Again and again, Mitt has avoided the question of his religious beliefs. Ostensibly, he says there ought to be no religious litmus test for a candidate. He goes on to say (I paraphrase, but I can dig up quotes if anyone doubts it), that religion won't influence his decision making (Riiiight. And breathing won't influence the oxygen levels in my blood stream). Such assurances are transparently obvious smokescreens. Basically, he doesn't want to talk about Mormonism because, well, non-Mormons see it as a wacky religion invented by a 19th century charlatan and which has a dark history of violence, racism and sexual abuse. It's not a can of worms that can be easily closed once opened.
Being secular myself, I agree that a candidate's religion ought not to be a deal-breaker, and should not be an important part of the public debate about how that candidate would govern. I believe it is possible to be both religious and capable of executing the laws as written. But Mormonism creates a very specific possible conflict of interest for anyone holding a secular public office: the doctrine of revelation, laid out by Joseph Smith, which says, essentially, that anyone (except black people) can receive a legitimate revelation from God.
Mormonism departed from other religions in this basic idea. Because of the potential for direct contact with God, Mormonism appealed to many converts, and continues to do so. It removed revelation from a rarefied priesthood and essentially democratized it. So the theory goes, if you're a fit enough vessel to receive God's word, then He will speak (or write) through you, and give you instructions. That is, of course, how Smith justified his own personal revelations that formed the basis of Mormonism itself. It is also partly why Mormonism continues to be the fastest-growing religion in the world.
While compelling, the doctrine creates some obvious problems: How do you resolve conflicting revelations given to different people? (The controversial issue of bigamy--er, "celestial marriage"--is one of these little problems). How do you really know whether it's God talking, or something else? A famous 1984 case, in which two Mormon fundamentalists brutally murdered a mother and her baby, was inspired by one such "revelation." Ron Lafferty believed that God told him to kill the two, and apparently convinced his brother, Dan, that the revelation was bona fide (bit of a twist on the old "devil made me do it" defense). This was the subject of John Krakauer's book, Under the Banner of Heaven, which is a great and disturbing read, in spite of the pushback by the LDS church.
So, I agree, leave Romney alone on the issue except for two questions:
a) Do you believe in the doctrine of personal revelation?
If by some miracle he were to answer "yes," rather than give us his standard dodge, then:
b) If you were to receive a revelation that conflicted with American law, would you follow it?
I don't pretend to hope that Romney would even entertain these questions, and I probably wouldn't believe his answer if he did. But for those not familiar with the details of the Mormon faith should be a little unnerved at the idea of a practicing Mormon is sitting in the Oval Office, listening to the voices in his head.