DiscussMormonism.com

I remember discussing this with "Provo Peterson" some four years ago when Huckabee dissed Romney in the race back then.  

 I like Romney.  Very smart guy.  Invested w him at Bain, met him several times and have a great deal of business respect for him.

But here is where he has been, and will continue to be, abandoned by "his brethren"!

Romney can't, and obviously, should not be responsible for defending nor explaining the beliefs of the Mormon Church.  Not his battle.  As these idiotic apologists, like Provo Peterson, have been hiding behind for decades - "they can't speak officially for the church"!! 

But when and where has this "supposed church" ever spoke up, officially, and clarified or supported their claim to explaining "their Christianity"???   Is this claimed "Prophet"'under some gag order from the Maxwell Institute and not able to speak without an email to Hamblin for clearance?   Can Monson EVER speak up to explain the history of these doctrines and answer the questions, issues, contradictions and claims against Mormonism?  Will there ever be confidence from a Mormon prophet to speak, answer questions, and come put of "hiding" to support the likes of Romney in his faith?  Remember. Romney can't speak "OFFICIALLY".

It's sad.  A church that's spends a weekend on cable and media trying to embellish it's name from "Mormon", and yet spends tens of $millions on campaigns with "I'm a Mormon" theme.  

I'd feel lonely too if I were a Mormon running for President.  Perhaps why Hunstman has spent the year trying to distance himself from this quagmire!!

Romney does seem like a decent enough guy. The only thing that concerns me about him is that I have no idea where he actually stands on any issues. The guy is a feather blowing in the wind of whatever he thinks the current conservative ideal is.

Some Schmo wrote:Romney does seem like a decent enough guy. The only thing that concerns me about him is that I have no idea where he actually stands on any issues. The guy is a feather blowing in the wind of whatever he thinks the current conservative ideal is.

Like John Kerry, Romney's a politician from Massachusetts. It's best there to have voted for something before having voted against it.

I am highly suspicious of Romney because he seems phonier than a $3 bill. Based on his own explanations about flip-flopping on the abortion issue, Romney will say anything to get elected.

Huntsman, on the other hand, seems genuine. He does not put himself across as a conservative when he thinks that might be expedient. But it says a lot about politics in a democracy when the people will vote for the one so obviously telling the taller lies.

And still, with with all the statements of "misconception" about what the LDS doctrine, history and teachings are all about, in light of claims challenging it's Christian claim, not one leading member of the First Presidency or an official spokesperson have stepped up to make any public statements to clear up these "misconceptions". One would conclude that there is a great deal of fear for questions. If this really comes down to Romney and Cain, we can expect the entire history of blacks and the priesthood to be a public issue. I'm very perplexed by the lack of effort by the LDS church to stand up and address these "misconceptions" when they are given a golden opportunity to show their confidence in their doctrines.

It

Isn't the correct answer that the Mormon Church is a creedless church and that beyond the very basic statements found in the Articles of Faith that members are free to believe as they wish with regards to doctrine?

But when and where has this "supposed church" ever spoke up, officially, and clarified or supported their claim to explaining "their Christianity"???

They always refer one to Mormon.org. Seems to be the right thing to do. I think people would accuse them of supporting Romney politically if they had some sort of press conference.

Isn't the correct answer that the Mormon Church is a creedless church and that beyond the very basic statements found in the Articles of Faith that members are free to believe as they wish with regards to doctrine?

No. Neither is correct in the context you put it. The LDS Church has a systematic theology by definition and while the Church does not step on the rights of anyone to believe what they will, to express views contrary to LDS doctrine could possibily jeopardize one's membership or ability to participate with the Church.

bcspace wrote:They always refer one to Mormon.org. Seems to be the right thing to do. I think people would accuse them of supporting Romney politically if they had some sort of press conference.

I think a press conference would be very good for both Romney and the church. The Prophet could address the media and state that the LDS church does not endorse any political candidate and that every LDS member can vote for anyone in any political party. They can state that even though they have a horse in the race it is up to all people to choose who is best for the country.

The Prophet then can state that because Romney is Mormon and because there has been recent critical views about the LDS church being a cult and non-Christian he could clear the air and tell about the Doctrine of the LDS church and how it relates to Christianity. He can go on and say that all other churches are an abomination in the sight of God and that the LDS church is the one true church on the face of the earth.

He can end the press conference with some "I am a Mormon" video clips showing how Mormons are surfers, bikers, and just plain regular cool people.

Wisdom Seeker wrote:He can go on and say that all other churches are an abomination in the sight of God and that the LDS church is the one true church on the face of the earth.

Second thought, that is not a very good idea. It would probably be better for him to state that the Christian world has a skewed view of what true Christianity is. And it is in the LDS church that one can find what it means to be a true Christian and a true Christian church.

Wisdom Seeker, do you think the Prophet would also explain why you need to remember sacred handshakes to get into heaven?

bcspace wrote:

But when and where has this "supposed church" ever spoke up, officially, and clarified or supported their claim to explaining "their Christianity"???

They always refer one to Mormon.org. Seems to be the right thing to do. I think people would accuse them of supporting Romney politically if they had some sort of press conference.

Isn't the correct answer that the Mormon Church is a creedless church and that beyond the very basic statements found in the Articles of Faith that members are free to believe as they wish with regards to doctrine?

No. Neither is correct in the context you put it. The LDS Church has a systematic theology by definition and while the Church does not step on the rights of anyone to believe what they will, to express views contrary to LDS doctrine could possibily jeopardize one's membership or ability to participate with the Church.

Where can I find this systematic theology?