Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom. Freedom opens the windows of the soul so that man can discover his most profound beliefs and commune with God. Freedom and religion endure together, or perish alone.

I guess that explains all those Western European nations completely lacking the freedoms enjoyed by the much more religious and therefor much more free South American nations.

Seriously, not even Ted Kennedy...

Unlike orthodox Christianity, Mormon theology is polytheistic, teaching that the Gods organized the universe from pre-existing, eternal, uncreated chaotic elements.

I would never put it that way. I believe in one God manifest in many Persons, and I don't think that fits either the dictionary definition or the connotations of polytheism. However, it is true that Mormons generally reject creation ex nihilo.

It rejects Original Sin.

Not exactly. Mormonism teaches that Christ's Atonement removes the penalty of sin from little children, or anyone else mentally incapable of making moral choices, but all others inevitably sin as a consequence of the Fall and must repent and accept the gospel or be damned. They won't be punished for Adam's transgression, but they'll inevitably have plenty of their own sins, because human nature has become flawed as a result of the Fall.

It rejects Salvation by Grace, teaching that individuals must “work out their own salvation” and “learn to become Gods [themselves] the same as all Gods before have done.”

Most definitely not true. What we reject is salvation by grace alone, which is quite different. Grace is necessary but not sufficient. Works are necessary but not sufficient. While our doctrine on grace and works is at odds with historical Protestantism, it's quite close to the Catholic view.

Incidentally, the first quote is a slight misquote of Paul in the New Testament (Paul says "your" rather than "their"). The second is from a speculative sermon by Joseph Smith that has never been accepted as canon, though it probably reflects the opinions of many Mormons.

At its inception, with the publication of “The Book of Mormon” in 1830, Mormonism rejected the doctrines of Biblical infallibility and Biblical literalism.

True enough. By way of context, most Mormons reject the infallibility of our own distinctive scriptures, as well. The human hunger for certainty being what it is, some Mormons do insist on believing that our scriptures and leaders are infallible. When they discover otherwise, I've noticed a tendency for them to leave the Church and become fundamentalist Christians, finding elsewhere the assurance of certainty they seek.

Romney tried to give the impression that he was unqualified to speak for the LDS Church, referring people to the Church’s website. When confronted with the fact that he has been an LDS Bishop, he tried to give the impression that, in a “lay church,” the calling of a Bishop isn’t important.

A bishop in Mormonism leads a congregation of up to perhaps 300 persons. It would probably be smaller in an area like Boston. But I'm surprised no mention was made that Romney was also a stake president ("stake" meaning "stake of Zion", metaphorically viewed as a big tent held down with stakes, if you're curious.) A stake president supervises five to ten bishops and their congregations. Is that important? I would say yes, but what is the objective metric of importance?

But neither a bishop nor a stake president is a general officer of the Church; both are local officers and are, indeed, not authorized to speak for the Church. Is Romney right then to say that he's unqualified to speak for the Church? Yes. That's not the same as saying he's unknowledgeable about Church doctrine, of course.

It's true that both bishops and stake presidents are lay ministers. Neither is expected to have formal training in theology, which is rare in the Church in any case, and neither is paid for his services. A bishop typically serves for about five years and a stake president for eight, though these are not hard term limits.

Bishops interview, and must approve every person in their Ward boundaries (aka Parish) who wishes to convert to Mormonism and be baptized.

Simply untrue. It is true that a bishop interviews children of members when the child turns eight and is eligible for baptism. A bishop also interviews members for temple recommends, as does the stake president. (Both must approve a recommend.) But a bishop does not interview candidates for convert baptism; these are interviewed by the local mission, over which neither the bishop nor the stake president have any jurisdiction.

Perhaps this is a nit, but it's a nit that suggests the commenter is, shall we say, motivated by something other than careful attention to the truth.

If the would-be-convert is ignorant of certain doctrines, it is the Bishop’s job to instruct them in the theology before approving that person’s baptism.

Also untrue. Responsibility remains with the mission. It is true that local members often work with the missionaries to teach potential converts, but these members rarely include the bishop or stake president (who already have plenty on their plate), but the ultimate responsibility for preparing potential converts for baptism remains with the mission, not the local congregation.

My guess is that Sullivan's commenter is in fact a Mormon, but one who (probably out of political loyalties) is willing to cast his own religion in the weirdest possible light if this will hurt Romney's campaign. But he could be a disaffected Mormon or only pretending to be a Mormon.

[Vomits on keyboard.]