<p>I may be a broken record, er…ah…CD, on this matter but Gov. Romney’s appearance with Tim Russert on MTP did little to enlighten or clarify for me the Mormon Revelation of 1978 regarding racial discrmination and Romney’s own ideas at that time and prior.</p>
<p>He didn’t go far enough. If he had said he agreed, or even disagreed with the teachings of that time I would have applauded him for candor and character. The closest he came to real candor was when he said heard the news of Church President Spencer Kimball’s revelation on his car radio. Romney was in law school in Boston at the time. Again, as Russert pointed out, Romney was an adult (with children, I believe) in 1978. Did Romney accept the Voting Rights Act, Civil Rights Act, Fair Housing Act etc. as law while studying law in 1978? Even Rev. Jerry Falwell eventually acknowledged that his racist sermons of the past and support of Jim Crow were immoral.</p>
<p>The bigger question is if he changed his racist views, whether he simply did so on the orders of his church, or because he really had a change of heart. Because if the former, who knows what he would feel called upon to believe next?</p>
<p>Mind you. the 1978 revelation (as I understand it), allowed folks with dark skin to become priests - it didn’t change church doctrine as to dark-skinned people bearing “the Curse of Cain”. We not only don’t know what he believed in 1978 - we don’t even know what he believes today.</p>
<p>Just a correction–Romney was NOT in law school in 1978. He was in the joint MBA/JD program at Harvard and finished in 1975. So I don’t know what he was doing, but he wasn’t in law school.</p>
<p>Brigham Young- now THAT’s someone to be proud of, I jsut can’t imagine being part of a religion founded by a misoginist, racist pedophile, but thats just me</p>
<p>To be fair to Russert, Romney has changed his mind about so many things that he hardly had time to get through the list, much less get details. Romney just sits with that smile on his face saying that he always felt this way or that, but had to pretend to feel differently because of this or that. My favorite is how he never was pro choice, but couldn’t break his promise to the people of Massachusetts that he was - as one of my law school professors used to say “eyeball twirling.”</p>
<p>I DO find that curious, LakeWashington. This much I am sure of–Romney began his studies at HLS in the fall of 1971. He was in the joint JD/MBA program. In any PR releases from Harvard, he is always referred to as JD '74/MBA '75, which would be when someone who entered the joint degree program in '71 would be expected to graduate. See, e.g., [Multilateral</a> Commencement?<em>?</em>(July-August?*2003)](<a href=“http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/multilateral-commencemen.html]Multilateral”>http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/multilateral-commencemen.html)</p>
<p>Now, it is true that if you take off any significant time, you are allowed to choose whether you want to be a member of the class you began with or the class you finished with. And, it’s possible --though it strikes me as very unusual–that Romney chose to do his Mormon mission during the years he would normally have been in the program. But even then, a mission is normally two years, so he should have finished in '77. </p>
<p>You’ve made me curious, though. I’ll see if I can find anything definitive.</p>
<p>Checked wikipedia. He did his Mormon mission during college–which is the usual pattern. He was born in March 1947. So,if your statement is accurate–I didn’t hear the program myself-- he is now claiming that he took off 3 years in the middle of law and business school for some other reason. </p>
<p>Checking this out…
[Mitt</a> Romney - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“Mitt Romney - Wikipedia”>Mitt Romney - Wikipedia)
I note that he went to work for Boston Consulting when he finished the B school in 1975. He switched jobs in 1978. He was NOT a student in 1978. So, if he really did say that, he said something that is not true.</p>
<p>“To be fair to Russert, Romney has changed his mind about so many things that he hardly had time to get through the list, much less get details.”</p>
<p>We don’t know if he changed his racist beliefs. His church still holds to the “curse of Cain” doctrine. He says he believes wholeheartedly in the doctrine of his Church. There are no examples of his beliefs differing from the doctrines of his Church, as far as I am aware.</p>
<p>JFK answered forthrightly the question of how he would respond to an order from the Pope. Romney’s response to a similar question have been less than forthcoming.</p>
<p>What mindless discussion. There is no proof presented so far to show that Romney the individual has any racial bias today. Simply because you don’t like his religion for what you think are some of its tenants does not mean Romney feels the same say. This is just more Republican bashing using the falacy of assocation.</p>
<p>You Democrats have a former member of the KKK as one of your U.S. Senators and that does not seem to bother you.</p>
<p>All people are children of God – that certainly sounds like he believes all people are equal. That’s good enough for me. If it’s not for you, then I would suggest you fine some more information other than that Tim Russert didn’t ask a few more questions.</p>
<p>Nope. According to Latter Day Saints theology, dark skinned people are indeed the children of God, and always have been, but wear the mark of sin - “the Curse of Cain” on their bodies. </p>
<p>So - did he believe all people were created equal BEFORE 1978? Did he teach racism to his children? Does he still teach racism? We do know that Romney says he embraces “wholeheartedly” the doctrines of his Church. Did he weep because he now felt free no longer to teach racism? Today, in 2007, that means that dark-skinned people bear the curse of Cain on their bodies. I should think that should be good enough for you. </p>
<p>I dearly hope he flipflopped, and not on the basis of what his leaders told him to do. But I don’t see any evidence for it. </p>
<p>I’m saying that if Romney follows the tenets of his religion, including deciding whether or not to teach racism based on the revelations of his Church’s leader, he should be effectively disqualified from the Presidency, much as JFK should have been disqualified if he followed the missives of the Pope. </p>
<p>He can believe what he likes: the issue is not religion, but his character.</p>
<p>no offense but this is driving me crazy ( and I know I dont use correct punctuation)
The word you want is tenets, not tenants. A tenet is any opinion, principle, dogma, or doctrine which a person or group believes or maintains, such as the tenets of Plato or of UNESCO</p>
<p>I’m guessing that there is something in every religion that even a true believer doesn’t actively believe or support. That doesn’t qualify him or her as a hypocrite.</p>
<p>Religion continually changes…at one time, it was heresy not to believe that the earth was the center of the universe.</p>