Comments on: Romney defended church’s ‘good and venerable teachings’

By: Caleb Powers

Caleb Powers — Sat, 10 May 2008 23:36:52 +0000

I think Frank is technically correct, that is, that Ms. Corkery was factually wrong. But I think it’s because she didn’t quite say what I think she meant. I think she meant that the Romneys were good public examples of Mormonism. And she’s right. While the Mittster had his moments, he generally handled issues about his religion in a gracious and thoughtful way. I agree that his decision not to get involved in issues of doctrine was correct, and I suspect this decision lends him the air of having weathered the storm that he has. If he’d had to go into that whole Jesus is the brother of Satan thing on national tv, he’d have been sunk. Ditto the whole tribe of Levi thing. Anything he says on these issues is going to alienate someone, and he was quite right to sidestep the whole thing.

In a way, he has become the public face of the Mormon church, bad or good. And I think this medal kind of acknowledges that.

By: David Duke

David Duke — Fri, 09 May 2008 23:34:02 +0000

If Ms Corkery was speaking exclusively about Romney’s words during the campaign, then you’re absolutely right, but if she was speaking about his entire lifetime, then I stand by what I said.

The quote is, “At every turn, (the Romneys) had to explain their faith – to defend the good and venerable teachings of the Mormon Church…” There is no mention of just the 2008 campaign. I would suppose that could be inferred she was speaking of just the campaign, though, and don’t argue that point. I guess I would have had to be there to make that judgment.

By: flockwood

flockwood — Fri, 09 May 2008 20:47:38 +0000

Frank replies:
First of all, I’m not criticizing Gov. Romney or second-guessing the way he responded to questions about his faith.
Yes, Gov. Romney certainly defended his church and his faith, but he did not explain and defend the church’s teachings in 2008, because he said it would be inappropriate to do so on the campaign trail. As a presidential candidate, he said, it wasn’t his job to explain and describe his church’s distinctive doctrines. Most professional political observers said this was precisely the right stand. My point is that the diplomat is factually incorrect when she says Romney defended and explained his church’s TEACHINGS at every turn throughout the campaign.

By: David Duke

David Duke — Fri, 09 May 2008 19:26:05 +0000

He might not have defended the church during his speech in December, and well he should not have because it would have placed all the emphasis on the church and not his campaign, but I will guarantee you that he has had more questions and concerns raised by this faith than any other candidate in my lifetime, including Mr. Lieberman.

I will also guarantee you that he spent more time defending his religion, and teaching it, starting with his mission to France and then as a leader in the LDS church, than any of the other candidates during this election cycle.

It might not have been when the media would have liked it, but to say its revisionist history to say he has not defended his faith is simply not true. Like it or not, the campaign trail is not the place to answer questions like, “So, Mr. Romney, can you explain to us why you believe Joseph Smith saw God and can you explain why there are 4 different accounts of that vision…?” That is no more necessary than asking for an explanation by a Catholic, “Do you really believe in Transubstantiation…? I mean, do you reeeally believe that the bread and wine become literally the body and blood of Christ…?” (I’m not speaking lightly of that belief. If you believe that, you have every right to do so.)

No offense to you Frank, you know what I think of you personally, but if Romney would have opened that can of worms to the media he’d still be answering questions at the Bush Presidential library.

I spent a lot of time in high school, as someone who will never know the limelight that Mr. Romney has known, defending my beliefs to fellow students and teachers to a degree that my friends of other religious persuasions never had to do. Because people simply don’t have any idea how the actual doctrine is disseminated by the LDS church and they ask Joseph Smith to pass “tests” that no prophet, from Adam to Malachi or any of the New Testament apostles could have passed if we knew about them what we know about Joseph, anything written or said by Joseph or his predecessors is automatically thought to be “doctrine” and questions are asked about things that simply don’t matter and aren’t important. “Joseph said there were men on the moon, so he’s a false prophet….”

I would have done the same thing as Romney had I been in his situation.