DiscussMormonism.com

I was reading an article in the SL Trib a few minutes ago..."Mitt's bid for White House took the pulse of nation on Mormonism"

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8204331

A few statements made me think:

"Romney's failed campaign revealed what many Americans really think about Mormons. It forced Latter-day Saints to acknowledge that they don't just belong to another American denomination."

and, "National news Web sites...asked Romney questions about where Jesus would touch down at his Second Coming and Republican candidate Mike Huckabee "innocently" wondered whether Mormons believe that Jesus and Lucifer were brothers."

With "modern revelation" as an admitted defense for the changing doctrines of the church, is it fair to say that even Mormons themselves don't know what they believe today?

For example, as the public media ask questions about Mormon doctrine, do they get answers like "I don't know that we teach that," when it is clearly written by many former LDS leaders, that confuse them even more? Clearly, some of the key teachings of the church are no longer taught (plural marriage as necessary for exhaltation), and even its own history is unknown by many chapel Mormons (how many know that Joseph had 33 wives -- some teenagers and some other men's wives)?

What I heard from my TBM friends is "Americans don't understand the truth about Mormonism. If they really knew how normal we are, they'd vote for Mitt."

Well, maybe for Mitt to be a credible candidate in 2012, the church leaders needs to educate their own to learn what they really believe. But then, that means they need to figure it out themselves first!

Excellent post. It summarizes much of what I have been saying, that being the Mormon church has no real doctrine and beliefs. Instead they are a chimera that changes its form to whatever the public expects from a mainstream religion.

Mormonism reminds me of the kid in high school who no one likes that tries to pick up every fad because they don't have an identity of their own.

I hardly think surviving this far into a Primary "revealed" anything. If the country hated Mormonism as much as some people seem to think he would have had to bow out earlier.

The Nehor wrote:I hardly think surviving this far into a Primary "revealed" anything. If the country hated Mormonism as much as some people seem to think he would have had to bow out earlier.

I agree. Mormonism too a back seat to his soulless, substanceless, pandering persona. His willingness to say whatever and take whatever position was a bit of a turnoff. Oh yeah...he was a Mormon didn't even really become an issue cause he wasn't really a contender (he tried to be, but you could tell after Iowa, and then New Hampshire that he was struggling for traction and a firm footing).

The Nehor wrote:I hardly think surviving this far into a Primary "revealed" anything. If the country hated Mormonism as much as some people seem to think he would have had to bow out earlier.

I disagree. Romney survived because he was well funded not because he was a valid candidate. Like Tom Cruise he is subject to his flippant disregard for history and logic.

Mercury wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I hardly think surviving this far into a Primary "revealed" anything. If the country hated Mormonism as much as some people seem to think he would have had to bow out earlier.

I disagree. Romney survived because he was well funded not because he was a valid candidate. Like Tom Cruise he is subject to his flippant disregard for history and logic.

Being well funded makes him viable. He may have put his own money in but he also raised more then any other republican candidate. He was as viable as any other candidate.

Jason Bourne wrote:

Mercury wrote:

The Nehor wrote:I hardly think surviving this far into a Primary "revealed" anything. If the country hated Mormonism as much as some people seem to think he would have had to bow out earlier.

I disagree. Romney survived because he was well funded not because he was a valid candidate. Like Tom Cruise he is subject to his flippant disregard for history and logic.

Being well funded makes him viable. He may have put his own money in but he also raised more then any other republican candidate. He was as viable as any other candidate.

If he was viable as any other candidate he would have made it to Minneapolis.

If we use your logic then Ron Paul would have received more delegates.

The flip side of that is that it's easy and convenient to blame Mitt's failure on Mormonism, when really, he just did himself in.

I believe a Mormon could be elected president. I believe Mitt Romney even could have been elected president. He just didn't live up to his potential, and instead of becoming his greatest self, became a caricature of himself.

The "Mormon" problem LDS politicians have is trying to evangelize at every opportunity. Orrin Hatch was on the radio yesterday trying to explain the beliefs of Latter-day Saints. You didn't hear John Kennedy trying to explain Catholic theology or practice at every turn when he was running for office; Mitt and others should drop the Mormon advertising and just be good people without trying to be infomercials.

Bish

I think you make some valid points. It seems the church is in flux. There are many things that seemed to be taught as doctrine, things we seemed proud of as I grew up, but that are now relegated to quasi doctrine or opinion or speculation. Publically the Church seems to want to down play some of the more unique, or different teachings. But many are still in lesson manuals, talked about is SS, Relief Society or priesthood meetings and discussed by members. This then begs the question of whether it is time for the Church to make an official list or document of doctrine and belief. Certainly the Church had this in the early days with the 1835 D&C and the Articles of Faith, or what became the AoF. Yet it seems there is resistance to do this because then we are pinned down and perhaps changing doctrine will become more difficult. But yes, there is confusion among members somewhat as to what the LDS Church really teaches or believes. At times when I listen to conference, read the Ensign or read talks from the leaders in other sources I wonder if we believe anything really beyond the basics. Most of what one gets from such sources are topics about practice, how to live, obedience and so on. We are becoming overly focused on orthopraxy and little is said about doctrinal topics. One need only compare and Ensign of today to one from 25 years ago and the differences I think are stark.

If he was viable as any other candidate he would have made it to Minneapolis.

If we use your logic then Ron Paul would have received more delegates.

Romney won Minnesota so I am not sure what your point is.