“There have been discussions at LDS church headquarters about both the positive and negative aspects of Romney’s presidential bid,” a person briefed on the talks said. “One concern is that Romney’s campaign could further energize evangelical antipathy toward the church. Another concern is that he could take positions that would complicate the church’s missionary efforts in the U.S. or other countries such as in Central and South America.” But on the positive side, the person said, “having a Mormon president could raise the church’s profile and legitimize it in other countries.” (Reuters)

Imagine what kind of things newspapers and blogs will be covering Mormonism if President Romney is successfully elected? If he even goes to an LDS ward every week? The Mormon Church has control over Correlation, but it does not have control over the New York Times.

1. Lots of upcoming opportunities to publicly expose the ugly history and theology of Mormonism.
2. Lots of infuriating spin upcoming from the LDS PR department.
3. Lots of Mormon bitterness and resentment toward evangelicals after the dust settles (no matter who wins).

I happen to find Mitt Romney a highly appealing candidate. I have talked with him personally, and twice heard him give compelling stump speeches. His Texas speech earlier this month on the subject of religion in the electoral process was statesmanlike, accurate, anything but boilerplate, and in very many ways helpful. He steered us all away from the glib implication we hear so often that it’s a simple or desirable thing to separate church and state.

Romney was more thoughtful on the subject than any major candidate I’ve heard in my lifetime.

Indeed, his very thoughtfulness makes me want to be very careful when I raise the question: How does a person’s Mormonism affect his or her possible role as president of the United States?

But just because I’m obliged to ask the question carefully doesn’t mean I’m out of bounds in asking the question. I applauded when Romney stressed: “[Some] would prefer it if I would simply distance myself from my religion, say that it is more a tradition than my personal conviction, or disavow one or another of its precepts. That I will not do.” Nor should he; that is part of his personal character.

But this integral and holistic nature of the person is also exactly what makes it not just right, but necessary, to ask—even in detail—just how what this man believes “religiously” affects all the rest of his behavior.

So it’s not bigotry for Americans to ask of Mormons they know: “Why so secretive? Why the necessity to hide so much?” One of the hallmarks of the historic Christian faith—as opposed to some of the cults it has spun off—is its eagerness to say: “Check us out! We may have embarrassing moments in our past, but we have no secrets.” We’re like Jesus saying to Thomas: “Feel the nail prints. Thrust your hand into my side!”

And in the same way it’s not bigotry for Americans in general to ask that of Mormons they know, it’s not bigotry to ask the same question of the man who this year is Mormonism’s most prominent and celebrated member.

IDEAS: I find myself wondering how you feel about even having to answer certain questions about your beliefs, like the one raised by Governor Huckabee about the relationship between Jesus and Satan?

BALLARD: In some ways, I think this matter of religion has got way out of whack, gone way beyond anything we’ve ever seen in the political arena before.

IDEAS: When you say it’s out of whack, what do you think would be appropriate?

BALLARD: At some point, in fairness, we ought to be hearing from the candidates as to what they would do to resolve the economy, what they would do to resolve the world affairs situation. Somehow, if the religious side could be set aside long enough for people to be able to evaluate each candidate – I don’t care who they are – as to how they’re going to solve the real problems, and there are real problems facing America. I just hope that we get some time along the way to be able to hear, really, what the solutions are being offered. We’ve got almost an obsession with this other side.

Many of them believe that if the G.O.P. nominates Romney — much less if the country elects him as President — Mormons will gain a stronger hand in the all-important business of saving souls. To them, the stakes of that struggle are as great or greater than any fight about a political office.

The impossible balancing act is stressing the political irrelevance of the theological differences Mormonism really does have with Christianity while simultaneously claiming that this very same religion, whose distinctive substance is supposed to be irrelevant, informs and shapes his “values” that he will rely on to make judgements about policy. Another part of the balancing act (which is where it becomes really dangerous politically) is to declare that it is “un-American” to judge a candidate based on his religion without insulting the millions of voters who consider a candidate’s religion an important part of selecting their preferred candidate, while also paying homage to the “separation of church and state” without actually endorsing the idea that the separation of church and state has any constitutional basis (which a fairly large number of religious conservatives doesn’t accept). His speech will have to go something like this: “My faith, which is very important to me and has made me who I am, should not be important to you, but it is important that we have a person of faith leading this country, and that person happens to be me.”

Whatever happens, I’ll be at the edge of my seat waiting to see if Mitt is honest in portrayal of Mormonism.

Let’s quit tiptoeing around the question of whether Republican Mitt Romney’s Mormon religion will be an issue in his bid to become President of the United States.

Of course it will matter. And it should.

Voters have every right to be curious and concerned about a candidate’s beliefs – especially a candidate like Romney, who keeps talking about the importance of faith in his life.

Romney’s not a run-of-the-mill believer. Before entering politics, he served as a Mormon bishop, presiding over several congregations in Massachusetts.

There’s little chance that a devout follower of Rastafarianism, the Unification Church or the Nation of Islam – not just a believer, but a leader – could expect to run for high political office and not get a couple of questions about what they believe and what public actions they took as a church leader.

Romney has gotten a few. He told CBS News he is a “true-blue through-and-through” believer, but also said, “My church wouldn’t endeavor to tell me what to do on an issue, and I wouldn’t listen to them on an issue that related to our nation.”

Those contradictory statements won’t cut it. And they don’t sidestep the plain fact that Mormonism, like the other faiths I mentioned, is not a Christian religion.

This is a sore point with Romney and other Mormons, who emphasize their reverence for Jesus, belief in His divinity, and the fact that the religion’s official name is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Those protests hold little water with leaders of most Christian denominations. In 2001, the Catholic doctrinal office (then headed by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now the Pope) decreedMormons must be re-baptized to join the Catholic Church.Methodists, Presbyterians and Baptists have similar official disclaimers.

The reasons are clear to anyone who stayed awake through Sunday School and takes a look at the Mormon holy books, including the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

Mormons, it turns out, believe human souls have existed for all eternity, temporarily inhabit physical bodies and can eventually evolve into gods. They also believe the Garden of Eden was in Missouri and that tribes from Israel traveled to what is now America, built ancient cities and fought epic battles…