather was an elder in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I attended for many years and am well versed in the history and dogma of the church. I've visited the temple in Salt Lake City. I am close to many of my late stepfather's relatives in Utah and Nevada. You will never meet nicer, more sincere folks, generally speaking, than the Latter Day Saints, who practice charity in a way that shames many other denominations.

None of which changes the issues with the Mormon church. You made no response to the fact that those who left the church were hunted down and killed. Joseph Smith was lynched for good reason. The American Army was dispatched to Utah to deal with the Mormon sect.

Anyone who does any intelligent and dilligent research knows that Joe Smith was a charlatan, for far too many reasons to list here. All of the "witnesses" to his supposed revelations from the angel Moroni apostasized before they died, denying everything. They are still listed in all copies of the Book of Mormon, despite their defection.

So, the question yet remains about just what Mitt Romney really believes -- at the moment.

It is patently obvious that religion is relevant in the political debate. Some religions call for human sacrifice. Some worship the devil and do dirty deeds in the night. Hindu thugees gave us the word thug, because they believed in murder by garote as a means of political change. Worshipers of Baal tossed infant children into a brass furnace to be roasted alive. These are extremes, but illustrate that it is naive to say all religions are acceptable, or it doesn't matter what a candidate's beliefs are.

Besides a profession of faith, it is useful to know just how intelligent a candidate is and whether or not he is easily duped by false religions.

Well, as the leader of the Mormon church said, speaking of women, "I don't care how you bring 'em, just bring 'em young."

Just because a person goes to church or claims to go to church, doesn't mean they are qualified for a job! Something everyone should look at is http://ae911truth.org & <link> . The politicians should be asked if they are aware of this information. If they are not, they should have to look at it. It also makes you wonder how smart they are or qualified they are if they don't know about it. If they do know, they should say what they will do about it. If they are holding office now, they should start the ball rolling now.

Thanks for your response and the comments from others, too.

At its heart, what you are really saying is this: "Yes we do take such an oath, but trust us that we won't really act on it." I do not trust such a pledge. If you read speeches and sermons by Mormon leaders to their own members, you read that the faithful are to obey the leaders as if their direction came from God. The Mormon leadership expects obedience by the faithful in whatever they direct. Historically, they have enforced this with death and threats of death and that death threat is part of the oaths. The fact that Mormons are on different parts of the political spectrum does not nullify this. It only means that the Church leadership has not spoken on the particular matter at hand. If and when the Church leadership gives direction, it will have to be obeyed.

I have lived in small communities where Mormons are a substantial part of the population. At such a local level, the faithful Mormons do act in unison politically, at the direction of the local Bishop. There was a substantial and sustained effort on the part of the local Mormon leadership to exercise the votes of the faithful to control local government and other institutions like the Boy Scouts, the PTA, etc. Establishing the Kingdom here on earth is not an abstract concept or solely a spiritual matter. The Mormon Church seeks to govern and control the society it is in. I have seen it. Having a Mormon President opens the door for this kind of behavior on a national level.

Having said all of that, I still think most of the problem is the secrecy. If the Mormon Church were to simply remove the veil of secrecy on their oaths, ceremonies (and their own history for that matter), the problem I have with Mormon candidates would be more than halfway solved. Then Mitt Romney and others seeking office and serving in office could openly address the concern and we could all judge for ourselves out in the sunlight.

One more observation I would like to make is this: In all of the replies from practicing Mormons to my original posting, not one actually denied that the oath is taken as stated. One person referred me to a book which tells "almost" everything about the temple rites. One said the oath comes from the Masons (why that is relevant I don't know). Others talked about variability in Mormon political beliefs, etc. But no one denies the oath exists!

Thank you to the editor of Slate for seeking some clarification from practicing Mormons. I also understand why you would doubt the veracity of what I wrote in my first posting. But no one has denied it, nor can they if they are to be truthful.

You know what the Masons have long been considered creepy too. This doesn't help the position regarding Mormon oaths, rather it just creeps a person out more.

Just like Skull and Bones is creepy in context of high office. But there is creepy, creepier, and creepiest.

This is why I generally stay out of these discussions. I can't be more blunt than to say that the statements about my faith simply are wrong - especially the over-the-top garbage about those who leave the faith being hunted down and killed and the assertion that all Mormons vote in a block at the direction of their bishop. Also, that the witnesses to the Book of Mormon all left the church and denied everything. They simply aren't true.

As I said earlier, I am not a simple-minded, brainless robot - living my life at the behest of my religious leaders. I can't express how repugnant and demeaning and insulting that characterization is to a Harvard-educated teacher and professional. I have read just about everything that has been written about Joseph Smith from the 1800's (positive and negative). I have read much of what has been written since then. Of the "serious" accusations in this thread, the only one that has any degree of legitimacy is the one concerning the temple oath of consecrating our time, talents and efforts to the church. Everything else is simply false - and quite viciously so.

I also appreciate the attempt to clarify, but it does little good if what we are required to clarify is shot down, denied and drowned out by ever-increasing and false charges. I do not know those who are slinging this garbage here, but I know others who have told me - and I quote, "I will say or do anything to discredit your religion and save you and your members from Hell - even lying, if necessary." I will not make that charge directly here, since I truly do not know the intent and motivation of those who are slandering here, but I will not engage in such bile. Therefore, I am bowing out of this conversation. I am sure what response that will generate, but I would rather take the high road than roll in the mud.

First, to reply to the editor, G.A. (response to fryde67 to come later):

Yes, there is a "practicing Mormon out there willing to discuss what, if anything, non-Mormons should think about Mitt Romney's religious beliefs and how they might distinguish his Presidency from that of other candidates."

For several months now, I've been running the blog RomneyExperience.com, writing extensively on the topic of Romney and his religion, from the perspective of a practicing Mormon. At my blog, you may read about topics like "Would the LDS Church Control a Mormon President," and "The Myth of Mormon Secrecy."

I know it may not be perfect etiquette to use a fray post to tout my blog, but I do so at the direct invitation of the editor, so I hope I'm not out of line. As implied by the invitation that started this thread, there is a definite lack of reliable information on Mormonism in the public arena, and that's the void being filled by RomneyExperience. Anyone interested in these important topics is invited to visit me that site.

Dear Ryan-- thanks for letting Slate readers know about RomneyExperience. I hope fans of your blog will want to read and respond to the many posts on this Fray string and the other comments generated by the original Hot Document. Please feel free to link. best, Bonnie Goldstein

Good suggestion, Bonnie. Done and done.

Dennis St. John is wrong on every one of his factual claims.*

First, he alleges that Mormons in some unspecified period in the past hunted down and killed those who left their ranks. This is one of the most ridiculous and baseless fabrications I have ever heard. I defy anyone to produce a shred of evidence that the Mormon Church ever ordered any dissenter or deserter killed.

Second, he opines that "Anyone who does any intelligent and dilligent research knows that Joe Smith was a charlatan, for far too many reasons to list here." It is beyond dispute that many people think Joseph Smith was a charlatan. It is further beyond dispute that his life was and remains controversial. However, it is absolutely false that anyone who has looked into the man's real history must conclude that he was a fraud. One example is Columbia's Richard Bushman, the world's foremost expert and biographer of Joseph Smith, who also happens to be a faithful Mormon. As it happens, there are many thousands of educated and intelligent Mormons who have read everything there is to know about Joseph Smith, good, bad, and ugly, and have still remained devoted to the religion he began in 1830. This argument derives from the well-worn myth that Mormonism is demonstrably false and anyone who believes it is willfully blind, an old chestnut I responded to in a post here. While it can't be proven that Joseph Smith was a prophet, it certainly can't be proven that he was not.

Finally, Dennis claims that

All of the "witnesses" to his supposed revelations from the angel Moroni apostasized before they died, denying everything. They are still listed in all copies of the Book of Mormon, despite their defection.

This is patently false. There were eleven witnesses who claimed to have viewed the plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon. Three of the most prominent witnesses left the Church at one point or another over disagreements they had with Joseph Smith (two later returned). Remarkably, not one of those three who had fallen out with Smith ever denied their earlier statements about having seen the ancient plates, despite the obvious incentive of discrediting the 'Prophet' who had staked his reputation on them. Contrary to what Dennis says, no witness to the Book of Mormon ever recanted.

Finally, as for the quote he closes with "I don't care how you bring 'em, just bring 'em young," attributing it to an unnamed Mormon leader, I can't confirm without more specific information, but it sure smells like B.S. to me.

For further information on these topics, visit www.romneyexperience.com.

*The exception being that yes, during the 1850's the United States did send an army part of the way to Utah to threaten the Mormons, who had emigrated there from Illinois, in response to rumors that the Mormons planned to secede from the union.

If I were an atheists I'd have a hard time voting for a president of a baseline Christian faith. You add to someone's faith The Book of Mormon, which contains a story about a large North American culture that has no secondary written or archeological evidence of ever existing and that could be just too delusional, admitedly a subjective assesment.

There must be some rational component to faith, some degree where suspension of disbelief must end. Someone who is unable to say to himself or herself, "You know that Book of Mormon? Whacky, way to whacky, I quit let me try some of that original religion or none at all," maybe shouldn't be president.

Yes, Mormons are successful in many various ways but how honest are they being with me. Maybe they really don't believe anything at all and are just playing along to get along and so we have less in common than you'd guess, if they continue to believe The Book of Mormon.

Any oaths to a church or religion just doesn't sit right. It is not something I'm culturally comfortable with because my church has never required it and would actually frown on it. The secret oath I've seen in a manner actually seems to countermand the idea of seperation of church and state. Seperation of faith and man shouldn't never be but seperation of Church and State is a very reasonable notion.

There are none so blind as he who will not see. Facts do not dissuade the zealot. Facts are simply a matter of endless dispute or denial. Persons earning PhD's in theological cemeteries are not stupid, but intellectual exercise will never lead to spiritual truth. College degrees will never lead to salvation. Millions swell the ranks of countless false religions, who are all convinced as to the veracity of their beliefs. So be it. Jesus will be the final judge.

It has been said that when one gets to heaven, one is in for two surprises. The first is, he or she is there. The second is, the others who are there.

This much I am certain. None who should be lost will be saved, and none who should be saved will be lost.

I do not know whether or not I shall be saved, though it is my fervent hope, but I do know that only Jesus Christ whom I know as revealed by the Holy Spirit can save me.

As Tiny Tim said so eloquently, "God bless us, everyone."