# Some fair questions for Mitt Romney about Mormonism **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 17, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419 "2010-04-17T00:45:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/301 "2010-05-01T21:53:46Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > Oh, get off it. This “CT” is your straw man. I said: “I think a discreet phone call is likely.” From one man to another. One man consulting his spiritual advisor, or one man giving advice to another. In this scenario, one man is POTUS and the other is the Mouthpiece of God (according to the POTUS). And now you’re trying to paint me as a nutjob conspiracy theorist. I think you’re doing a rather good job of painting yourself that. You clearly indicated that you thought Romney, if President, would take direct orders from the LDS church’s president on how to govern the country. > [@](#): > > Do you believe Monson is the Mouthpiece of God? Why are you asking me that? > [@](#): > > You didn’t answer whether you are a Mormon. It seems as though you accused me, not asked me, upthread of being Mormon. What about **Frank**? Are you going to accuse him, too? > [@](#): > > If you are, and if you believe that God told Hinkley that the LDS should oppress the gays in Calif, and if you believe that God told Brigham Young that miscegenation is punishable by death, then you are in a hell of a position to be implying that I am a nutjob or a bigot. Really, now? Did Hinkley say he received a revelation to that or did he consider it, as other denominations did, a moral issue? > [@](#): > > I asserted NOTHING. I said that I had doubts. I said that I had concerns. I admitted that Romney’s record so far does not support my concerns. Oh, you’re now admitting you’re pulling your “concerns” out of thin air? > [@](#): > > I stated (from an expert position) that Mormons in general would have a very difficult time resisting the Word of the Prophet. You’re an expert? > [@](#): > > I gave an example of when I was persuaded to an immoral political viewpoint because the LDS Prophet decreed it. Some consider it immoral, some consider it moral. And all the people on the latter side aren’t Mormons, not even the majority are. Nor are all the people on the former side non-Mormons. > [@](#): > > I was unaware that LDS Democrats in office are “really not all that rare.” I have not studied their voting records before-and-after a pronouncement from the Church. I don’t know what Harry Reid’s stance on gay marriage was before God decreed it to his church. I don’t know what his stance is now. If he is in favor of gay rights, then kudos to him; he is making a stand against his God. If he chanded his mind, then I would worry that maybe the LDS God is a US Senator. Lot of if in that paragraph. > [@](#): > > I don’t see this as a partisan issue. The Mormon faithful believe that God’s Will is made known via President Monson, as well as via personal revelation to the members of the LDS Church. Those are not peripheral doctrines to the religion; those are basic tenets. Anyone who doesn’t believe that God speaks through Monson is not a believing Mormon. Yeah, that’s really not the issue in this thread, is it now? The issue is the bigoted “Oh, no! We can’t have a MORMON :eek: as president because he’ll do exactly what his religious leader orders him to do!” Well, that was the argument against Kennedy (be sure to substitute _Catholic_ for _Mormon_, of course) and it was bunk then. It’s bunk now. By the way, do you want an answer about my faith? Ask me politely or do a search. I don’t care how you do it. I will not answer a rude accusation or a rudely posed question, though. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2010, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/302 "2010-05-01T22:15:44Z")
**Rhodes** , the exact same kinds of arguiments were made against John Kennedy – that he would “take orders from the Pope,” etc. It was a load of crap then, it’s a load of crap now. I’m a bleeding heart liberal atheist with no political affection for Mitt Romney whatsoever, but I can honestly say that his faith is of absolutely no consequence to me, and any attempts by the Democrats to make it an issue would annoy me greatly. The Constitution explicitly forbids religious tests for office. I think those kinds of attacks are more likely to come from other Republicans during the primaries, though. Not that I think Democrats are necessarily above that kind of lowball, but it hasn’t been Obama’s style at all, and I don’t think he’d permit it if Romney were to become his opponent in 2012. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/303 "2010-05-02T03:05:42Z")
Obama would not make that argument. He would not have to. The internet and other sources would play it up. Even Fox and the conservatives might play it up because they are in bed with Christian Fundamentalists. It would come up plenty but Obama would not be involved. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 5:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/304 "2010-05-02T05:47:45Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I think you’re doing a rather good job of painting yourself that. You clearly indicated that you thought Romney, if President, would take direct orders from the LDS church’s president on how to govern the country. Clearly we have a different definition of “conspiracy.” I have not described a conspiracy as I understand the word. I thought conspiracy theories involved more than two people. Should I go make myself a tinfoil hat now? > [@](#): > > Why are you asking me that? > > It seems as though you accused me, not asked me, upthread of being Mormon. What about **Frank**? Are you going to accuse him, too? I explained why I was asking already. Only a Mormon or an ex-Mormon can fully understand how much respect the faithful have for the Prophet. I wanted to know whether I needed to explain this. I have never “accused” anyone of being a Mormon. What the hell does that even mean? It is not a crime to be a Mormon. I “assumed” you were a Mormon and tried to explain my point of view as I would from one Mormon to another. > [@](#): > > Really, now? Did Hinkley say he received a revelation to that or did he consider it, as other denominations did, a moral issue? If Hinkley, the LDS Prophet of God, published a statement and directed all of the Bishops in the church to read the statement to every congregation, it seems to me he is acting as head of the church. Yes, he also considered it a moral issue. > [@](#): > > Oh, you’re now admitting you’re pulling your “concerns” out of thin air? FINALLY! You actually read something I wrote. I have repeated over and over that I admit my concerns are not based on Romney’s history. For the love of all that is good and holy, I retract my statement that it is “likely” that the most powerful man in the world would consult his spiritual leaders inappropriately. You seem to be implying that it is 100% impossible. If that’s not your position, then please correct me. > [@](#): > > You’re an expert? Well, who would you consider an expert in the general LDS attitude? Yourself, being an apparent Mormon (that’s an observation, not an accusation, dammit)? How about **Rhodes** , being a recent ex-Mormon? 90% of my friends are Mormons. 100%of my family are Mormons. I served a Mormon mission. I have sat through 600 Mormon Sunday Schools, 600 Sacrament meetings, 400 Elders Quorum meetings, and 200 Primary lesons. I’m not an expert in politics, in the mission of the Chaplains, or in Catholicism. It is debatable whether I am an expert in Mormonism. But yes, I certainly have an expert understanding of the general Mormon attitude. > [@](#): > > Some consider it immoral, some consider it moral. And all the people on the latter side aren’t Mormons, not even the majority are. Nor are all the people on the former side non-Mormons. Bigotry toward gays? Yes, some consider it moral. Hinkley commanded his California flock to actively participate in bigotry toward gays. I was not in California, so I was exempt from the command. But upon learning that God wanted us to oppress the gays, I did not speak up because who am I to disagree with God. I have since come to realize that bigotry against gays is immoral, regardless of what Hinkley says. And regardless of what God says. Ditto for bigotry against Africans; Brigham Young and his God can go to hell, if there is such a place. Of course there are non-Mormon bigots. And of course there are Mormon non-bigots. The official LDS policy as of 2010 is one of oppression with love. Don’t hate the gays, but don’t let them get married in California. The attitudes of the membership vary, but the true believers obey God’s will as revealed through Hinkley. > [@](#): > > Lot of if in that paragraph. Ummm, I’m not sure what you mean. Was that a typo? > [@](#): > > Yeah, that’s really not the issue in this thread, is it now? The issue is the bigoted “Oh, no! We can’t have a MORMON :eek: as president because he’ll do exactly what his religious leader orders him to do!” Well, that was the argument against Kennedy (be sure to substitute _Catholic_ for _Mormon_, of course) and it was bunk then. It’s bunk now. He professes belief in a religion of bigotry. I would love an openly atheist president, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon. Yes, that was the argument against Kennedy. I really don’t know how much adoration Catholics have for their popes or for their dogma. I am not anti-Catholic. Catholics acknowledge that there have been good popes and bad popes. I am not really anti-Mormon, either, but it would be nice if they would admit that there were some BAD presidents of the church. Monson is a good guy. So was Hinkley. They are still hanging onto the homophobia that they learned when they were young, and they are passing on homophobia to the LDS Church, but that’s to be expected from a bunch of octogenarians. > [@](#): > > By the way, do you want an answer about my faith? Ask me politely or do a search. I don’t care how you do it. I will not answer a rude accusation or a rudely posed question, though. I looked you up. I see you are the Straight Dope’s resident expert on Mormonism. Congrats. And other posters describe you as a Mormon. I was not being rude when I asked. You may be reading my words with your angry voice. Go back and re-read them in the voice of someone who is simply trying to understand your position and to explain my position. You should not feel insecure about being a Mormon. The LDS Church is a magnet for good, honest people. When someone says “May I assume that you are a Mormon?” don’t take it as an “accusation”; being a Mormon is nothing to be ashamed of. Especially if you are still willing to think for yourself when you suspect the LDS leadership is in error. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/305 "2010-05-02T06:00:27Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > He professes belief in a religion of bigotry. That was poorly phrased, and I apologise. Romney professes a belief in a religion of Love and Christianity. (With a side order of homophobia. And an embarrasing history of racism, polygamy, and blood-lust that has been reversed but not retracted.) ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/306 "2010-05-02T06:31:48Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > You clearly indicated that you thought Romney, if President, would take direct orders from the LDS church’s president on how to govern the country. Sorry, I’ll quit posting and go to bed soon, I promise. But I just noticed a misrepresentation of what I had said. I clearly indicated that is is possible (I even used the unfortunate word “likely”) that Romney would consult the president of the LDS church before signing a bill of a religious nature. Gay marriage was my example, since Romney and the Church have disagreed on this at the state level. You make it sound like I envision Romney as Monson’s puppet. Of course Romney would not seek advice from Monson of a non-religious nature. If religion is involved, I don’t pretend to know how they would interact. Do you? (rhetorical question; of course you don’t) I have said a consult is possible. This alone would not be a valid reason to vote against a candidate. If Romney were not such a flip-flop, I would have voted for him in the 2008 primary. Side note: Are you aware that Romney won the Mormon vote by a landslide? Did you vote for Romney? (Rhetorical question. It’s none of my damn business, and I don’t want to know.) Did you consider his religion when deciding? Overtly or subconciously? Stats would indicate that most Mormons voted for the Mormon. Do the Mormons who voted for the Mormon approve of religion-based voting? Crap, maybe that’s a can of worms I should not have opened. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 9:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/307 "2010-05-02T09:45:53Z")
**Rhodes** : I read everything you wrote in this thread. Perhaps you forgot what you wrote in post #285? ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 12:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/308 "2010-05-02T12:45:56Z")
> [@Tamerlane](#): > > Whether it is a _majority_ opinion among mainstream Protestants, I wouldn’t venture to guess. But given many Evangelicals ( bizarrely ) seem to even categorize _Christian_ and _Catholic_ as somehow being distinct, I wouldn’t doubt the “non-Trinitarians as non-Christian” meme is probably common enough in those circles. Yup. Most Mexicans – Catholic and Protestant alike – use the word “católico” for Catholic, and “ **cristiano** ” for Protestant. It still sounds very strange to me, even after years of hearing it. Back to the OP…Good points have been made that a candidate’s religion shouldn’t necessarily be a factor in one’s vote, that all religions are kooky by definition (some kookier than others, probably), and that openly atheist or agnostic candidates are “rare as hen’s teeth” (–Dio). Well, I personally am more likely to vote for a presidential candidate if, through their writings, their voting record, and their behavior, _seems_ to be not taking their professed religion too seriously. It’s the one area where I’d rather _reward_ hypocrisy/deceit. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/309 "2010-05-02T13:15:05Z")
> [@JKellyMap](#): > > Yup. Most Mexicans – Catholic and Protestant alike – use the word “católico” for Catholic, and “ **cristiano** ” for Protestant. It still sounds very strange to me, even after years of hearing it. It’s the same here in Korea. Even the Catholics say “Catholic” (가톨릭/ga-to-lik) for themselves and “Christian” (기독/gi-dok) for the Protestants. It still sounds strange to me. > [@](#): > > Back to the OP…Good points have been made that a candidate’s religion shouldn’t necessarily be a factor in one’s vote, that all religions are kooky by definition (some kookier than others, probably), and that openly atheist or agnostic candidates are “rare as hen’s teeth” (–Dio). Well, I personally am more likely to vote for a presidential candidate if, through their writings, their voting record, and their behavior, _seems_ to be not taking their professed religion too seriously. It’s the one area where I’d rather _reward_ hypocrisy/deceit. I don’t think a candidate’s religion, or even lack thereof, should be an issue at all. It’s really nobody’s business. And the things that matter are his track record in political office. I think comparing their track record to their religion is just as wrong as quizzing the candidate on religion in the first place. What matters, after all, to the constituency is the candidate’s track record in political office. **Rhodes** : By the way, I’m not insecure about my faith. I just don’t like the way you presented your so-called case here. I was rather clear about my reasons for disliking that. If you really want an answer to a question, you could ask it politely. Perhaps you discovered in your searches on my posts regarding the LDS that I will not discuss on this forum what my personal religious beliefs are. What I personally believe is not your business unless you happen to have such stewardship over me. With all those hours in seminary, etc., you should be familiar with that term. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/310 "2010-05-02T14:22:54Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > **Rhodes** : I read everything you wrote in this thread. Perhaps you forgot what you wrote in post #285? Let’s see… I said an active, believing Mormon obeys President Monson. That is generaly true of active, believing Mormons as I see it. Perhaps if you know any active, believing Mormons who see Monson as a wise old man but not as a Prophet of the Almighty, then you can provide a counterexample. I will not ask any more about the extent of your dedication to the Prophet; it was meant mostly as a rhetorical question (and one that would only make sense when asked of an active, believing Mormon), but it is a personal matter. When I was an active, believing Mormon I obeyed the Prophet unquestioningly. And that is the norm among the LDS faithful as I see it. I stated that the LDS Church rarely gets involved in national politics these days. They meddle in Utah politics. And when homophobia wasn’t rampant enough in California, they (and other churches) meddled in California politics. The LDS Church took a big risk being so vocal about Prop 8. They created a lot of enemies for themselves. It is no longer possible to say that the LDS have a bigotted past; now they have a bigotted present too. It is unfortunate for the LDS Church that there was no way at the time to promote bigotry in a more discreet manner. Maybe such an opportunity will present itself in the future, where the Prophet could inject his religion into politics with a quiet phone call. Maybe the Prophet would do so; maybe not. Maybe it would work; maybe not. I said before that similar fears about a Catholic JFK were apparently unfounded. I really know little about Catholic attitudes toward the Pope or toward their controversial doctrines. The Pope did not try to rule the USA. I did not mean to say that the Prophet might try to rule the USA, although I can see how you may have interpretted is as such. What I meant was that the Prophet may meddle inappropriately. Certainly the Prophet will not get involved in planning the budget or in foreign relations. Hopefully he will not get involved in other matters of a religious nature. Romney did have a meeting with the Church’s First Presidency prior to announcing his candidacy. It was reported in the Salt Lake Tribune. As I recall, they said they were discussing whether the Church was comfortable with the media scrutiny that a presidential campaign would bring. > [@Monty](#): > > **Rhodes** : By the way, I’m not insecure about my faith. I just don’t like the way you presented your so-called case here. I was rather clear about my reasons for disliking that. If you really want an answer to a question, you could ask it politely. Perhaps you discovered in your searches on my posts regarding the LDS that I will not discuss on this forum what my personal religious beliefs are. What I personally believe is not your business unless you happen to have such stewardship over me. With all those hours in seminary, etc., you should be familiar with that term. I do not claim stewardship over you. I have no interest in judging you. My point was that only a Mormon will know first-hand the extent of the flock’s obedience to the Prophet. My first-hand experience was that I temporarily embraced homophobia when it was preached in my congregation in a letter signed by Hinkley and Monson. I have since distanced myself from a Church that preaches bigotry. If that makes me a bigot, well at least I can get a chuckle from the irony. I will not claim that all Mormons are bigots, or even that many Mormons are bigots. For every 100 sermons about love and faith and honesty, there is maybe 1 that endorses bigotry (done with love and respect, of course). ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/311 "2010-05-02T23:13:10Z")
You’re happy to claim–as you did in post #285–that an LDS POTUS would kowtow and blindly take orders from his church leader on how to run the country. Deny that all you want but that’s exactly what those words you typed say. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/312 "2010-05-03T16:05:44Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > You’re happy to claim–as you did in post #285–that an LDS POTUS would kowtow and blindly take orders from his church leader on how to run the country. Deny that all you want but that’s exactly what those words you typed say. “kowtow” is your word. “blindly” is your word. “run the country,” well, I said that that was the fear with JFK and the Pope, and that the fear was unfounded. I acknowledged a possibility. I can read “exactly what those words \* typed say,” and they express doubts and worries. If you have no doubt and worries, then good for you. I don’t know how you can be so certain of future events never happening. I guess my seer stone isn’t as sharp as yours. I do not pretend to see the future. You lie when you say that I claim in post #285 “that an LDS POTUS would kowtow and blindly take orders from his church leader on how to run the country.” That may be how you interpreted my opinion, but that is not at all an accurate depiction of my opinion, and it is certainly not “exactly what those words \* typed say.” I am done repeating the same things over and over. The real Rhodes has nothing in common with this fictional Rhodes you are imagining, but your pre-conceived notions of me are so strong I can see I will never persuade you otherwise. This conversation is going nowhere. Over And Out. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/313 "2010-05-03T17:22:19Z")
I have no preconceived notions of you. I based by stance on what you typed in that post. As a reminder, here is what you typed: > [@](#): > > I wonder, if we had a Mormon POTUS, whether LDS President Monson would ever receive a revelation from God giving instructions to US President Romney. I believe that if he did, then Romney would be obliged to obey. To the Mormons, LDS President trumps US President. That’s not acknowledging a possibility. It’s making the same kind of asinine and prejudiced charge as that made against Kennedy when he ran for President. It was unfounded then (as you admit) and–surprise surprise!–it’s unfounded now. And I’ll thank you to mind your manners outside the Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/314 "2010-05-03T17:37:23Z")
> [@Rhodes](#): > > You lie when you say that I claim in post #285 “that an LDS POTUS would kowtow and blindly take orders from his church leader on how to run the country.” Accusations of lying are not allowed in Great Debates, so please don’t do this again. And if you and **Monty** choose to continue this discussion, both of you need to tone down the hosility. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/315 "2010-05-03T18:11:42Z")
Thunderdome! Mormon vs. Jack Mormon! Two go in, one come out! Sorry… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/316 "2010-05-03T18:47:48Z")
Romney’s primary problem in 2008 wasn’t his religion anyway, but himself. ---
**Author:** ![Rhodes](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rhodes/32/273_2.png) [@Rhodes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhodes)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2010, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/317 "2010-05-03T19:44:46Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > I have no preconceived notions of you. I based by stance on what you typed in that post. As a reminder, here is what you typed: > > That’s not acknowledging a possibility. It’s making the same kind of asinine and prejudiced charge as that made against Kennedy when he ran for President. It was unfounded then (as you admit) and–surprise surprise!–it’s unfounded now. > > And I’ll thank you to mind your manners outside the Pit. I wish to express my condolances that my post #285 was open to interpretation. If you wish to understand my position, then I cordially invite you to read my several posts since that one, in which I have explained my views more fully and partially retracted my previous stance. If it pleases you to vent frustrations against a fictional opponent, then please apply your own interpretation to what I meant in post #285. Ignore any explanations by Rhodes of the content of post #285. After all, your interpretation of my thoughts and words is just as valid as my own interpretation of my thoughts and words. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/318 "2010-05-04T00:49:45Z")
There’s no fiction except in your baseless “appraisal” of what could happen with a Mormon as president of the US. ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/319 "2010-05-04T03:45:05Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > That’s not acknowledging a possibility. It’s making the same kind of asinine and prejudiced charge as that made against Kennedy when he ran for President. It was unfounded then (as you admit) and–surprise surprise!–it’s unfounded now. This is like when working on a project and you have to determine risk. You ask the question have we looked at all the risk and some wit comes up with, “Well, the building could collapse, too!”. In fact, the building could collapse because it has happened to buildings before. So, you manage the risk. That Kennedy was never in a situation where he had to choose between his religion or his office doesn’t tell us anything. It doesn’t tell us much even if he defied the Pope for whatever reason, well other than the Pope placing an elected official in a position to have to make such a decision. It certainly has no bearing on what a person like Romney may or may not do in office as his level of belief and duty to the church may be different than Kennedy’s. There is a risk if a person has two loyalties that they may conflict with each other. It may be a very small risk, but it is still there and makes it a ‘possibility’. ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2010, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419/320 "2010-05-04T04:03:07Z")
I think it’s more like putting up a building and saying, “Hey, we’d better consider that this thing might fly off into outer space because, well, someone wrote about that happening in a fiction story before now.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419.md?page=15) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/some-fair-questions-for-mitt-romney-about-mormonism/536419.md?page=17)