Hugh Hewitt has written a book, entitled “A Mormon in the White House?” Hugh fiercely debates with anyone who challenges Mitt Romney’s fitness for the Presidency because of his faith. Mr. Hewitt has gone so far as to call anyone, who questions Governor Romney’s fitness for the Presidency because of his faith, a bigot! Is it reasonable to label anyone who questions Governor Romney’s faith and the influence it might have on the performance of his duties as President, a bigot? Are there any parallel examples in history that might be instructive in answering this question?

There are indeed several examples in history that offer some guidance in handling this first-of-its-kind opportunity for a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

Most Presidents prior to the 20^th Century were from mainstream Protestant denominations (Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Methodist, etc.). However, in 1928, America elected its first Quaker president, Herbert Hoover. However, it wasn’t Hoover’s Quaker faith that was the primary focus of the campaign, but his opponent’s Catholic faith (Alfred E. Smith). Richard Nixon, also a Quaker, dodged any question about his faith and its underlying pacifist leanings because of his service during WWII, as a Naval Reserve Officer, deployed in the South Pacific as part of the South Pacific Combat Air Transport Command (SCAT).

The most dramatic Presidential race begging a religious question was the election of the first Catholic President, John F. Kennedy, in 1960. Kennedy delivered his famous “I Believe in an America Where the Separation of Church and State is Absolute” before the Houston Ministerial society on September 12, 1960. The speech is considered the turning point in the campaign allowing Kennedy to finally overcome residual anti-Catholic sentiment amongst the voting public.

It took nearly 200 years for the country to elect a Catholic President. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has not even been in existence for that long.

Jimmy Carter is recognized as the first Born-Again, evangelical President. The Carter campaign (led by Hamilton Jordan) made use of Carter’s professed faith as a counterpoint to the corruption of the Republican party following the Watergate scandal, and President Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon. (Fortunately, Jimmy Carter was a Liberal Democrat, so the media cut him some slack, especially after he appeared in a Playboy interview and confessed to having lusted after other women in his heart!)

Ronald Reagan’s personal religious preference was not in question in 1980, but his association with “right-wing” evangelical groups, such as Rev. Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority was strongly criticized. This criticism was raised again for current President George W. Bush, who openly discussed his conversion. President Bush was further criticized for his association with groups like James Dobson’s Focus on the Family and his appearance at Bob Jones University, which still prohibited inter-racial dating.

Unaccounted for in Hugh’s analysis is the progress in Mormon theology and public persona since its inception. The Modern tenets and practices of the LDS Church have changed over time.

The Mormon Faith began with a rough patch being driven from their homes in the Ohio Valley. Their founder, Joseph Smith was murdered, and the sect fled west, which is how they came to be based in Salt Lake City, Utah. In spite of the terror practiced against them, recent evidence has come to light about a horrific event whereby Brigham Young led the Town of Salt Lake to attack a westward bound wagon train, killing the adults and capturing the children. Genetic testing has proven the link between the families that remained in the Southeast and residents of Utah descendent from that generation.

Originally, Mormonism embraced Polygamy prior to Utah becoming a State and its elimination was a requirement for Statehood. This was the first major step in the progress of the Church’s public rehabilitation as a mainstream Christian sect.

While Church policy may not have formally forbidden membership by African-Americans, few “stakes,” or local LDS Churches, encouraged attendance prior to the 1970’s.

Finally, during the early 1990’s, the Prophet, Ezra Taft Benson, fell ill and public controversy erupted over who was actually leading the Church, emphasizing the “secrecy” of Church affairs at the highest levels.

A similar example of progressive change within a movement is the Pentecostal Church, which was quite radical in the early 1900’s. Pentecostals promoted public demonstrations of the spiritual gifts (speaking in tongues, interpreting prophecy, and healing) as evidence of true conversion. However, from the beginning of the 20^th Century until the 1980’s, the movement’s focus moved further and further away from their original practices. Most Pentecostal Churches today are as quiet and timid as any Presbyterian congregation, and are accepted as members of mainstream Christianity. It is the Evangelical and most especially the Charismatic churches that have continued the tradition of public demonstrations of the spiritual gifts as evidence of true conversion.

Beyond religious preference, however, has been the controversy associated with memberships in politically incorrect societies. Modern Presidents can no longer be members of exclusive clubs that discriminate against women or minorities.

One famous politically incorrect organization is the Masons. Fourteen of our forty-three Presidents were members of the Free Masons. This society is known for its secrecy in beliefs and practices, as well as its exclusive membership practices refusing to admit women and minorities. Not only are the Masons politically incorrect in their membership practices, but most people are distrustful of their “secrecy.”

And this is the crux of the problem remaining for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. The inner workings of the LDS Church are not open to the public, but shrouded in secrecy. While former members have published many of the church’s once secret practices and beliefs, most Mormons are still distrustful of outsiders, which is completely understandable in a culture whose founders were literally driven from their homes for their heretical beliefs. None the less, this secrecy surrounding the Church’s internal operations in combination with their unorthodox Christian theology leave many people doubtful in their acceptance of the LDS Church as a mainstream Christian denomination, and not a cult. After all, it is the secrecy aspect of cults, as much as the blind loyalty that breeds suspicion.

The occasion of Governor Mitt Romney’s entrance into the 2008 Presidential Election provides a perfect opportunity for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints to finally overcome their fear of ridicule or distain by others for their beliefs and practices. By opening up their internal operations and structure for review by the general public, the LDS Church can draw back the curtains of secrecy that have hindered their full acceptance into the Christian community. Theological differences are much easier to accept, when presented in open display, rather than restricted to the “chosen” few.

This progression is not something that can be forced or rushed. This is why Hugh Hewitt’s indignant response to those still uncomfortable with the LDS Church, even as it relates to a secular office like the Presidency, is overblown. The occasion of Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency may be just the catalyst that will lead to that cathartic final step in the Church’s evolution. Until then, there is nothing bigoted about questioning the influence that a religion still shrouded in secrecy has upon the potential actions of a Presidential contender.