It's impossible to be a good Mormon and also serve as an impartial U.S. president.
When it comes down to the wire, the wishes of the Mormon "prophet" and the interests of the Mormon church will prevail over what's good for the country. That's what the temple oath means.
The difference between catholic JFK and a Mormon president is that JFK never swore his life away in a secret temple ceremony. BIG difference.
A good Mormon would be one who swore oaths in the temple and wears the garments to prove it. Romney does.
One of the oaths is that he will give all that he has,even his own life if necessary, for the building up of the (Mormon) kingdom on earth and the establishment of Zion.
Romney's REAL allegiance is to Mormonism unless he takes his garments off and renounces his oath.
I'm not a Romney supporter but the wishes of special interests, favored corporations and industries, political parties, unions and state political machines come before the general welfare of the U.S. in almost every administration.
If Mitt is rich, powerful, and connected, he'll do whatever he wants to, church or not. Just my opinion.
Some will get creeped out by his religion, but more people will get turned off by the too-square jaw and think he's a fakey-pants rich guy, and Obama will squeak by in victory.
That's my prophecy for 2012, and you can take it to the Kirtland (anti-) Bank.
There was a much greater difference betwen Kennedy & Romney. I was around back then & recall all the talk about people fearing the Pope would run the nation through Kennedy. It was actually quite laughable, since Kennedy was no practicing Catholic & was infinitely more concerned with politics & women than whatever the Vatican thought he should be doing.
HUGE difference with Romney in that respect, but in giving the matter some thought, I'm not entirely sure that the position of President would allow him to inject his religion into dealing with the world scene as much as people think it would.
Yes, he could insist on blessing the White House food at each meal, and spread some other minor doctrinal preferences in a limited setting, but I don't think he's quite stupid enough to try to run the nation along church lines, or to make major policy decisions according to what the church feels he should do.
It certainly wouldn't make him any friends in Congress, beyond the Utah delegation, and he does have to work with those people to a certain extent.
Not defending him. Just not as concerned about Monson working the puppet as some people are.
It's hard to distinguish him much from any of the other Republican Massachusett governors who preceded him in recent decades (e.g. William Weld). Slightly different policies for different time periods, but the basic orientation is the same.
Pardon my French, but Romney lives his life so far up the ass of the non-Mormon elite political establishment that it's hard not to laugh at the notion of him earnestly consulting with and taking advice from the Mormon prophet.
I even doubt he would tap a significant number of Mormons for staffing purposes. There would inevitably be more than usual, but not that much more. Even more important, the "President" is for the most part simply a face used to anthropomorphize the Executive Branch of government. The actual human whose face appears on TV under the label "President" and whose voice reads off the words on the teleprompter is largely a stage prop, signer of documents, and pronouncer of policies, but is far from being the all-powerful controller of Executive Branch actions and policies that is portrayed in Hollywood movies.
To revert briefly back to my LE background again, I'll use it as an illustration of the fact that sometimes the framework and demands of the job simply don't allow for what most would consider a devoutly religious approach to it.
One of the guys I worked with for several years (as just the most noteworthy example) was a bishop for most of those years. He was also one of my fellow cops that I respected the most. He maintained his beliefs, but did so privately, and recognized that life on the street held no room for a kindly "Bless you my child, go and sin no more" style, or an autocratic theology-based "Thou shalt not" application of his own morals & standards. He handled business like business needed to be handled, according to the demands that the job entailed in the environment where it was conducted, not according to what he thought the church would have approved of. He believed deeply in his church, but was still capable of understanding that the church's ideals could not be an overriding governor of his job and conduct in it. There were many other LDS church members in uniform who did the same.
Romney, as any President does, would have so much going on at so many different levels of complexity working with so many policy advisers, department heads, and Congress itself that I simply don't believe there'd be much time or room for church influence that'd amount to anything at all.
You can get Tricia Erickson's book on Amazon.com. Just type in the title "Can Mitt Romney Serve Two Masters?". Please tell all of your friends. If they read this book, they will be armed with the truth on Romney both politically and spiritually. We need to start a cult of following of this book, nationwide, so that Americans will be armed with facts and take this Mormon "kingdom of god" would be president down!
If he acts like a good Mormon he will be under suspicion because his allegiance will be for the good of the Mormon church.
If he dismisses the Mormon church, he will be viewed as someone who breaks his promises, since he made covenants to the church.
The only way to be excused from these two situations is to speak out against his involvement in the church. But if he does, then people will accuse him of flip flopping to do what is convenient.
He's in a bad situation. He's going to play the "don't pick on me because of my religion" card and avoid the topic.