Romney Defends His Religious Beliefs

Remove all ads!

T2Bruno, thanks for your explanation. In fact, that explanation about the origin of Satan makes the most sense out of any I've heard. And, if that explanation is correct, then for people to say that Mormons have some sort of heretical/weird belief that Jesus and Satan are brothers is blowing the truth out of proportion. Hell, I'm no more his brother than the devil is.

AMaster, who decides what religions are valid and which ones are not? Is there some sort of national or global committee? I really should be getting their newsletter then, so I can be in the loop.

Or is it a person’s culture, upbringing, and experiences that form what they will accept as a valid or invalid belief system? Since a person’s faith is a personal decision, I think that people should decide for themselves what truth is and not rely on what everybody else (i.e. mainstream) thinks about this and that to determine what is weird, objectionable, etc. But I know that is an unrealistic ideal for most people. From what I’ve observed in my lifetime, most people don’t care enough about religion (theirs or others) to do that sort of searching. It's just easier to go to your friend's church.

 

But if you take a smaller point, bugger it up, twist it out of propotrion and shout "Freak" as you bring it up, it gets awful close...

That's where many Anti-Mormons run into difficulties trying to lure us away from the church. They don't understand that we see through their agenda...

Authoritative yes, but not doctrine. As far as I know, only one book written since the translation of the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price and the compilation of the Doctrine and Covenants has been ruled Doctrine. That's Jesus, the Christ, by James E. Talmage.

But Lucifer and his followers have forsaken that birthright, and thus any claim to divine parentage.

That must be why I only hear about it from Anti-Mormon sources...

I've never heard any official reason for Blacks being excluded from the Priesthood. I assumed that it was because America was not ready for that change in the early days of the church, and having Black priesthood holders would be yet another reason for mobs to hate them...

But if he does that, is he not advancing the Church at the expense of other religions in the country? If so, then the Church would be violating it's own doctrine.

Exactly. We have some doctrines that differ from the more mainstream Christain faiths, and they are less understood as a result.

 

That must be why I only hear about it from Anti-Mormon sources...

...like Brigham Young? He said things like "If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain (those with dark skin), the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." While Joseph Smith never banned blacks from the priesthood, many leaders of the LDS church did. A simple Google search turns up dozens of quotes from LDS "prophets" and presidents equating blacks as descendants of Cain, etc.

I think people need to stop equating religion with race. No one is born Mormon, Catholic, Buddhist or even Jewish (in the religious sense). Unfortunately, too many people think they are born religious and get upset about people questioning Romney's fitness to be president by saying things like "no one asks 'is it okay for a black or woman to become president, so why not a Mormon?'"

Religion is a choice, and all should be held accountable for the choices they make in life.

Kucinich got picked on for claiming to have seen a UFO. I suppose he saw some light in the sky and believed it to be a spacecraft. Har har! What a nutcase, eh folks? I mean, how could you possibly vote for some idiot who believes in UFOs?? Am I right, people? Yet if he'd said he believed that light was God or an angel, then that would be off limits? To joke about what he believed he saw would be bigotry in that case?

A candidate should stand up for what they believe and have the guts to defend those beliefs, especially if those beliefs are regarding the ultimate truth of the Universe. I mean, we're not picking on the guy's favorite ice cream flavor or sports team.

 

But I don't here these things from sources within the church. It's mostly my critics that bring stuff like this up. Without a link, I don't see the source of the information or the context it's presented in, and thus it makes even less sense.

 

@Giles Barskins :
I don't mind anyone naming names and all that. To tell the truth, I like the Mormon religion in many ways. However, the lifestyle I chose to live clashes with the Mormon religion in many ways. Since I was born I've been taught the lessons of the bible and the book of Mormon, I was taught the ways of the church, but it got to the point where I didn't want to live the way everyone else around me wanted me to. I wasn't about to waste 2 years of life preaching a religion to people who don't want to hear about it, I wasn't going to wear those uncomfortable garments under my clothes every second of every day, I wasn't going to live every aspect of the life according to the doctrine of the church, and I sure as hell wasn't going to stop sleeping with my girlfriend (who is now my wife).

Personally, I think who ever gets elected will most likely be assassinated anyway. Think about it, you have a woman, an African American, and a Mormon all running along with all the others...and all three have a good chance of winning. This country is not ready for change, and there are people so stubborn, they will kill someone to prevent change. Because of this, I think we really need to focus on who the candidates' vice presidents will be since *they* will be running the show.

It's say really...we've been studying the "Sticky Theory" in my Research class and so far the 2008 elections have been the main focus for the discussions.

 

Gnarff, next time you get the chance, check out the vatican website and see what they have to say about the crusades or the inquisition. After the incredulity wears off, maybe you'll understand a little better about why the LDS church doesn't put embarrassing aspects of their history on their website.

We've been down this road before. You may not like some of the things Brigham Young said, you may not like the fact that Joseph Smith took multiple wives without the consent of his first wife...but these events are part of the historical record. I've shown you source after source, even using LDS-approved sources and official LDS periodicals, to prove these things before...and I still have most of the links. No religious institution is going to put embarrassing events from its past in a place of prominence, and you'd do well to remember that.

 

I have been there too. Even now, having been back to church for 5 years, I still struggle with some elemtents of the lifestyle (I bet I'd draw flak for the movies and music I lesten to, and the games I play would really get the goat of the more self-righteous of the bunch). None of this would land me in serious trouble, but it makes me different from the rest.

I'm not advocating a white wash, but a definitive answer on some sensitive topics in church history, like how polygamy actually did work, a more detailed explanation of the Law of Consecration as practiced in Utah until it ceaced to be practiced (Not sure of the full reasoning), or the doctrinal/practical reason for Blacks not recieving the priesthood would be helpful for those of us that have to answer for it. I'm in a Mormon group on Facebook, and at any given time, there are several "Anti-Mormons" that keep hitting us with the same propaganda over and over again. I'm just hoping for a direct answer from leaders of the church that could lay these issues to rest with a simple link to rebut these people.

I'm reminded of an event in the Book of Mormon. At one point, the Prophet at the time, Alma the Younger, and his four sons went into an area that had lapsed into unbelief to preach as missionaries. One of the sons had sexual relations with a woman there. His father chastised him, also citing that the spirit was not with them as a result of his sin.

The Bible has stories of prophets and kings that were not perfect. David had an affair with a married woman and had her husband killed so he could take her as a wife, Solomon eventually had temples built to other "gods" to keep his wives happy, Balaam took bribes to preach something more in line with what the king wanted preached. Jonah was forewarned of the destruction of Nineveh, and when commanded to go there to preach repentence, freaked out and went the other way. No prophet is infallable, and if Joseph Smith or Brigham Young did abuse their authority, their personal sins are between them and the Lord. The Church survived on the faith of the members (even Smith and Young, as the Lord called the men needed at the time). Just as one of the sons of Alma the Younger sabotaged the missionary effort in the Book of Mormon, any sins of the servants of the Lord may hinder the church today (even though the sins are over a hundred years old). The imperfections of the leaders do not change the official doctrine.

 

Gnarff, you completely missed my point. What I am saying is that the LDS church is not going to put the most embarrassing aspects of its history up for display. Since we can rest assured that no religious institution would do that (at least not without spinning it for all its worth), refusing to accept a piece of information on the grounds that it is "anti-mormon" is rather foolish. You should determine the credibility of a piece of information on the basis of its own merits, not based on who says it.

I'll give you an example: I think Bush was lying about Iran. Now, I don't think GW Bush was lying about Iran just because he was lying about Iraq (although that was certainly cause for suspicion). I think he was lying because our own intelligence agencies had already determined that international pressure has been succeeding in Iran and that they hadn't been trying to produce nuclear weapons since 2003...information which was available to the president well before it went public. At the very same time he was arguing that Iran was still trying to develop nuclear weapons, his administration had this information in hand. It's OK to be suspicious of the facts presented by anti-mormon groups. It isn't OK to discount what they say just because they are anti-mormon.

 

T2Bruno claims to have found links from official church sites to some questionable material. What I'm asking is a definitive answer from leaders to answer the critics.

I'm within my rights to suspect anti-mormon sources of fabricating information or blowing doctrine out of proportion to defame our faith. It gives it more credence when some of the critics can't keep their story straight or provide further documentation to support their claims.

 

Missing my point. I said it was OK to suspect them, but it is bordering on out and out stupidity to discount something they say just because they said it. If you disagree with their argument, check their primary sources. Check their facts. You have a lousy track record of discounting actual LDS sources and official publications as "anti-Mormon"*. If the facts and sources of so-called anti-Mormon groups don't stack up, then it is OK to discount their claims.

* When citing a primary source that was published with the imprimatur of none other than the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself, you denounced my source as "anti-Mormon".

 

Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I wanted to point out something I noticed on another thread and also in the media. People now are saying that they think Romney is an unacceptable candidate because his policies and persona stink. THAT I can get behind. Just because he's a Mormon doesn't mean that a Mormon like myself would vote for him. That would be just as ignorant as someone NOT voting for him because he's a Mormon. It's his present behaviour and personal qualities that should count. Truth is, a fellow I know who is a very nice man is campaigning to become a low level representative in my local government, and despite his pleasant personality and his Mormon faith, I am NOT voting for him as I think the other fellow will do a better job.

And for the record, despite the fact that I am an extremely sinful man and have never claimed otherwise, I am a practicing Mormon attempting to live by the precepts of my religion to the best of my abilities (I say this because it was slightly painful to me to see that some thought I merely had a Mormon background and was no longer a Mormon. Obviously I have not been as clear as I wished to be.)

 

You bring up a good point, LKD. In fact, it's been over a month since I recall hearing the Mormon thing even brought up. I haven't decided yet whether Romney's candidacy has been a boon or a burden to the general public's views of Mormons. Considering the reasons he's losing - that he's phony as hell and has a weak grasp of the policies he promotes - it may go either way, depending on if they blame Mormonism for his failings or Romney himself. It'd be really unfortunate if it's the former, since he's by far the most high profile Mormon in the world right now (well...next to Donnie and Marie).

 

I myself believe that his candidacy did more harm to the public perception of the faith than good, but I know a lot of Mormons in leadership positions who are of the "any publicity is good publicity" mindset. I'm hoping Romney drops out by the end of April.

 

Katherine Heigl is the highest profile Mormon right now.

 

I can live with that. While I'd love to see a Mormon in the White House, I don't think that Mitt is the right man for the job...

This is because the church is in the public eye now. It has people talking about the church and it's doctrine. If people become truly curious and look into the information about the church, that is good for the church as a whole.

Um, I'm not sure who she is. I'd have thought that Jon Heder might be the highest profile Mormon out there...