And a lot of them, I'd say the vast majority, actually are; they just don't realize they're rejecting foundational LDS doctrines in the process. I know the Kennedy comparison is popular, but Kennedy was just Roman Catholic laity, not a Bishop, and didn't spend eight years as the head of Bostons diocese (Wikipedia claims that's the closest analogy to a Mormon "stake", and that Romney led the Boston Stake from 1986-1994). If he had, I imagine those questions about whether President Kennedy would take his orders from Rome would've been a bit more pointed. He certainly wouldn't have been able to dismiss unanswered questions about what his beliefs even are when he presided over the very priesthood responsible for teaching and maintaining those beliefs in congregations.

We're not talking about someone like Harry Reid, who's a lay Mormon (but didn't let that stop him criticizing the churchs official support for Prop. 8) with political beliefs a lot better known than his religious ones. We're not even talking about Jon Hunstman (to whom Romney is related through one of the original LDS "Twelve Apostles") claiming to be spiritual rather than religious. We're talking about a "ward bishop" who led the Boston Stake for nearly a decade and whose fathers eligibility to even BE President was disputed on the grounds that he was born in Mexico while his father and mothers were on the run from the US government for practicing plural marriage. Like I say, anyone concerned about Huckabee being President and a priest should be at least as concerned about Romney, who would be the same thing except that he's:

1) a far HIGHER RANKING priest and

2) far LESS OPEN about what he believes and how it would dictate his policy, except in telling us he switched from a pro-choice governor to a pro-life presidential candidate because of his beliefs.

In all fairness, I think that and all Romneys flip flops were more about pandering first to liberal MA voters when he wanted to be governor and now conservative Republican ones when he wants to be President. On the other hand, that mainly indicates someone who will and has espoused ANY political agenda in pursuit of the political power to enact an agenda that's STILL unknown despite the fact he's been running for president for half a decade. All we can know for certain is that Romneys presidential agenda will be consistent with LDS church agenda, not because he's loyal to the latter, but because he's intimately involved with creating and directing it. I might be OK with that if he didn't deflect all questions about it as routinely as other LDS church leaders do but, of course, he does.

At it's core, my problem is this:

1) The Mormon church promotes itself as Christian but

2) is NOT Christian because

3) it consistently affirms non-Christian doctrines that God was formerly a sinful mortal and man will eventually take Gods place by perfecting himself and

4) LDS church leaders take great pains to conceal the above for obvious reasons, making me wonder what else they're concealing as

5) they actively pursue commercial, media and political power for the church throughout the world.

Number 4 is particularly important, both because it reeks of a hidden agenda, and because it means much of the Mormon laity is as genuinely ignorant of non-Christian LDS doctrine as non-Mormons are. There's a face LDS leaders show the world, another they show the general laity, and yet a third they show each other; no one else sees the last one so we can only guess what it is--or elect a Mormon church leader President and let him show us then; if not George Romney after he parlayed business influence into a successful presidential run, then his son a generation later.