LETTER: Every region has a religion
To the editor:
Popular opinion and culture with relation to religious belief is a powerful force in any society. In Ireland and most of Europe, Catholicism is the mainstay. In England, Anglicanism is the way to go. Lutherans dominate Germany. Baptists dominate the South. Islam is the only choice if you happen to live in the Middle East or most of North Africa. And of course, in Utah, we live in a Mormon culture, and Liz questions, as have many, if Mormonism is a cult.
There really is no argument. Mormonism has grown so large, so international, with so many different people are adhering to the belief system that the question of it’s status as a bonafide religion cannot be questioned.
What Liz has written is simply an attempt to marginalize the beliefs of a segment of society and stigmatize religion, veiling the maneuver under the guise of objective analysis. That isn’t fair, and it doesn’t take into account really why Mormons do what they do, much less why any member of a religion does what he or she does.
Liz’s writing also shows that she not only regards Mormonism as a cult but resents its influence in our society. Comments like “When Joseph Smith wrote the Book of Mormon,” and “When this agency is exercised in a way that God supposedly doesn’t want,” show her true colors.
In her piece, Liz attacks doctrines and beliefs without trying to understand them. I refer to her arguments on agency. Liz said, “the LDS church asserts that all individuals have what is known as ‘agency,’ and yet when this agency is exercised in a way that God supposedly doesn’t want it to be, eternal life is jeopardized.”
Liz is wrong. Agency is power to choose — something everyone has.
If there is no punishment for breaking a law, what is the value of that law? This is the gist of the doctrine of agency. All man can choose how he will, but cannot choose the consequences of his choices. Saying otherwise would follow the line of thought that it’s not fair for a murderer to face criminal charges. Charlie can choose to shoot the gun, but what the state and God does after his victim dies is totally out of his control. Liz’s argument sounds less like a reasoned argument against Mormonism and more like a disguised complaint against having to face the eternal consequences of her choices.
Also in her piece, Liz speaks of marriage, declaring that anyone that marries out of the church loses “their ability to be with their partner forever.”
The LDS religion is the only one that teaches marriages endure beyond the grave. It’s the whole “‘Till death do you part” phrase in the marriage ceremony, remember? My sister married out of the church. Do I believe that her marriage will last forever? No. But LDS doctrine does not teach that this is game over.
Those who want to marry in the temple most certainly can. But in order to do so, they must change. They must meet the standard. They must obey the teachings and commandments of God in order to prepare themselves to make sacred promises in a sacred place. If my sister and her husband chose to believe and chose to follow the teachings and commandments, they would be welcomed in the temple, as would anyone.
I would remind everyone who gets the chance to read this that the real reason why any faithful Mormon does what he does is because he has read the scriptures, searched the doctrine, thought about it quite a bit, prayed to God for answers and received answers from above about the veracity of the church (and if they haven’t they certainly should). A basic tenet of the LDS religion, and perhaps the most important, is that the humble seeker of truth can find it if he looks long and hard enough, believing that he’ll find it.
Landon Hemsley