Here's another one for you.

Mainstream Christians do not believe Mormons are Christians specifically because of all the elements that Joseph Smith adds to the Mormon Church (i.e. The Book of Mormon)

Christians believe they live in a Christian nation and that the leader should be a Christian or possibly lose favor with God. I think electing a Jew is the only real alternative for a majority of Christians and even then it would be hard.

My great-great grandparents came across the plains in wagons and all that. I don't have to prove my Mormon credentials -- Mormonism and I go way back. I grew up thinking there were two presidents -- the President of the United States and the President of the Church -- meaning the President of the World. The second was obviously the more important. And all I have to say about this discussion is -- what a mess! Do people believe strange and untrue things about Mormonism -- absolutely. Does that mean there aren't real problems with Mormons holding political power, especially with a Mormon president? Tell me you're kidding, please tell me you're kidding.

The fact so many Mormons on this board can't face those problems thoughtfully, with equanimity, is proof positive this religion is not ready for prime time. Instead Mormons get all huffy. "I was educated at Cambridge and La Sorbonne!" Well fine. Native Americans did not descend from Jews who came here on rafts, no matter where you were educated. Is it asking to much to expect a president to know where the First Nations on this continent came from? I don't think that's too high a bar myself. I'm in the Salt Lake area so I can tell you from reading the local paper (owned by the LDS Church) that the Mormons are already rubbing their hands in glee over all the people who will convert to the Mormon religion once the president is LDS. In short, they are already in violation of the First Amendment! As the LDS deeply do not get the First Amendment, that's hardly surprising. There is no room in the First Amendment for one true chuch, all others being inspired by the devil, no room, in short, for Mormonism.

Mormons need to deal with it -- everything -- their checkered past, their lack of respect for others' beliefs, their past of institutionalized racism and their present of institutionalized misogyny -- instead of retreating to their old standbys of self-pity and persecution complex. Oh please. People have very legitimate concerns here. The Romney campaign I've heard so far is vote for Mitt because he's honest (because he's a Mormon) and because he has strong family values (because he's a Mormon), but don't refuse to vote for him because he's a Mormon because that would be -- like -- prejudiced, man!

People have the right to ask what Mitt is because he's a Mormon, as they are being to asked to vote for him because he's a Mormon, whether that's stated openly or not. They have the right to ask if Mitt is honest just because he's a Mormon. Why should we assume he's honest because he belongs to a church that has been chronically, provably dishonest? The paper trail is long, guys, and I've followed it -- so don't try that pose with me.

I also think we have the right to ask if Mitt believes in "strong families" or if he believes in entitled, privileged patriarchs and silenced, second-class wives and children.

At LDS Conference last spring, when "the prophets" speak and what is doled out is indisputable doctrine, it was announced that wives are their husbands' "most valuable possessions." We have the right to ask if poor Ann is Mitt's most "valuable possession" -- or was that the Irish Setter on the roof of the car? Wives as "possessions"? Valuable or otherwise? Is this because Mormon men are being denied their very own "nigga'" slaves by being born in these wicked latter-days? And then Mormons kick up all this fuss that they are considered, well, a little old-fashioned. Wives as possessions wouldn't pass as "revelation" in the 16th century!

The Mormons aren't a political animal? Even though it was the Mormon Church that defeated the Equal Rights Amendment? Still lying through our teeth, are we? The Mormon Church announced that giving me full and equal legal status would destroy the family. Do you really think I'm going to just shine that on? I don't want to vote for a Mormon male for president! I feel like such a terrible bigot! I dunno. Maybe your "most valuable possessions" buy right into that stuff. But I don't. I'll campaign against a Mormon president -- proudly.

I find the whole tone of Mormons on this board either uninformed or dishonest. The temple ceremonies are weird and off-putting. Why not just admit it? It's disingenuous, to say the very least, to claim the vow to give one's all to the Mormon Church just doesn't apply somehow if the guy becomes president. The problem with Mountain Meadow Massacre, as the with break-in at the Watergate, wasn't so much the incident -- it's the cover-up -- which continues to this day. I was told when I was growing up that the Indians did it, and only those wicked anti-s claimed Mormons did it! If the world hadn't been presented with a mountain of evidence to the contrary, that's the position the Church would take to this day. And there has been no soulful, genuine apology. And compared to the temples they build to their own glory, the monument they have left to those who died at the hands of Mormons' hatred of the world outside Mormonism is paltry and pitiful. Surely so wealthy a church could afford better.

Speaking of being a wealthy church, people have the right to ask -- what's in it (a Mormon president) for the Mormon Church? Ah, there, truly, is the rub. I'm afraid there is very much "in it" for LDS Inc. Power. Even more money. Sweetheart deals everywhere for an institution very much about storing up here on earth and not so much in heaven.

And that is the article I would like Slate to write. Start with an interview with Barry Lynn, author of Piety and Politics. Build from there. When you can count the ways the Mormon Church will profit from a Mormon president, you will have found the real story in Mitt's Mormonism.

Maybe you're on to something, with this dangerous covenant. If someone has sufficiently divided allegiance, then s/he is unable to serve his/her country. Mormons have already sworn to give all to their God . . . . Well twice, really, all Christians have already done that. Christians "love the Lord thy God with all [their] heart, and with all [their] soul, and with all [their] mind. Matt 22. Yes, that's right, serving your fellow man whether in government or in the fray of life, is second place. Another poster has already said, the only solution is a Jew. Oh, no that's right, they might put God first too. Hmm. Who ever it is, would have to be totally philosophically uncommitted. It would be foolish and unamerican to be a candidate if one has any preexisting motives or loyalties to a party or culture or an industry. Yes, anyone who thinks that service of mankind is the second most important thing in life is obviously dangerous. Beeblebrox for president!

Thats the specific problem for Christians. They see a difference between pledging yourself to God and pledging yourself to a Church.

And if you still don't get it then you don't see a difference between God and a Church. If you are Mormon and thats how members think, they have a problem with mainstream Christians.

Stepping outside the insincerity of my previous post, I understand that you are saying that other Christians have a problem with Mormons' belief that God still talks to humanity and that members who take that seriously have covenanted to dedicate themselves to obeying God in a personal rather than public ceremony. I was simply trying to make the case, that however theologically threatening that may be to creedal Christians, I don't think there is a rigorous case for why any would be threatened as an American. As a matter of personal taste one might rationally prefer someone whose past shows he is beholden to corporate interests, or instead beholden to party leaders, or perhaps even one who is beholden to a theological hierarchy which provokes strong reaction from others. (Some would argue that Romney is all of these, I guess.) But, I venture that voters must make such choices regarding ALL candidates, and I find it less than useful for to single out this aspect of Romney's probably divided loyalties as a reason why American's should fear the influence of the Mormon hierarchy on a Romney presidency.

In initially selecting a leader it is acceptable to consider them for their religion and to dismiss them out of hand in the first round of consideration if there are several other reasonable candidates from which to choose from.

When there isn't, then a second look is taken at someone of a different faith. It happened when protestants overcame their catholic prejudice and voted Kennedy in as president, though barely.

You could take my posts in this thread and see several parochial reasons Christians would dismiss Romney out of hand. What is left to choose from in the Republican camp? Not much.

I really doubt that the influence of the Mormon hierarchy on a Romney presidency is the primary concern. What I've seen is seemingly innoucous statements that make it evident that we do think differently. Like everyone else I want someone in office who thinks most like me.

I don't think people are concerned that Romney is going to take marching orders from the Mormon church. I think they are just put off by the fact that he's a Mormon period. No offense or anything, but a lot of Mormon beliefs and practices are pretty weird by contemporary standards. And don't worry, my exposure to Mormon theology is based on growing up with Mormon friends - not Internet hearsay.

While all the Mormons I've known are nice people, I can't help but question whether their strange beliefs are a reflection of their character - just as I would question, say, a Scientologist.

- AS

There is no conflict of interest between the constitution and the doctrine of the LDS church. To make an oath to support and build the kingdom (the LDS church) does not disqualify one from doing the same for the United States. Some speak as if the two are diametrically opposed. This is not the case.

Mormons hold the constitution to be inspired of God. We, as citizens, believe in the principles it outlines and are bound by the truths therein. There would not be any direction or revelation, from leaders of the church, contrary to the Constitution of the US.

As stated in an article of faith:

"We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law."

Perhaps, one could relate it to the relationship between loyalty to the LDS church and loyalty to family. They are not opposed to each other. Though, one's first duty be to the church, such devotion only strengthens the family and encourages loyalty to it.

The gospel will not require disloyalty to our nation; nor will the US Constitution require abandonment of our devotion to the church.

You poor thing!

That is an easy decision for anyone that has any basis of right and wrong. Regardless of religious affilliation, using half a brain one would simply protect the moral majority ( and there isn't much good going on in sin city). Despite your illogical hypothetical situation, our defence capabilities would not allow that flying bomb to cross the nearest ocean.

Not even close.

I suppose the emhasis is on simple.

I'm not too far off the mark, Russ.

I asked an almost Zionist American-Jewish friend of mine during a discussion about the million Israelis vs Americans and saving them. He admited he would choose to save the Israelis for what I would have to admit are a bunch of really rational good reasons.

This guy was smart enough to grow up and be president one day.

I feel like a McCarthyite, all dirty, but since he admited that I've felt kind of disturbed about the whole Middle-East thing and about highly tight-knitted communities such as Mormons.

Wouldn't it be great if there were NO religions at all, and everyone just got along? One can easily see the frictions between religious beliefs by just reading the various posts on this mormon debate. Religion is supposed to be a uniter but, in reality it is the great divider. Anyone with an I.Q. > 50 is not going to take any of this crap seriously! I don't want to see religion play any part in the world of government. It does not belong there any more than it does in open discussion which never solves a thing. I think a good and honest "Atheist" would be the best selection for a president. Religion truly is "The Opiate of The Masses"!!!

If people didn't disagree about religion do you know what they would fight about? Natural resources- with absolutely no ethos about it.

You can take the chimp out of the jungle but you can't take the jungle out the of chimp.