Mitt Romney on the LDS Church changing its racist policy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22273924/page/2/
Here is the problem. The policy was changed in 1978:
Romney graduated from Harvard in 1975:
Did it take him 3 years to drive home from law school?
Well, to be fair to Romney, in the quote, he doesn’t say he was driving home from law school…he said he thinks he was driving home from law school but that he knows he was driving home from somewhere.
So did he live in the Boston area in 1978? If he did, this thread can die quickly. Otherwise it’d be a oddly specific “lie” to tell about exactly where he was when he heard the news.
If he is a faithful Mormon, how can his faith tell him that Mormon doctrine is wrong?
He also says when he heard about the change being made. Presumably the change being made is a long process. He might have heard about a proposal or a debate or some earlier stage rather than the final decision.
He seems to have lived in the Boston area pretty much ever since he went to Harvard. After school, he worked at the Boston Consulting group (in Boston), until 1978, when he went to their competator, Bain and Company, also in Boston. He stayed there until 1984, when he and some other Bain & Company employees left to start their own private equity firm, Bain Capital.
That’s not unique to Romney. Members of religions, even devout members of religions, sometimes have moral stances different than the stance of their religion as a whole. There are, for just a few examples, pro choice Mormons, pro choice Catholics, pro gay Mormons, and pro gay Catholics, even though both Mormon and Catholic doctrine are generally pro-life, and not all that friendly to the idea of increased civil rights for gays. It’s one of those things different believers reconcile differently.
It isn’t clear to me that being inconsistent in ones faith is justified by other people being inconsistent in their faith. Sort of dilutes the definition of “faith” beyond useful meaning.
OK. Now that I’ve read the entire linked interview, I realize that Romney has a homeopathicaly dilute definition of faith. He might as well be referring to his aura. I withdraw the question. The obvious answer is that to Romney, faith can have many meanings, even in the same sentence.
Til 1978 he accepted a faith that taught blacks were inferior. Why did he not reject his faith for that ,if he knew it was wrong.?
AFAIK, the doctrine was simply that Blacks were ineligible for the Priesthood, not that Blacks are inferior to Caucasians as human beings. Women are ineligible but there is no doctrine that women are inferior to men.
I am glad that Mitt Romney wept with joy when the LDS church allowed blacks to become priests in 1978, and I’m sure that his faith is telling him right now that women should also be allowed to become priests.
Methinks you’re confusing the terms “faith” and “gospel”.
The definition for faith is very difficult to pin down. About the only thing consistent about it is that it differs from person to person. Even for the same person, it can change on a regular basis. I don’t find anything ironic or confusing about this.
Gospel, on the other hand, is a specific set of teachings and instructions. (The word literally means “good news”.) As Captain Amazing pointed out, it’s not uncommon for members of a given sect to find their faith at odds with their gospel.
I don’t know if Romney’s story is true or not but I don’t think that having a hazy memory of why he was driving home 30 years ago is all that suspicious or remarkable, especially if it was a frequent drive. I could see myself having a memory of drving from the Twin Cities back to ND but not being able to remember what it was for or even what year it was. Everything after about last wednesday is kind of a fog for me.
Faith and adherence to church doctrine are two different things. Faith transcends specific doctrine. Faith is more direct and unfiltered by Church.
Given that this involves both politics and religion, and that a strictly factual answer is probably impossible to come by, I think it is better off in GD than GQ.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
I can’t speak for Mormons, but faith in God and faith in a doctrine are not the same unless you’re worshipping a doctrine.
ETA:
On preview, I agree with Dio. Rare on these matters, but it does happen from time to time. 
As a Mormon, I can tell you that it’s a totally plausible story; nearly everyone I’ve asked (who was old enough at the time) has said something similar.
The comments here show a lack of understanding about how Mormons work, which isn’t too surprising since we’re a small group, so I’m not blaming anyone, but yeah, it’s completely plausible and in line with a faithful Mormon’s reaction.
The idea was that the LDS Church needed a revelation from God to change the policy (the beginnings of which are unclear and lost in the mists of time; Joseph Smith did ordain black men to the priesthood, and it changed sometime later, no one really knows exactly when or why–there’s no scripture). It’s on record that some of the presidents of the LDS Church had wanted to change it since at least the 50’s, and were unhappy that the change couldn’t be made yet. The leadership of the church asked all members to pray for the change. So it was widely talked about as a hoped-for possibility.
The announcement did, in fact, come as a sudden change, not as a process. Once it was felt that the time was right, it was announced by the prophet, and that was it.
I’ve asked a lot of people what it was like, and the answers I’ve gotten have been universally that it was a big, emotional deal. One guy’s father had served as a mission president somewhere I don’t recall (but with a large black population), and he called up Salt Lake and begged to be sent back. (Mission presidents are called for a term of 3 years.) Some older people grumbled, and they left–the feeling was good riddance.
I was 4 at the time, so I don’t remember it myself.
Mormons are used to the idea that things can change, and that God has better things in store for us when we’re ready. We hope for a lot of things that haven’t happened yet, and that’s in line with Church doctrine, not in opposition to it. Here is the 9th Article of Faith: " We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."
Now whether Romney was driving home from law school or not, I don’t know. But I’m willing to believe that he was driving home from somewhere and had that reaction.
From 1830 til 1978 blacks could not become priests. Doctrine said blacks were fundamentally flawed. They felt the political pressure and changed. What kind of religion would do such a thing. If the word was of divine origin who is man to change it. Having to do it makes me respect them even less.
Thanks for that information, dangermom. Very informative.
The change came about because God told the prophet (I believe this would be the president of the Mormon church) that He had finally seen the light that, like it says in the Declaration of Independence, all men are created equal. The fact that Thomas Jefferson realized this before God did makes me suspect that maybe, just maybe, Joseph Smith was full of shit.
Given that Romney’s memory is notoriously unreliable when it comes to his past and his recollection of momentous race-related moments, I have to really take this with a grain of salt (particularly since it comes off as conveniently sympathetic and pre-emptively defensive simultaneously).