Join The Debate!

Romney is a Christian, Povidus is a liar

Povidus is completely disingenuous in his criticism of Romney, stating that "Romney is not a Christian" and supporting this claim by referring to the church Romney is a member of as "The Church of Latter Day Saints"

For the record, Povidus did not use the complete name of the church that Romney is a member of. Whether this was done by mistake or was a deliberate action, we will never know. However, Povidus' misnaming is suspicious and I propose that it was intentionally done to disparage Romney and the church. WHY? Because the real name of the church Romney attends is "The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints" (emphasis added). It would be hard to support your claim that a church is not Christian when the words "JESUS CHRIST" appears in the name of the church! Think about it, if you were an alien from outer space visiting this planet and had to decide solely based on the name of the organizations, which of two was Christian, the "Southern Baptist Convention" or the "Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints", which would you choose? I would go with the latter (no pun intended).

Povidus is a hypocrite. He claims to be a Christian, yet conveniently forgets the full name of the church he is criticizing for not being Christian. If I remember correctly, I thought that the Bible said something about lying. But, then again I could be wrong. Or, I could be reading Povidus' version of the Bible which must not say anything about lying...


By the way, what is "the Christian tradition"? How do you sign up to be a member? Just curious...

my 2 cents

"If you believe that life begins when an embryo forms, then you can no longer support abortion or research that destroys empryos." (Why don't we hear more about the promise of adult stem cells?)

I do believe that life begins at conception - when else could it begin? For me another way of putting it is this - If it's growing it's alive.

And I for one would be glad to see a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints post a statement of their beliefs.

FTR - I am a practicing Catholic

FREE PORN

Where? BTW, in a related story, Jon Cary (sp) adopted the following slogan in '04: More Positions Than the Kama Sutra.

Cult? Christianity?

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, God the Father (who has a body of flesh and bones) came down and copulated with Mary, who nine months later gave birth to Jesus. Jesus started out as a man, but worked his way to godhood in the same way that the Father did (As we are, God once was, and as God is, we can be). In my narrow way of thinking, the "Jesus" they revere is not the same Jesus (Y'eshua, Logos, etc.) revealed in the Old and New Testaments. And you still think they're "Christian"? Perhaps so, but not in the "save you from death and Hades" way.

Sorry, Fiddler1.

I had my reasons for ultimately saying 'no' to the Mormons when they asked if I wished to join their church.

I asked specifically about this idea that God had sex with Mary, Jesus' mother. They said their church is deliberately vague on this subject because the record is deliberately vague.

That is, Gabriel tells Mary, "the spirit of the lord will come upon you and the power of the most high will overshadow you, and you will carry the Son of God."

How did this happen? What were the mechanics of it? The record does not say, and NEITHER DO THE MORMONS. Just as you or I have opinions on the subject, so do various individual Mormons. But the church officially states that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father, and that they are two separate beings of flesh and bone. Whether Mary was inseminated in the mortal way we think of as natural or through a miraculous process is not stipulated in the scripture, and if you don't believe God has a body then all of this conjecture is just so much mumbo jumbo to you.

I don't have any idea whether or not God has a body. I kind of think Jesus does, since he specifically told folks to touch him and see that he wasn't just a ghost. I don't think the Mormons have any idea whether God has a body. They think he does. But they are quite specific about their belief concerning the manner of Jesus' conception: They believe no more nor less than what is set forth in the scriptural record of said conception in the Bible. There is apparently nothing in any other books they accept as authoritative that clarifies the situation for them at all.

So Mormons are agnostic on the question of Jesus' conception. Some believe there was an actual physical interaction between a physical God in whose image man was created. Most will go on record saying something like this, "I don't know for sure any more than you do. But my beliefs lead me to suspect the following..."

Any Christian tradition places the conception of Christ among the 'mysteries' not given to man to understand. That is, even if it is something that can be comprehended by the mind of man, this is just one of myriad subjects the Bible didn't see fit to spell out. News flash for fiddler1: the Mormons' pool of 'mysteries' is pretty parellel to the Southern Baptists', and it includes the question of how exactly Jesus was conceived.

There are a lot of other objections one can raise to the Mormons. But I've gone into it, in depth, with them on every point of doctrine. I don't believe Joseph Smith was a prophet. I don't believe the Book of Mormon is scripture. But unlike you, I've read it, and it is an undeniably Christian book. To claim it as scripture is a bit much, but to say that an entire swath of humanity that worships God the Father and his son Jesus Christ is 'non-Christian' because their conception of the truth is different from your own is pure stupidity.

There is a book of theirs, which they treat as 'almost scripture,' that I almost totally do agree with. If you don't know where you fall on whether Mormons are Christians or not, and are tired of the relentless name-calling and vitriol on the subject, get ahold of the Mormon classic, 'Jesus the Christ.' This book is written for Mormons, and is based on the portions of the New Testament that are accounts of the actual birth, life, ministry, death, resurrection and post-resurrection ministry of Jesus.

This book sets forth the exact belief the Mormon Church wants its members to have about Jesus Christ. It has been in publication for nearly a hundred years, and is still published by the Mormon Church for its members today. The original 1915 edition of Jesus the Christ is available on Google Books here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=tSEPAAAAIAAJ&dq=jesus+the+christ+talmage&pg=RA1-PR12-IA1&ots=wZxzJXxOIf&sig=CFVnDk9LjxyspP7fDN-XKqNiz9E&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fq%3Djesus%2Bthe%2Bchrist%2Btalmage%26sourceid%3Die7%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-US%26ie%3Dutf8%26oe%3Dutf8&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1#PRA1-PA5-IA1,M1

I gotta admit, despite my differences with the Mormons and my disagreement with the book's author, James Talmage, about Smith and the Book of Mormon, this is one damn good book. It may not convince me that the Mormons are the church they claim to be, but it does convince me of two things:

1. Jesus is the Christ. This book is worthy of any theologian worth his salt, and should be read on that basis alone. It will not convince you about the Mormons, but it will give you new insight on the divinity of Jesus Christ. For this book alone, the Mormons deserve a break from all the bashing.

2. Mormons, for all their weirdness, are indeed Christians. Their belief in Christ is set forth explicitly in this book, and you will be amazed at how distorted your view of them as non-Christians has been when you finish it.

Now, I realize I've just offended more than half of you by stating my opinion that Mormons are actually Christians. Note that I have not mentioned whether I believe they are headed for heaven or hell on account of what I believe to be their egregious errors in doctrine and attribution. However, the Catholics also claim the pope to be the Vicar of Christ and the priest to be Christ's surrogate on earth, and I don't see anyone who disagrees with that proposition labeling them 'non-Christian.' Many believe the Catholics are headed to the same hell the Mormons are. Then, many Catholics believe any protestant or evangelical or Mormon needs baptism by a priest to be saved from eternal damnation.

So far as I can tell, the Mormons believe God will judge you on a case-by-case basis. I'm a big fan of C.S. Lewis, and he makes the case for this type of judgement as well, and he was no fan of the Mormons.

Bottom line: I judge the Mormons, based on my own beliefs, as sincere but misguided folks with an undeniably Christian theology with many unrealistic 'add-ons.' Of course, this has been said about Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, and probably Episcopalians, Lutherans and Unitarians as well.

Is there an absolute Truth? Yes. Do you know it? No. Neither do the Mormons. Far from it. But do I trust them to have a similar moral, religious and cultural outlook as me? Enough overlap so that I would vote for Mitt Romney to be President of the United States?

Absolutely, unequivocally, one hundred percent yes. There is absolutely nothing in his weird religious views that would lead me to think that he views any political question from a substantially different point of reference than I do. This includes gay marriage, polygamy and any other innovative arrangements for the destruction of the family. So far, Romney is the only Republican in the mix that I do trust, and so he will probably get my vote in 2008.

Unless Ronald Reagan gets resurrected before then.

And povidus:

"Last I checked, the Southern Babtist Convention still classified them as a cult."

Yeah, no conflict of interest there.

When you want to know about what Jews believe, do you consult a Jew or an anti-Semite?

When you want to know what a Mormon believes, do you consult an avowed anti-Mormon?

I know, I know. Just because you're anti-Mormon doesn't mean you're wrong about them any more than being anticommunist makes you wrong about the communists.

I'm not saying that. I'm just saying I know enough Mormons whose views on social and moral questions are so diverse that I can say unequivocally that even though the overwhelming majority of Mormons are as rock-solid conservative as one can be, one need not be a conservative to be a Mormon. Just look at that slime Harry Reid. How that guy doesn't get booted out of the Mormon church I don't know.

Maybe because his shady Vegas land deals provide the church with hefty amounts of tithing money.

Mormons are as capable of diverse opinion as anybody else. They are as capable of criminality, adultery, divorce, cruelty. Of kindness, goodness, honesty and courage. Nothing in my experience with them leads me to the conclusion that 'cult' describes their organization. The fact that some interested parties still relentlessly describe them this way tells me more about the honesty of those putting forth the description.

JimmyJoe:

I apologise for my repeated references to Catholics. That was solely for example. As you can tell by my ignorance of Catholic belief, I'm no Catholic. However, let me be first to say I don't believe either the Catholics or the Mormons are headed for hell en masse.

As far as your assertion that I think everybody is out of step except me, way to go, Mr. Mindreader.

Is it now wrong to state one's opinion, clearly labeled as such? I'm sorry that my own ignorance of Catholic doctrine jaundiced your view of me.

My point was to please not tar the Mormons with the non-Christian brush.

You think that since I have obvious differences with Mormon beliefs, I can't trust Romney? How in the world could you vote for a non-Catholic?

What happens when a man whose agnostic political views on abortion are challenged by stark reality? Romney's previous position on abortion is informed by a concern for individual rights--and sadly uninformed by knowlege of what constitutes an individual.

When he dove into the stem-cell debate with both feet, Romney was forced, finally, to answer a question many of us can leave unanswered: just what constitutes an individual, and when does that individual begin to receive moral and legal status?

I remember Glenn Beck (also a Mormon) excoriating Romney for his positions on abortion. He did so in Mormon terms: "Mitt, you of all people should know why your position on Life is indefensible, and you know what I'm talking about."

I'm inclined to think Romney regrets the positions he took in Massachusetts to get himself elected. As a Mormon, he may have had serious misgivings about saying a lot of that stuff.

I wouldn't trust Ted Kennedy any farther than I can throw him. But it's not because of his religion or lack thereof. I despise the man's views and the policies that have flowed therefrom.

Romney, on the other hand, has had a steady stream of good policy that flowed from his administration. It was an island of good sense in a sea of idiocy known as the People's Republic of Massachusetts.

I think Romney would appoint judges that would make you very, very happy. I think he would weather the anti-Romney press nationally just as he has in Massachusetts. I think he would be more willing than most to make the hard decisions when it comes to the struggle against Islamic fascism. I think he would be more willing to use the veto pen than Bush is.

He's not my ideal candidate. That is Reagan, and Reagan's gone. But in this field, I'm with Ann Coulter.

Sorry again for my ignorance of Catholic belief.

No need to fear a Mormon candidate

Just like the Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Catholics, we Mormons are flawed but lovable human beings. Like the rest of those who profess to be Christians, we believe doctrines that some find strange, and we interpret the Bible in ways with which others disagree, and we live our lives at times in less-than-Christian ways (for which we repent). Ideally, we are all trying to worship and follow our Savior Jesus Christ--the one foretold throughout the Old Testament and manifested in the New Testament.

Like the denominations in the Nicene Creed tent, the Mormon religion rather successfully teaches its adherents to love all of humanity, to be honest in our dealings with others, and to do all the things that make for good, productive citizenship. If you ever spent much time among our faithful, you would see that we sincerely strive to be kind people to all. So, how did those who post such vitriolic, anti-Mormon comments become so frightened and distrustful? What do they fear? If they knew how much their Mormon fellow Americans yearned for harmony, friendship, and cooperation in ensuring a free, safe, wholesome nation, they would not fear us.

While I haven't decided whether I will support my fellow Mormon Romney (I wish a principled, war-tested, charismatic, authentic conservative such as Oliver North were running), I confess that I am tempted to support him just out of a defensive reflex because of the nasty anti-Mormon remarks I keep seeing in the trailbacks on various commentaries.

I may be wrong

but I was told by Mormon missionaries that they believe the Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ failed and became heretical in approximately its first 100 years. That is why it was necessary for the Father to send an angel to Joseph Smith so that the Church started by the Lord could be re-established. I aked the missionaries why they would try to convince people to join an organization that failed the first time. Also, how could a Church started by the Second Person of the Holy Trinity fail?

All that being said, Romney's Mormon faith would not be a determining factor in whether or not I would vote for him.

"Fail?"

So they said it was a failure?

My impression was that the death and resurrection of the Church was to Mormons symbolic of the "death" and rebirth each of them must undergo to become followers of Christ.

Read any Christian commentary on being born again if that concept eludes you.

As to whether the early Christian church failed.

Just because it could not convince a majority to its belief is not indicative of failure. With various changes to the original product introduced by such luminaries as Constantine, plus a heavy dose of official propaganda, Christianiy was able to become a very dominant religion.

Through all the changes and corruption, the original message of Jesus manages to shine through. The Mormons believe the original church died with the apostles, and what we have today is a dead remnant--and that a restoration was necessary, complete with apostles, pastors, teachers, etc.

You may not agree that they are that restoration. But a look at the evolution of Christian belief shows that their belief that the original church had disappeared is hardly revolutionary. Luther had the same idea--and we got hundreds of years of wars between the Catholics and the "non-Christian" protestants.

America itself was founded in large part by adherents to sects viewed by large numbers in England and Europe as apostate and "not Christian." In that regard, the Mormons' trek across the plains parallels the flight of these various unpopular religious groups to America seeking to worship by the dictates of their own conscience.

Small wonder Mormons today are among the staunchest defenders of the Constitution, even though in their church's infancy their forbears were denied the rights of property and protection from violence guaranteed by that document. They understand that only by maintaining popular support for the Constitution as our nation's ground rules can they have a hope to escape future persecution on a par with what they've experienced in the past. As the Constitution goes, so goes the safety of the Mormons--and they know it. The Jews have a bit of that understanding as well, although their persecution happened largely in Europe and the Near East.

This is fundamentally why I'm not against Romney "because he's a Mormon." He'll be pretty reliable on maintaining the Constitutional protection of Christianity because whether you think he's a Christian or not, he thinks he is--and his particular offshoot of the tree has come in for some pretty serious persecution in the past.

JMadison

I do not believe that the Church established by the Son of God could do anything but stay faithful to Him and thrive. To those who believe otherwise, I ask if God couldn't establish a Church that could stay faithful to Him and thrive, then who could? If God can't and no one else can, it all sounds pretty futile to go around starting churches.

Gunny

I dont know why you bother either. First, you werent even posting under this article; then along comes Kimberly.. and along comes YOU!

NEITHER of you is being productive or trying to communicate a point of view. Kimberly no doubt needles you, and has in the past, but posting just to name-call is not just beneath you, but a total waste of time and space. And is part of the problem. If you have a problem with Kimberly's "drive by" - then the best thing you can do is ignore it.

My God is better than your God

I wish I could not believe what I am reading here, but in
fact I have been hearing these arguments all my long life.

If you happen to be born on a side of the world where
Christianity barely exists, if you happen to be born to
Hindu parents, or to Navajo spirit lovers, or whatever, you are going to hell. What's more if your interpretation of a few passages in the Bible are different from the interpretation of those same passages from my interpretation then you will go to hell. If your
Bible is vastly different from mine you will go to
hell. In fact, it is amazing how many people are going
to hell. The halls of the many mansions will be
echoing with emptiness. And my guess is that the last
person to squeak on in will not be those who are
condemning everyone else to hell here.

My question is, who wants to spend an eternity with that
God! Not me, thank you very much. And if you bother
to tell me that I WON'T be spending an eternity with that
God then I will say to you that it is the nicest and most
reassuring thing you have ever said to me. Nearly every
earthly father I know is better than that God, for all
their faults.

God created the world and He created ALL of mankind. We
are all his children, whether we live up to his expectations and standards or not. And none of us live
up to his standards. Not one. He still loves us all.

Meanwhile, this is a free country. Supposedly we can
vote for whom we wish without recrimination. Pick the
guy or gal who has the same goals and mission in life
as you do.

If you believe that your responsibility in this world is
to make this place a better place to live, if you believe
that Jesus' mission should be your mission - feed the
hungry, cure the sick, tend the garden, shelter the
homeless, presume that all people of any color, race, or sect (and cult) are God's children, then chances are you will vote Democrat. If making money and/or desiring to
be left alone is your ultimate goal in life, you will probably vote Republican (from what I gather after reading the postings after each column after column after column). But maybe Town Hallers are not typical Right Wingers.

We do not ask what is in it for us; we ask - how can
we show that we love what Jesus did for us. We KNOW
that there will always be those who will take advantage
of us. That is hardly, however, reserved for the poor. Witness all the recent scandals that got the Democrats
back in power. Christ did not say, take care of the rich. He did say that the poor will always be with us. If you are able to pull one person up by the bootstrap, there will always be another behind him needing your services. That is a given. That is life.

If you don't like the programs that Mitt Romney will
be supporting, then by all means don't vote for him.
But don't have the termerity to believe that you are
free to determine whether he is a Christian or not.
That is not your preserve.

Just remember that David, Israel's greatest king, was
in some ways an evil and greedy man. (Aren't we all!) That does not mean that he wasn't the right man for the job. What he accomplished for Israel was amazing, often in spite of himself.

As for John Kerry's flip flop, he eventually got smart.
Too bad those who were in power didn't.

reply to aurorawatcher

I often read comments about what members of the LDS church believe that are wrong; but I don't usually have the time to respond to offer a correction. Sometimes, the comments are so insulting though that I just have to respond.

So, here I go.

1. The church does NOT teach that became God the Father. What does such a statement even mean?

2. I suppose Jesus maybe did have to work his way to Godhood, but by the time he created this world and indeed countless other worlds under the direction of God the Father, he had obtained the status of Godhood. In other words, as far as any imagineable time-frame for us is concerned, Jesus Christ, Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, has been and is God. He was born to a mortal mother and received his physical body at that point. The New Testament says he "increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and Man" (Luke 2:52), Which indicates that having taken on a physical body Jesus Christ went through a "similar" process that all of God's children pass through in mortality, however he was still perfect; still Jehovah; still God.

That's a long answer to your statement, but it teaches truth rather than some sort of innuendo.

3. The church does NOT teach that Jesus is Satan's little brother. Jesus Christ was the first-born child of God, and the only physically begotten child of God. What the church has to say about Satan in this context is that he also was spiritual offspring of God. The bible refers to Satan, Lucifer, as the "son of the morning". One who held a position of power and influence in the pre-mortal realm, but who fell through aspiring to the throne of God.

4. The church does NOT teach that Adam was the father of Jesus Christ. God the Father, Elohim, was the father of Jesus Christ. The church does not teach HOW it happened. I would assume that however it happened was according to God's will. I am sure that an all powerful, omnipotent God could easily cause Mary to conceive his literal offspring and still have her remain a virgin.

5. You said this: "Joseph Smith taught that if the Holy Spirit had impregnated Mary we would all get pregnant with the Holy Spirit indwells in us."

I'm not sure what you are talking about; your grammer leaves something to be desired. But, in this case it sounds similar to an argument that makes sense which is: It wasn't the Holy Spirit that impregnated Mary, it was God. Jesus Christ is the literal off-spring of God the Father, not the Holy Spirit. He is the only begotten of the father. The Holy Spirit had a role in the conception but it did not cause her to become pregnant just as it does not cause anyone else to become pregnant when it dwells within us.

6. Christ's Atonement was infinite and eternal. He paid for the sins of all of God's children and it is sufficient to cover all. However, as indicated in Matthew 7:21 "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdon of heaven, but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven."

It is only through the Grace of Christ that any of God's children can be saved, but indeed, the Atonement of Christ will not send the unrepentent to Heaven. It will redeem to the point of resurrection to a perfect immortal body, but, once again, the scriptures - and logic - are pretty clear that we have to do our part too.

Finally - and this is not directed to aurorawatcher, but to some here who would disparage Mitt Romney because of some bigoted and vain belief that he must be gullible or stupid to believe in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day-Saints.

I'll put Mitt Romney's "Mormon" intellect up against yours anytime. Heck, I'll put mine up against yours anytime. But someone as qualified Mitt Romney is so far above your petty sniping that you embarass yourselves in making such statements.

I extend appreciation to the many who have made sane and reasonable comments regarding Mitt and also regarding Mormons.

Lemonade

Check out this article:
http://www.philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

Mormon vs Fiscal Restriant?

I dunno if it matters that Romney is a Mormon? A former president was totally shameless and immoral and a Baptist. So, I guess it boils down to national security, patriotism, family values, gub'ment intervention in our lives, and spending principles. The jury is still out for me. We need to make up a score card for the candidates on these issues? I liked the one I saw somewhere? Who was it Ron Paul?

to Virginia Daddy and Jimmy Joe

Did I miss anyone here?

What I said is that Republicans "are likely" and Democrats
are "more likely. I was not making blanket statements. I even said that maybe others, outside
of the TownHall Arena, are not like those who spend something in the vicinity of 25% of their day posting on TH. I also did not say that money was the only issue. I
said that they also want to keep government out of their lives (I don't want to pay taxes, I don't want to register my to be prevented from smoking where and when
I please, on and on, or as I see it - don't make any
law that makes me do something I don't want to do.) Sounds like my kids when they were teenagers.

But you are right. I did forget one issue, or make that
two - abortion and gay marriage. All of my siblings
have remained on the Republican side of the ticket for
this alone, no matter what else appeals to them . During
the last Bush election at least two of them that Bush
was the worst thing that came down the pike, but they
still voted for him.

To which I would say: Roe vs Wade happened decades ago
and nothing has changed. You are throwing your vote away
if this is what you vote for every election day. There
are other issues in this world, believe it or not.

I cannot say that I made my decision lightly. But I
have made my decisions for personal reasons. One is
that I have had a sister who was raped when she was in
college. She was flushed out the next morning, never
knowing if she had become pregnant or not. She has not
lost any sleep over that particular side of the horrible
event. Another sister (I have five) believed the guy
when he said I will never leave you, babe. That was a lie. He was gone within weeks of the pregnancy. She went to an adoption agency (they still existed back then)
and gave up her child. She found out later that when he
was a teenager he committed suicide. During the last
year of my father's life, he begged to die. Not everyone
wants to be alive.

The point I am making here is that if a fetus had the
ability to make a decision as to whether it wants to
come into the world, the answer would not always be "yes"
and this is just a guess, but I think that those whose
mothers say they don't want to have this kid would be
high on the list or those who would take a pass.

Second, if a person has a "right" to life, it will live.
The mother is deciding whether it will be born to her
at that time or not. God will decide whether it was
a selfish or murderous decision on the part of the mother. That is not the State's job, which over 50% of
the people in the US have agreed upon - not just the liberals.

At the risk of getting long-winded here, the charity
map has many nay-sayers. I read these statistics a few
years back in one of the Conservative Christian pubications. Perhpas Christian Heritage, but I am not
sure. They made a list of all the states by the %
of money they give to charity. I remember that at least
the top three were very Southern States. The most giving
state was Mississippi.

At the risk of sounding like a grinch, but I did spend
a couple of years in Mississippi, I know that the deep
south religious right tend to give to their churches 10% tithe which is higher than the giving of other people. However, to me that is like saying I gave 10% of my income to my daughter's private music choir. It is rather self-serving. I will help keep this organization
afloat because it serves me and mine.

I will also add that the same publication (not in the
same issue) mentioned that those churches who do not
allow women to vote, be part of the clergy, or governing
body are far less likely to give to charities
and programs beyond themselves except for missionary
work in Africa, China, etc. This kind of church is found
all over the deep south, hard as it is to believe in
this day and age.

Anyway, charity is a good thing. I hope we all keep it
up and I would sincerely wish that more people would
see that our government should also "tithe" its income.

I Trust Romney's Conversion

As a few of the posters have indicated, it doesn't really matter that Romney is a Mormon (even though that is, for a Mormon voter such as me, a little icing on the cake). Consider the spectrum of Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid.

As Kathleen Parker points out, it does matter whether or not Romney has integrity. It does matter whether his conversion on abortion was sincere and not politically motivated. It also matters whether he is sincere in his stand in opposition to same-sex marriage.

I have no doubt that on the marriage issue there was no flip-flop. His position seems consistent there: he is in favor of gay rights on several issues but is opposed to extending those rights to the point of corrupting the institutions of marriage and family. I personally differ with him about "gay" people needing more rights than they already have; they seem to have the same rights that everyone else has already. However, I see no inconsistency in Romney's stance.

On the issue of abortion, I trust that his current position there is sincere. I'm glad he changed his mind and wound up on the right side of the issue. There is some difference of opinion among Mormons on the abortion issue; but based on many years of conversations with my fellow Mormons, I would venture a guess that most Mormons are opposed to the permissiveness of Roe v Wade--Romney's current stance.

It took some political courage for him to have a change of heart on the matter, particularly since his mother once campaigned as a so-called pro-choice candidate. And I believe that we in the pro-life camp do welcome converts as readily as the Mormon Church does, don't we?

Ultimately, can he be trusted? He strikes me as at least as trustworthy as any other politician.

FellowAmerican

FellowAmerican: "Ultimately, can he be trusted? He strikes me as at least as trustworthy as any other politician."

Gulp!