That said, I also have no problem voting for Romney if he was the GOP nominee, and among the "big three" the media are pushing, I'd prefer him over McCain or Giuliani. IF it comes down to those three, I'd vote for Romney in the primary. I have some problems with his flip-flops, but not on his personal background.
What seems to missing here is that Romney is to Mormonism what Kennedy was to Catholicism. All these anti-Catholic bigots were panicked that if Kennedy was elected, he'd be a puppet for whatever the Pope wanted, and in reality Kennedy was as divorced from Catholic beliefs as you could be and still be a nominal "practicing Catholic". Kennedy didn't give a hoot what John XXIII thought, or any other pope. I'd say the same is true with Romney. Yeah, the guy was baptized Mormon, fulfilled all the basic requirements, and did Missionary work in France as a teen, but I don't think he spends his daily life contemplating about the angel Moroni. Mitt Romney does not strike me as a hardcore Mormon at all and I can't see him sitting in the Oval Office calling up Gordon Hinkley with advice on how to run the country.
I don't get the "Evangelical issue" either. You guys keep saying "Evangelicals think this", "Evangelicals will do that". As a Catholic, I can't tell the difference between "Evangelicals" and regular Protestants. I lump them all in together. A Protestant is a Protestant. Are Evangelicals supposed to be "born again" (Jimmy Carter was a born again Christian, means nothing to me). Are Evangelicals supposed to be more passionate and open about their faith? Harriet Miers is "evangelical" and she sure seemed pretty secular to me. Someone help me out here. I don't see "Evangelicals" dealing with Romney any differently than other devout Christians. I seriously doubt any faithful Christian is going to say "oh darn, we have a Mormon as our nominee, we better vote for Hillary instead"
“...I can’t see him sitting in the Oval Office calling up ...”
better fix that for you...
“I can’t see him sitting in his holy underwear in the Oval office calling up...”
This is because the holy underwear is under the suit...
ampu
The difference between Roman Catholicism and mainline protestantism (especially in the case of Anglicans, Episcopalian and Lutherans) is miniscule compared to what Mormons proport to be true doctrine. Most mainline protestants accept the Nicean and Apostle Creeds (perhaps Southern Baptists in different forms) and mostly Anglicans and Episcopalians only disagree with RCs over such matters as Marian philosophy, papal authority and priest celibacy. But to accept LDS, one has to accept that what is in the Gosples are not factual...let me give you an example: In the Book of Matthew, Jesus says “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30). This was Jesus’ answer in response to a question concerning a woman who had been married multiple times in her life – who would she be married to in heaven (Matthew 22:23-28). Mormons don't believe this...they believe in marriage after death and, in the case of plural marriage, a man would have several wives (on different planets).
Romney has held the positions of bishop and stake president in the mormon church. Very few, if any are called to these positions if the higher authorities don't consider them "hard core mormons."
Mitt may not spend his days contemplating about the furtherance of mormonism, but be assured he is well aware of the possibilities for expansion of the faith should he become POTUS.