Diary Of A Mad Voter: Jessica Corry
Western Voters Treat Mormonism With Caution
By Jessica Peck Corry, 7-19-07
|
|
 | |
|
Mitt Romney’s religion bothers me. But being bothered by religion in politics is not a new experience. I’m more troubled by agnostic candidates parading around as Christians in shallow vote-getting efforts. At least Romney’s honesty is refreshing. He’s a Mormon and he’s not going to hide his religion just to win a presidential primary.
While East Coast pundits are quick to discount Romney’s candidacy because of his religion, his prospects may play out differently in the West, where Mormonism thrives and religious tolerance is being tested in a way rarely seen here.
I grew up in the West. My parents moved my family here partially to escape much of the racial and religious tension that defined their lives on the East Coast. I wouldn’t experience what they were referring to until years later when, as an adult, I moved to Washington, D.C.
As a child of the West, I grew up believing that all religions should be respected and tolerated. It was an ideology rarely tested, however, since most of my friends were raised in Christian households. I can’t remember a single friend who didn’t attend church on at least a semi-regular basis.
The one exception to my largely Protestant experience came in the form of my Mormon friends. In fact, while I never had a close friendship with a Jew, a Muslim, or even an atheist until college, nearly a quarter of my closest friends were Mormon.
Having been raised in the conservative Church of Christ, I shared much in common culturally with these friends. Sundays were holy days. Between attending morning and evening services, the hours were reserved for family time interrupted only occasionally by the even more holy Broncos’ game. Wednesday nights were spent in mid-week church services.
Of course, the picture wasn’t all rosy. Even as a child, there were elements of my friends’ religion that were foreign to me. On an educational trip, my parents took us to the LDS temple, where we were learned of strange rituals like baptizing the dead. While my Mormon friends tried to convince me that we worshipped the same God, I just couldn’t buy it.
As I grew older, intellectual inquiries into Mormonism proved troublesome and today, I’ve come to believe there is no factual basis for this religion. I struggle to reconcile this conclusion with the fact that as a struggling Christian, I have an unending respect for many of those who practice Mormonism.
A good friend of mine, a Democrat from New York, expressed serious reservations about Romney, questioning how she could ever vote for someone who really believes that he can rule his own planet after death. To this, I have no answer.
The well-publicized problem for Republicans, however, is that conservative evangelicals are also asking my friend’s same question. Bill Keller, a Florida TV evangelist, caused a national firestorm after calling support for Romney “a vote for Satan.”
While the infighting that defines modern presidential primaries makes it tough for the GOP to outwardly support Romney’s religion, party leaders can gain ground in the West by moving forward with a strong united two-part message that condemns messages like Keller’s.
Part One: “The GOP is the party of religious tolerance.” While many Americans are wary of the evangelical influence on the current Bush administration, they may be receptive to a message of GOP spiritual open-mindedness.
Attacks on Romney are coming from both sides—not just from Keller on the right but also from Al Sharpton on the left, who feebly backtracked after publicly ridiculing Romney’s religion. Romney’s candidacy presents a perfect opportunity to show America a softer side of the GOP.
Part Two: “Anyone But Hillary.” While the prospect of a Romney general election candidacy faces the real threat of evangelical Christians staying home on Election Day, the GOP must be united in a voice preaching that staying home will only ensure that Democrats will be one step closer toward electing a liberal pro-choice candidate like Hillary Clinton.
The good news about Romney—regardless of whether he wins or loses—he’s getting people to talk about religion in a way we haven’t seen in years. He’s forcing all of us to ask important personal questions about our own tolerance (or lack there of) for those who pray to a different God than us.
East Coast pundits and national newsmagazines, including Newsweek and Time, have all covered the issue of Romney’s religion. What they may not have a grasp on, however, is that in the West—where this issue will largely play out—we are a humbly open-minded bunch.
I haven’t made up my mind on who I am voting for. Until one candidate can prove that he or she will stand up for the sacred Western values of limited government and individual rights—including religious freedom—I’ll keep looking. By making his own stand, however, Romney may just gain a second look from the voters in my household.
Editor’s note: Jessica Corry’s weekly blogs are part of a new feature on NewWest.Net/Politics called “Diary of a Mad Voter,” a group blog, published in partnership with the Denver Post’s Politics West intended give a glimpse into the hearts and minds of several independent-minded voters and thinkers in the Rocky Mountain West in the ‘08 election cycle. Check back this week at www.newwest.net/madvoter.
It will be an interesting summer for Mormon watching. The LDS church is defending itself against pedophile lawsuits in Oregon, and has refused to give plaintiffs access to church financial records. The Courts will decide. The publicity will not bode well for Romney, nor will it help incumbent Senator Gordon Smith of Oregon.
Comment By Bot, 7-19-07The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) is often accused of not believing in Christ and, therefore, not being a Christian religion . . This post helps to clarify such misconceptions
• Baptism: .
Early Christian churches, practiced baptism of youth (not infants) by immersion by the father of the family. The local congregation had a lay ministry. An early Christian Church has been re-constructed at the Israel Museum, and the above can be verified. http://www.imj.org.il/eng/exhibitions/2000/christianity/ancientchurch/structure/index.html
The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) continues baptism and a lay ministry as taught by Jesus’ Apostles. . Early Christians were persecuted for keeping their practices sacred, and not allowing non-Christians to witness them
• The Trinity: .
A literal reading of the New Testament points to God and Jesus Christ , His Son , being separate , divine beings , united in purpose. . To whom was Jesus praying in Gethsemane, and Who was speaking to Him and his apostles on the Mount of Transfiguration?
The Nicene Creed”s definition of the Trinity was influenced by scribes translating the Greek manuscripts into Latin. . The scribes embellished on a passage explaining the Trinity , which is the Catholic and Protestant belief that God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. . The oldest versions of the epistle of 1 John, read: "There are three that bear witness: the Spirit, the water and the blood and these three are one."
Scribes later added "the Father, the Word and the Spirit," and it remained in the epistle when it was translated into English for the King James Version, according to Dr. Bart Ehrman, Chairman of the Religion Department at UNC- Chapel Hill. . . .He no longer believes in the Nicene Trinity. .
Scholars agree that Early Christians believed in an embodied God; it was neo-Platonist influences that later turned Him into a disembodied Spirit. . Divinization, narrowing the space between God and humans, was also part of Early Christian belief. . The Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) views the Trinity as three separate divine beings , in accord with the earliest Greek New Testament manuscripts.
• The Deity of Jesus Christ
Mormons hold firmly to the deity of Christ. For members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS), Jesus is not only the Son of God but also God the Son. Evangelical pollster George Barna found in 2001 that while only 33 percent of American Catholics, Lutherans, and Methodists (28 percent of Episcopalians) agreed that Jesus was “without sin”, 70 percent of Mormons believe Jesus was sinless. http://www.adherents.com/misc/BarnaPoll.html
• The Cross and Christ’s Atonement: .
The Cross became popular as a Christian symbol in the Fifth Century A.D. . Members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) believe the proper Christian symbol is Christ’s resurrection , not his crucifixion on the Cross. Many Mormon chapels feature paintings of the resurrected Christ or His Second Coming. Furthermore, members of the church believe the major part of Christ’s atonement occurred in the Garden of Gethsemane as Christ took upon him the sins of all mankind.
• Definition of “Christian”: .
But Mormons don”t term Catholics and Protestants “non-Christian”. . They believe Christ’s atonement applies to all mankind. . The dictionary definition of a Christian is “of, pertaining to, believing in, or belonging to a religion based on the teachings of Jesus Christ”: . All of the above denominations are followers of Christ, and consider him divine, and the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. They all worship the one and only true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and address Him in prayer as prescribed in The Lord’s Prayer.
It”s important to understand the difference between Reformation and Restoration when we consider who might be authentic Christians. If members of the Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) embrace early Christian theology , they are likely more “Christian” than their detractors.
* * *
• Christ-Like Lives:
The 2005 National Study of Youth and Religion published by UNC-Chapel Hill found that Church of Jesus Christ (LDS) youth (ages 13 to 17) were more likely to exhibit these Christian characteristics than Evangelicals (the next most observant group):
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LDS . . . Evangelical
Attend Religious Services weekly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71% . . . . 55%
Importance of Religious Faith in shaping daily life –
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . extremely important .. 52. . . . . . . 28
Believes in life after death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 . . . . . . 62
Believes in psychics or fortune-tellers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . 5
Has taught religious education classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 . . . . . . 28
Has fasted or denied something as spiritual discipline . . . . . . . . . . . 68 . . . . . . 22
Sabbath Observance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 . . . . . . 40
Shared religious faith with someone not of their faith . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 . . . . . . 56
Family talks about God, scriptures, prayer daily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 . . . . . . 19
Supportiveness of church for parent in trying to raise teen
(very supportive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65 . . . . . . 26
Church congregation has done an excellent job in helping
Teens better understand their own sexuality and sexual morality . . . . 84 . . . . . . 35
I am always amazed at the number of intelligent people who believe in things I find foolish (horoscopes, psychics, UFOs, numerology, ghosts, superstitions, fad diets, urban legends, etc, etc). I guess it is just part of human nature - and what is especially funny, is how we all seem to have a blind spot that can't see our own "odd-ball" beliefs.
But when it comes to voting, I concentrate on the candidates character and accomplishments. I am concerned if he represents my interests and if he will be able to lead effectively and get the job done.
I feel that Romney has the resume (family, school, work, service) that shows he will lead the country in the direction I would like to see it move. If his religion was a real problem - there would be plenty of evidence already - I just don't see any reason to be concerned.
I wouldn’t characterize Mitt Romney as honest about his religion.
For example, Mr. Romney says that he can't think of anything more “awful” than polygamy [60 MINUTES interview with Mike Wallace to be broadcast Sunday, May 13 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.]
The problem is, Romney is a temple-going Mormon, and to get a temple recommend he has to tell his church leaders that he believes that Joseph Smith was a prophet, and that the Doctrine and Covenants is revelation from God.
But Joseph Smith said that plural marriage is part of the "law of the priesthood," and Smith's revelation on that accord is in the Doctrine and Covenants. In fact, you can read about it on the official Internet site of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS or Mormon). Here's the link:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132
Scroll down and read verse 61. Here's what it says:
D&C;132: 61 "And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse another, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else."
So what does Mr. Romney really believe? Does he really think polygamy is “awful?” If so, how can he tell his bishop that he believes Smith was a prophet, and that the D&C;is scripture?
But if he doesn’t really think polygamy is wrong, does that mean he was lying to Mike Wallace, presumably to enhance his chances as a presidential candidate? And if he was doing that, is he really the person we should elect as president?
So Romney probably hasn't been honest about his views on polygamy. What else might he have been less than honest?
The Book of Mormon, for example, teaches that God uses black skin as a curse. Here's the link to the official Internet site of the LDS Church where you can read it:
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/2_ne/5/21#21
Scroll down and read verse 21. Here's what it says:
2 Nephi 5:21 "And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
Can Romney really be the president of the United States if he thinks that Americans with black skin have been "cursed" by God?
Unfortunately we live in a world and a nation where politicians feel increasingly justified in using the government as a tool for advocating their religious point of view. Given this unfortunate climate, can (or should) we really afford to have a president who is disingenuous about his religious beliefs, or whose religious beliefs might put in jeopardy his ability to represent all Americans?
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and science"
Bot and Duwayne - you cut n pasters need to go away...Both of you.
And Duwayne...Maybe you ought to work on being an author that can write in something other than innuendo.
Jessica - A fair article, though I just can't see how the GOP can accomplish what you're proposing. You're talking about a block of primary voters who have been raised hearing tales of terror from the pulpit of Mormons and their 'cult'. The cry of 'we can't legitimize this faith' is louder than anything that would resemble even a tentative cohesion based on mutual faith.
They said a Catholic couldn't be elected either, yet one was, and if any are this year, I don't hear folks fussing about the pedeophiles.
Plural marriages are mentioned freely in the Bible, and I don't see that it being a part of Mormon religion in days gone by is a problem.
I am interested in a leader who is willing to lead and not play games, and raise millions to tell folks how they are for the poor.
Mormons do not baptize dead people. They baptize by proxy, "in behalf of those who have died." Christ taught us we should be baptized. Those who missed the opportunity to be baptized into his church while on Earth would want to have it done in the the hereafter. We have been given agency and therefore don't have to accept it then. There is nothing weird about that. It is loving, logical and fair.
Comment By BDunc, 7-20-07The real issue here isn't religion. It's politics. What does Romney believe as a patriot and American? How will he lead this country? Those who quote Mormon scriptures and presume to know what mormons believe are taking things out of context and assuming that Romney is his religion. Just step back, forget your preconceptions about mormons, see Romney for who he is as a person, and vote for him based on his political ideologies. Whenever political discussions turn into theological arguments nobody proves a point and you just piss people off.
Romney is a good man who has a really good chance of leading this country. His morals and values are good, he has a great track record, he's willing to admit when he was wrong, and I find it refreshing that there is a politician who can CHANGE their views based on more information and personal soul searching. He'll make a great President.
By their fruits ye shall know them. When I guided my children in selecting a marriage partner, I counseled them to look at their fruits. How have they handled themselves under tremendous pressure? How did they deal with crushing disappointment? How did they make critical decisions? How did they treat their parents? Do they have a good work ethic? Did they walk the walk? This yardstick may well be helpful in choosing a candidate. Yet, I always encouraged them to look to why they may have changed -- from silly youth, to confident young adult. Looking at the why and then the new path (over time) their spouse followed gave my kids (4 of them) confidence that they would marry someone who had a good pattern of choices. I look at Romney and use this as my measure. I like what I see - it's hard to separate the "innerds" from the rest of a person.
Comment By Trudy Lundy, 7-20-07The word "Trinity" does not appear in the Bible. The Nicene Creed was written by men -- not by God or Jesus. God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose not one person. Just because Mormonism differs some what from Catholics and Protestants beieve, the Mormons do not refer to Catholics and Protestants as non-Christian. Mormons also "claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." Thanks so much for keeping the Mormons in the news and thereby encouraging inquiring minds to investigate and learn about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!
Comment By MG, 7-20-07"As I grew older, intellectual inquiries into Mormonism proved troublesome and today, I’ve come to believe there is no factual basis for this religion. I struggle to reconcile this conclusion with the fact that as a struggling Christian, I have an unending respect for many of those who practice Mormonism."
I appreciate Jessica's honesty in her struggle with her perceptions of the faith and the actions she sees of its members. I have found that those who pursue "intellectual inquiries" tend to primarily consult the intellects of one side. I believe it is a matter of perceived trust. As humans, we automatically assume that "outsiders" are more objective than "insiders." However, this is not necessarily true. To the modern-day Christian, all we have is a one-sided view of Christ presented in the New Testament. The Jewish aristocracy of the day certainly felt justified in their rejection of Christ. How many Christians have searched the writings of the early Jewish antagonists to get an "objective" view? A more probing question is how many Christians today, if transported back in time to the time of Christ, would have accepted His firsthand witness? I am confident that many that believe Him today would have rejected Him in person. Believing dead prophets has always been easier than believing living ones, perhaps because living ones can challenge our conclusions. They accept the one-sided New Testament account out-of-hand because of exposure and familiarity. Few are willing the "think the unthinkable," that my perception of "normal" and "strange" are relative and are not accurate measuring sticks of truth. To a Muslim brought up in the Muslim faith, the idea of God having a Son to die for sins and "pay Himself off" seems ludicrous. Why? It's not normal from that context. If you spend enough time with a Muslim and hear of their perspective on a Son of God dying for sins they can present an argument that, removed of preconceived conclusions, makes such a belief seem silly.
The truth of the matter is that none of us has died and come back to get the facts. We have scriptural records, but the endless posturing for doctrinal interpretation has made it all but hopeless to find any solution by resorting to the Bible. Christians can't even agree on the mode of baptism, time of baptism, who can baptize, is it necessary, etc. Everyone uses the same book to defend their position. Is this normal? Is this the way God intended it? If it turns out baptism is essential, half of the folks are wrong, whether they believe so or not. To the atheist, none of this seems "normal" and is all deranged.
The idea of a church led by prophets, apostles, revelation, priesthood, and organized with prophets, apostles, bishops, teachers, priests, deacons, elders, seventies, etc., and practicing a lay ministry, living for a time the law of consecration for a time as spoken of in the book of Acts ("having all in common"), living the law of tithing (Malachi), not being given to drunkenness (Paul condemns this), being faithful to husbands and wives, not practicing extra-marital sex (fornication, which Paul also condemns) is straight out of the New Testament. A church that believes in preaching to the spirits in prison (1 Pet 3:20-22, 1 Pet. 4:6) and practicing proxy baptism (1 Cor 15:29) are all straight from the New Testament. What makes the LDS church seem strange to many is that they actually believe the New Testament structure and spiritual gifts and practices still apply. They actually try to literally live as those who lived during that time. If this is unbiblical, then I'm not sure what is Biblical. It's interesting to note that we have no record of the people of God successfully surviving as an authorized organization by following a book alone. Every time the people of God in the Bible were "on track", they were lead by living prophets, not books. Only the Pharisees and Sadducess were led by a book alone (the writings of the Hebrew Bible, OT) and had lost the prophets, and look what happened to them. A principle the Bible constantly teaches is that rejecting _Living Prophets_ has always resulted in tragedy, while interpreting dead prophets without them has always led to confusion.
Finally, I find that many who claim to look at the beliefs objectively actually never read the Book of Mormon cover to cover. I believe there is an underlying fear of finding something they will not be able to explain. Remember, the entire book was dictated in 60 working days by a farm boy with basically a 3rd grade education. There were witnesses to the plates who never denied their testimonies of the plates, many revelations were received by multiple people, not just Joseph Smith. The book is here. To dismiss it without explaining how an uneducated boy could create it simply will not do. I did a master's thesis that took 4 months, 80 pages, double spaced with pictures. There's no way I could write a book like the Book of Mormon, and I bet not even the best religious scholar could pull it off in the time frame Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery did (and do it without Google!).
Quoting from Moroni:
"And now, my beloved brethren, if this be the case that these things are true which I have spoken unto you, and God will show unto you, with power and great glory at the last day, that they are true, and if they are true has the day of miracles ceased?
Or have angels ceased to appear unto the children of men? Or has he withheld the power of the Holy Ghost from them? Or will he, so long as time shall last, or the earth shall stand, or there shall be one man upon the face thereof to be saved?
Behold I say unto you, Nay; for it is by faith that miracles are wrought; and it is by faith that angels appear and minister unto men; wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain." (Moroni 7:35-37).
Thanks for the article. I agree that we need to look at a candidate's character and political positions rather than how a candidate chooses to worship. I am Mormon, but I am also looking for a "candidate [that] can prove that he or she will stand up for the sacred Western values of limited government and individual rights." I have a few other criteria as well. I'm not seeing all of the qualities I want in any of the major candidates at the moment. So I am still looking as well.
I doubt any conscientious person will ever find a candidate whose character is completely unimpeachable and with whom they can fully agree on all political issues. I doubt such a person even exists in the mirror. So, if you vote at all, you will ultimately settle for something less than the ideal. At some point I will figure out what I can live with and will vote accordingly.
I agree with by their fruits ye shall know them. Look at a person's actions and experience. Romney has a lot to offer.
Comment By ND, 7-22-07I've always been troubled by folks claiming to interpret Godly or divine things by wordly logic and "reason". Isn't it necessary to look at the spiritual basis for man's actions and thinking, leaving room for divine explanations, through spiritual inquiry?
As I understand it, this is what Romney and Mormons claim as the basis for their often "weird" beliefs and practices. Can one deny that God will make things clear? Can He? And anciently, as well as today, who will speak or interpret divine things?
Jessica, when you write "my parents took us to the LDS temple, where we were learned of strange rituals like baptizing the dead" it's evidence that your "intellectual inquiries into Mormonism" have been one-sided and less than serious. I too would find "baptizing the dead" a strange ritual. Obviously that's not what Mormons do.
You should also read
evangelicalsformitt.com
to get some serious thoughts from evangelicals regarding whether Mitt's LDS religion should be a concern.
Has it ever occurred to Evangelicals that Mormons can't stand Evangelical beliefs and practices any more than Evangelicals can stand Mormon beliefs and practices? Why is it that the religious minority need always be on the defensive about "weird" belief systems? Who defines normal? The history of "traditional" Christianity is fraught with aberrations, inconsistencies and evolutions.
If taken to its logical conclusion, Evangelical Protestantism implies that Christianity can be whatever the hell you want it to be. And don't give me the "it's all based on the Bible," because there are many varying and DIVERGENT interpretations of the Bible, (incidentally there is a basis for many of Mormonism's "weird" practices in the Bible like baptism FOR the dead (1 Corinthians 15:29)
My point is that just as Mormons have to put up with the televangelism, institutionalized intolerance, and Appalachian snake biting of Evangelical Christianity, some Evangelicals have had to learn to tolerate Mormons and their practices.
I don't mean to to suggest that Mormons don't need to be more tolerant of other faiths, only that Evangelicals aren't the only ones who find other faiths "weird" or heretical. As it turns out, while many Evangelical churches devote entire meetings to defaming and denouncing the beliefs and practices of Mormonism often throwing in a bunch of bigoted lies and half truths in the process, Mormons, although they declare that they are the only true church of Christ and that traditional Christianity has been apostate for centuries, Mormons don't bash other denominations in their meetings. Rather church doctrine recognizes is that most religions contain at least some true principles.
How many Evangelicals have Mormons voted for as President, not because we were enamored with Evangelical Christianity, but because the Evangelical candidate was the least-worst option? Evangelicals can bring themselves to do the same for a Mormon President. If not, then they can say, "Well, we have the godless pro-choice wife of Bill Clinton as President, but at least we didn't elect a Mormon." Won't that will be a warm consolation.
When the National Geographc finds an ancient civilization in the Americas using the Book of Mormon as a reference and when Christ appears in Missouri, I'll study to pass the Idaho Oath Test & vote for Elder (flip-flop) Romney.
Comment By Raymond Takashi Swenson, 7-31-07May I add one new thought: Nothing in the New Testament tells Christians to demand that their government leaders must agree with their religious beliefs. Christ and the apostles lived in a Roman Empire ruled by pagans and (in Judea) corrupt high priests who obtained their office through bribes rather than religious merit. The people who resented Christians always claimed that they had a political agenda, in order to justify killing and imprisoning them. Yet Jesus, Peter, Paul and John did not care who was running the government. They were confident that God would take care of that when necessary, that Christ would rule when he came back to earth in glory. Until then, they were not interested in trying to run the government of a city, state or empire.
So where does the impulse to resent and oppose someone who is religiously different come from? It comes from the same place it came from for the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK burned crosses, which turned a symnbol of the suffering Son of God into an instrument of terror, restoring it to its original use as an instrument of torture and intimidation. The KKK murdered Mormon misisonaries alongside blacks and Jews. Insisting that government officials be from your own religious group is simply tribalism. It has no root in the Gospel. It is a hatred that tries to enlist God as a partisan for one's own tribe. It is the kind of hatred toward others that made the parable of the Good Samaritan so striking to the Jews. Jesus taught that a man who practiced what many Jews called an illegitimate religion, that was not the religion of Moses even though it claimed to be, could be more obedient to God than a priest or a Levite by obeying the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.
Mitt Romney is a man who worked with men and women who were not Mormons to achieve great things, first as a business leader, second as the leader of the international 2002 Winter Olympics, and third as governor of a state that is dominated by Catholics. Romney does not care what another person's religion is; he will respect and love him anyway. He is a far better follower of Christ than those who, out of personal hatred of those who are different, stupidly oppose him, even though he would do everything he can as president to advance every public policy they favor, because those are policies he agrees with.