Mitt Romney busted on TV for lying about Mormon doctrine!!

[_maklelan]

The lesson is on AAA. The purpose of the lesson as stated is:

To help the children look forward to and prepare for the second coming of Jesus Christ and the Millennium.

And I found this bit from the manual pertinent to the discussion:

Adam-ondi-Ahman will also be an important place in the future: near the time of Christ’s second coming, Adam will come again to Adam-ondi-Ahman and hold a great council. All the prophets who have held keys of priesthood authority upon the earth will come to this council to give a report of their work to Adam. Jesus Christ will then come to Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Adam will return the priesthood keys to him. Christ will then return to earth to begin the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will live on and reign over the earth.

After that, the lesson goes on to talk about the millenium.

So, 1 lesson covers AAA, Christ's return to earth at the US, and the millenium.

Like I said, basic stuff that they cover in primary.

And it also adds to my argument that the events are basically all 1 event - not 2 separate/distinct events - at least as the LDS church teaches it.

Just because they are discussed in the same lesson doesn't mean they are the same event. As is made abundantly clear in the text you referenced, the Millenium doesn't start until after Adam-ondi-Ahman and is in no way catalyzed by it. The Millennium comes when Christ steps foot on the Mt. of Olives, which is what Stephanopoulus confused, and what you all refuse to see.

[_guy sajer]

Adam-ondi-Ahman will also be an important place in the future: near the time of Christ’s second coming, Adam will come again to Adam-ondi-Ahman and hold a great council. All the prophets who have held keys of priesthood authority upon the earth will come to this council to give a report of their work to Adam. Jesus Christ will then come to Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Adam will return the priesthood keys to him. Christ will then return to earth to begin the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will live on and reign over the earth.

After that, the lesson goes on to talk about the millenium.

So, 1 lesson covers AAA, Christ's return to earth at the US, and the millenium.

Like I said, basic stuff that they cover in primary.

And it also adds to my argument that the events are basically all 1 event - not 2 separate/distinct events - at least as the LDS church teaches it.

With all due respect, few remember much detail of lessons taught in primary. Messages generally require constant reinforcement for people to recall them, particularly after the passage of several years. How many of us remember the details of what we learned in college, let alone in primary decades ago? Plus, people retain different details from the same lesson, depending on a whole host of factors.

I don't have a dog in this particular debate other than my point that this particular doctrine, as well as certain other Mormon doctrines, are not universally understood in great detail by rank and file members and that there exists a wide diversity in terms of what people recall and in what level of detail they recall it and in how they interpret what is said and what is taught. The weight of experience and observation and the limitations of human cognition make this a given, despite hugely naïve assertions to the contrary that "informed" members should all recite, understand, and interpret all doctrines and teachings at the same level of specificity.

[_maklelan]

Well, I guess you guys view the events as 'independent' of each other. While I view them as one in the same, ie., Christ's visit to the US is what gets the millenium ball rolling.

This is where we disagree. Just because the visit to AAA precedes the ushering in of the Millennium does not mean it in any way causes it. the lesson you shared spells out that it is Christ's return to Jerusalem that ushers in the beginning of the Millennium. You may choose to interpret it to mean that it "gets the ball rolling" because it is preliminary to the Second Coming, but I've neve rheard it interpreted that way, and to call someone a liar for not interpreting it that way is, in my estimation, dishonest.

[_maklelan]

I don't have a dog in this particular debate other than my point that this particular doctrine, as well as certain other Mormon doctrines, are not universally understood in great detail by rank and file members and that there exists a wide diversity in terms of what people recall and in what level of detail they recall it and in how they interpret what is said and what is taught. The weight of experience and observation and the limitations of human cognition make this a given, despite hugely naïve assertions to the contrary that "informed" members should all recite, understand, and interpret all doctrines and teachings at the same level of specificity.

I believe that when all the scriptures are crystal clear and all the lesson manuals teach this as a black and white issue it is not open to diverse interpretations. I also believe it is silly to call someone a liar because they understand a doctrine that other people have understood incorrectly, but have forgotten about.

[_Who Knows]

Well, I guess you guys view the events as 'independent' of each other. While I view them as one in the same, ie., Christ's visit to the US is what gets the millenium ball rolling.

This is where we disagree. Just because the visit to AAA precedes the ushering in of the Millennium does not mean it in any way causes it. the lesson you shared spells out that it is Christ's return to Jerusalem that ushers in the beginning of the Millennium. You may choose to interpret it to mean that it "gets the ball rolling" because it is preliminary to the Second Coming, but I've neve rheard it interpreted that way, and to call someone a liar for not interpreting it that way is, in my estimation, dishonest.

Well, I didn't call him a liar for that, so I guess I'm ok.

And if you want to play the silly games, and nitpick, Steph's question was actually 2 questions:

- Will Christ return to the US?
- Will Christ reign for 1000 years?

That's it!. And mitt goes off about the 2nd coming, mount of olives, how LDS beliefs regarding Steph's question is the same as other christians. And Mitt doesn't even address the visit to the US part of the question, and in fact misleads.

That's why I think he was being deceitful.

But we've gone over this a few times already....

[_maklelan]

Well, I didn't call him a liar for that, so I guess I'm ok.

True.

And if you want to play the silly games, and nitpick, Steph's question was actually 2 questions:

- Will Christ return to the US?

He's returned to the US dozens of times since his ascension. He's also returned to Jerusalem and Galilee and dozens of other locales. Obviously Stephanopoulus was not speaking of Christ's visit to the earth in a general capacity, but one of special significance. Since it is immediately followed by this question,

- Will Christ reign for 1000 years?

we have a context for this question. Obviously this "return" is the one that will usher in the Millenium. Since Stephanopoulus is utterly unaware of our belief that a private meeting at AAA will take place at some point prior to the Second Coming (since he says "probably" we know he's got no grasp of the doctrine at all), we know he's not alluding to that, but to the Second Coming, which is exactly how the question was interpreted by Romney (and myself and other Mormons and ex-Mormons here), and it was answered accordingly. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ (the only possible meanign of Stephanopoulus' question), Romney answered exactly as any competent Mormon would, that we believe the same as the rest of Christianity.

That's it!. And mitt goes off about the 2nd coming, mount of olives, how LDS beliefs regarding Steph's question is the same as other christians. And Mitt doesn't even address the visit to the US part of the question, and in fact misleads.

That's why I think he was being deceitful.

But we've gone over this a few times already....

Your point has been noted, but it's a forced inference and your own constituents have expressed the same concern.

[_guy sajer]

I don't have a dog in this particular debate other than my point that this particular doctrine, as well as certain other Mormon doctrines, are not universally understood in great detail by rank and file members and that there exists a wide diversity in terms of what people recall and in what level of detail they recall it and in how they interpret what is said and what is taught. The weight of experience and observation and the limitations of human cognition make this a given, despite hugely naïve assertions to the contrary that "informed" members should all recite, understand, and interpret all doctrines and teachings at the same level of specificity.

I believe that when all the scriptures are crystal clear and all the lesson manuals teach this as a black and white issue it is not open to diverse interpretations.

This statement only goes to highlight your naivte and lack of practical experience. In the real world, misunderstanding and diverse interpretations happen all the time, even regarding concepts that one might think are totally clear cut.

I also believe it is silly to call someone a liar because they understand a doctrine that other people have understood incorrectly, but have forgotten about.

If this is indeed what happened, I don't disagree. My guess is, however, that Who Knows, among others, would dispute this version of the events.

[_maklelan]

This statement only goes to highlight your naivte and lack of practical experience. In the real world, misunderstanding and diverse interpretations happen all the time, even regarding concepts that one might think are totally clear cut.

Oh, I'm aware that different interpretations are made about every clear cut doctrine, but that doesn't make them valid.

I also believe it is silly to call someone a liar because they understand a doctrine that other people have understood incorrectly, but have forgotten about.

If this is indeed what happened, I don't disagree. My guess is, however, that Who Knows, among others, would dispute this version of the events.

The title of the thread should be clear enough. My previous post (the response to Who Knows) makes the issue perfectly clear in my mind, and I can't fathom how someone could still insist that deception took place. If one wants to push that agenda they have to show that Romney wasn't thinking the whole time about specifically the Second Coming, but that he thought briefly about the possibility that Stephanopoulus was referring to the AAA doctrine. I'm not prepared to make that assumption, and I myself thought specifically about the Second Coming, so it makes perfect sense to me. To conclude otherwise, in my opinion, is a testimony of how badly one wants to paint Romney as a liar and just what logic they're willing to overlook in so doing.

[_Yoda]

I don't think that Romney was intentionally lying. I just don't think he explained himself as well as he could have. But, it's difficult to think off the cuff like that in a televised interview situation. To his credit, I did like what he had to say after that...which, ironically, has been ignored:

But that being said, how do Muslims feel about Christian doctrines? They don't agree with them.

There are differences between doctrines of churches. But the values at the core of the Christian faith, the Jewish faith and many other religions are very, very similar and it's that common basis that we have to support and find ability to draw people to rather than to point out the differences between our faiths.

The differences are less pronounced than the common base that can lead to the peace and the acceptability and the brother and sisterhood of humankind.

[_maklelan]

I don't think that Romney was intentionally lying. I just don't think he explained himself as well as he could have. But, it's difficult to think off the cuff like that in a televised interview situation. To his credit, I did like what he had to say after that...which, ironically, has been ignored:

But that being said, how do Muslims feel about Christian doctrines? They don't agree with them.

There are differences between doctrines of churches. But the values at the core of the Christian faith, the Jewish faith and many other religions are very, very similar and it's that common basis that we have to support and find ability to draw people to rather than to point out the differences between our faiths.

The differences are less pronounced than the common base that can lead to the peace and the acceptability and the brother and sisterhood of humankind.

Agreed on both counts. He's a solid guy, no matter how people think he should have responded to an uninformed question.