This is to answer your question about what the nation should know about Romney's Mormon beliefs.

There are two things which are important to know. The first concerns Romney's reversal on the abortion issue. He comes across as a political opportunist, positioning himself as pro-choice when it is popular, then reversing to pro-life when it becomes politically necessary. The nation rightfully wonders - what does he really believe? Which time was he "faking"?

This is where his Mormon beliefs become paramount. It is impossible for him to truly be Mormon, and also be pro-choice. The Mormon church condemns abortion in the strongest terms, with no room for difference of opinion. Mormons believe that they are led by a literal prophet who speaks on behalf of God. This means that if the Mormon prophet condemns abortion (which he has), it is impossible to be a faithful Mormon and yet disagree. As he is clearly sincere in his devotion to his Mormon faith, this means that he truly is pro-life in his personal beliefs. His "conversion" to the pro-life cause is sincere - in fact, I doubt he ever felt otherwise, but was simply willing to compromise with a liberal constituency in the past, despite his true feelings on the subject.

The second important issue to address, is the likelihood that Romney will be influenced or manipulated by the Mormon church in his presidential decisions. Are we electing a candidate, or are we electing a church?

The Mormon church has taken a policy of noninvolvement in the political arena. As a matter of policy, the Mormon church never tells its members who to vote for, or what policies to support. The one notable exception to this is when the Mormon church took a stand against the ERA back in the day, but this is because they felt it would threaten their right to only allow men to hold positions of leadership within the church. The Mormon church otherwise never tries to influence the political arena, besides urging its members to be prayerful in their selection of a candidate, and to vote for candidates who have strong moral values. The American people can rest assured that the Mormon church will not attempt to dictate presidential policies to a Mormon president. You are electing a candidate, not a church.

Sorry to burst your bubble, sugarandice, but I'm a practicing Mormon and I'm pro-choice. I attend my church meetings, I'm endowed, I pay tithing, I hold a calling, and I live the Word of Wisdom. My pro-choice stand doesn't affect my membership status in any way. There's a difference between personally condemning abortion - which I do - and believing the government should be allowed to prohibit women from choosing to have an abortion. I'm male, so I will never have to confront the issue myself. Of course, I would strongly encourage any of my female friends or family members not to have an abortion. Yet, I would respect their right to choose on the issue. That's really what the gospel is all about - free agency.

That being said, I agree with you that a President Romney would have to be pro-life or risk condemnation from his supporters. I don't know whether that means he will choose Supreme Court candidates solely on their abortion views. I would hope he would take more than one issue into consideration when selecting candidates.

sugarandice: a couple comments in your post are just wrong. First, your comment that it is impossible to be a Mormon and be pro-choice is not true. There are many, many very active Mormons in good standing with the church who are pro-choice. The phrase, "pro-choice" is a political thing. Granted, probably about 95% of all Mormons are politically pro-life but its not a litmus test for standing in teh church.

Second, please make it clear that it is your own philosophy that leads you to believe that the LDS church's stance against the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) was because they wanted to strenghthen the male heirarchy. My mother -- very independent woman, professor at Boston Univerity -- leader of the woman's republican group in our city -- was a leader in the fight against the ERA and it had nothing to do with church leadership. Most republicans opposed the ERA.

But I agree with your ultimate conclusion. The Mormon church stays out of politics other than to urge its membership to vote for moral candidates who will uphold family values.

Thank you to the editor of Slate for seeking some clarification from practicing Mormons. I also understand why you might doubt the veracity of what I wrote in my first posting. I've read all the replies to my original posting and to your question as well.

So far, no practicing Mormon has denied that the oath I quoted is part of their Temple ritual. One respondent offered me a book, which tells "almost" everything about the Temple rituals. Another said the oath originated with the Masons, which I think is interesting but irrelevant. One pointed out that the "on pain of death" part has been changed, although I am sure it was in force in Mitt Romney's day, when he swore the oath. In any case, they still swear to keep the oath secret. Others pointed out the diversity of political positions taken by Mormons holding office, although that proves nothing. Many of the practicing Mormons seemed to be saying that the Oath does not mean what it says, or that the Church is not currently enforcing the oath or has policies in effect which abrogate the effectiveness of the oath. We are asked to trust the Mormon Church on enforcement of the oath on a Mormon President.

The Mormon Church has a long history of hunting down and killing apostate Mormons, oppressing non-Mormons living among them and of requiring strict obedience from the faithful on all matters, temporal and spiritual. I can understand and would be delighted if the Mormon Church has changed. (It is gratifying to note that the English Queen is no longer hunting down Protestants and burning them at the stake.) The Church also has a long history of dissembling about the nature of their faith, their actions and their history.

The biggest problem for me is still the secrecy. A Mormon candidate needs to be freed by his Church to reveal what he has sworn and to explain what it means to him and how it will impact his conduct in office. Having lived among Mormons, and having seen how they conduct themselves in local politics, I am reluctant to trust the Church concerning the degree of control they will exercise on a Mormon President. But some sunlight would be welcomed and might change my view.

As you can see from the replies by practicing Mormons, we have a range of beliefs on the "hot-button" issues. You can also look at prominent Mormons in national office - Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Harry Reid (D-Nevada), both practicing Mormons - to get an idea of how the church exercises control over two high-ranking senators. Hatch consistently takes a conservative tack, introducing legislation that aligns with the political views of most Mormons. Reid, on the other hand, is not in the church's pocket. The Christian Coalition rates him as "anti-family" based on his voting record. He voted against confirming Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court, two justices who will probably overrule Roe v Wade given the chance. He voted to increase embryonic stem cell research, something most Mormons oppose. (The church has no official position on the issue.) You would think the Mormon church would ramrod its agenda through the Senate, using its puppet the Senate Majority Leader. But it hasn't. Maybe, just maybe, Reid has some freedom to vote his conscience and is not a slave to the Church.

Romney has definitely swung to the right since he's been running for President. But I think that has more to do with currying favor from social conservatives rather than the behest of Mormon church leadership. I agree that Romney should fully disclose how his Mormon beliefs will influence his actions as President. He needs to proclaim his independence from Salt Lake the same way JFK did from the Vatican. As a liberal Mormon, I'm curious to hear what he would say.

Can you give some examples of this "long history of hunting down and killing apostate Mormons"? That's news to me! Of course the church has some dark moments in its history - the Mountain Meadows massacre, for example. But that was in 1857 and the victims were not apostate Mormons. The church has never sanctioned violence in the last 150 years, either officially or unofficially, that I'm aware of.

Right after Mountain Meadows, a number of Mormons attempted to flee the area and leave the Mormon community. Out of fear of what they might tell, members of the Church hunted them down as far away as San Francisco and disposed of them. Of course, Brigham Young maintained "plausible deniability", so I guess it can be said that doing this was not church policy, per se. There were other examples during the era between Nauvoo and Mountain Meadows. The Church had death squads which targeted opponents as well as apostates.

I believe that the Fancher party, which was carrying a great deal of money and had many cattle, was killed for their possessions, not because of their actions or any fear they might harm the Mormons. They were on their way out of the area when they were hit at Mountain Meadows. They were no threat. There had been hard words between the Mormons and the Fancher Party, but that was it. The Mormons needed resources to fight the war they thought was coming with the United States. The cattle were divided up among Mormons and the money was never accounted for. As a very minimum, Brigham Young was an accessory after the fact.

You may be right that violence has not been Church policy in the last 150 years. But threat and intimidation remain today, especially in small communities dominated by Mormons.