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

[_Jason Bourne]

Romney's not the liar here Who. Care to take a straw?

Strained, desperate, writhing nonarguments such as this are really no fun anymore. They are, indeed, tedious in the extreme.

Go back and read my post (and Jason's) and then please think before posting anything else on this vacuous thread. Jesus will rule the entire world, with the Saints as his Kings and Priests, for a thousand years. Mormon doctrine states there will be two world capitals, both known as Jeurusalem. We don't know if Mitt said anything about that because the interview was edited. Even if he didn't, this is hardly understandable as a "lie" on its face. Perhaps he just didn't think about that aspect of it until the inteview was over. The statement is true, as far as it goes, and reflects Mormon doctrine accurately. Its, not complete, but we don't' know why and, even if he didn't mention the "New Jerusalem" explicitly, this hardly counts as a lie unless one has a predjudicial animaus aginast him in some a priori sense.

This hysterical exercise in anti-Mormon bigotry needs to fade to page two as quickly as possible.

So when Romney says (paraphrasing) 'we believe Jesus will return to jerusalem, to the mount of olives - our beliefs are the same as other christians' you're ok with that? Especially given the fact that this was in answer to the question of whether Jesus will make his glorious return to earth in the US? You can speculate all you want about what mitt could have said, or what they edited out, etc. But as it is, as it was shown, what he said was a lie. He knows (or should know) full well that LDS beliefs in this regard are QUITE DIFFERENT than most christian churches, and can hardly be called THE SAME.

And you can stop with the church lesson - i know what the church teaches.

Know you don't because LDS believe his triumphant return will be at the Mt. of Olives in Jerusalem and that is where he proclaims himself.

[_Coggins7]

So when Romney says (paraphrasing) 'we believe Jesus will return to jerusalem, to the mount of olives - our beliefs are the same as other christians' you're ok with that? Especially given the fact that this was in answer to the question of whether Jesus will make his glorious return to earth in the US? You can speculate all you want about what mitt could have said, or what they edited out, etc. But as it is, as it was shown, what he said was a lie. He knows (or should know) full well that LDS beliefs in this regard are QUITE DIFFERENT than most christian churches, and can hardly be called THE SAME.

And you can stop with the church lesson - i know what the church teaches.

HEY!!!! Everybody out of the pool! Who, are you getting the drift? Are you smoking that stuff again? What the Hell is your problem? We do not know what Stephie really asked him as the question was not in the video. If someone has access to that, then fine, but until then Stephie and ABC remain dubious, as they do on most things. If, indeed, Romney hedged on this, then shame on him. I'm sure his motivation for doing so, if he did so, was an attempt not to alienate evangelicals. He's a politician and he seems, as his flip flops on abortion and homosexual marraige attest, to be more than willing Old Testament sacrifice principle for political advantage. I am not a Mitt Romney fan. However, the highly edited nature of the video, its source (ABC News),the lack of the actual question asked being present in the video segment) and the fact that Stephie himself got the doctrine wrong after stating that he consulted with an unnamed church spokesman smells fishy on its face and smacks of an agenda on the part of Stephanopolous.

[_Jersey Girl]

So when Romney says (paraphrasing) 'we believe Jesus will return to jerusalem, to the mount of olives - our beliefs are the same as other christians' you're ok with that? Especially given the fact that this was in answer to the question of whether Jesus will make his glorious return to earth in the US? You can speculate all you want about what mitt could have said, or what they edited out, etc. But as it is, as it was shown, what he said was a lie. He knows (or should know) full well that LDS beliefs in this regard are QUITE DIFFERENT than most christian churches, and can hardly be called THE SAME.

And you can stop with the church lesson - i know what the church teaches.

HEY!!!! Everybody out of the pool! Who, are you getting the drift? Are you smoking that stuff again? What the Hell is your problem? We do not know what Stephie really asked him as the question was not in the video. If someone has access to that, then fine, but until then Stephie and ABC remain dubious, as they do on most things. If, indeed, Romney hedged on this, then shame on him. I'm sure his motivation for doing so, if he did so, was an attempt not to alienate evangelicals. He's a politician and he seems, as his flip flops on abortion and homosexual marraige attest, to be more than willing Old Testament sacrifice principle for political advantage. I am not a Mitt Romney fan. However, the highly edited nature of the video, its source (ABC News),the lack of the actual question asked being present in the video segment) and the fact that Stephie himself got the doctrine wrong after stating that he consulted with an unnamed church spokesman smells fishy on its face and smacks of an agenda on the part of Stephanopolous.

Straight up, Coggins. Do LDS believe that the New Jerusalem will be in Missouri?

Jersey Girl

[_guy sajer]

So when Romney says (paraphrasing) 'we believe Jesus will return to jerusalem, to the mount of olives - our beliefs are the same as other christians' you're ok with that? Especially given the fact that this was in answer to the question of whether Jesus will make his glorious return to earth in the US? You can speculate all you want about what mitt could have said, or what they edited out, etc. But as it is, as it was shown, what he said was a lie. He knows (or should know) full well that LDS beliefs in this regard are QUITE DIFFERENT than most christian churches, and can hardly be called THE SAME.

And you can stop with the church lesson - i know what the church teaches.

Evidently not. The church teaches that Jesus will meet privately with members in Adam-ondi-ahman completely unknown to the rest of the world. He will also privately visit some temples, just as he already has several times, but regarding his "glorious return to earth," it will happen on the Mount of Olives, just like other Christian faiths believe. The only difference is that we believe he will privately visit us before his glorious return to earth. Romney has said absolutely nothing that is untrue. It's not a lie and you betray your ignorance of our doctrine with this accusation that it is.

In fairness, I'd bet that a non-trivial percentage of active Mormons don't know this finer point of doctrine, or other finer points of doctrine.

I asked my wife, a very intelligent, well-informed active member of 40+ years, and she didn't know it. I didn't know it, and I too have logged in 40+ years of activity.

I'd bet moreover that that a majority of active Mormons outside North America don't know the finer points of this doctrine.

Does this make all of us ignorant too?

Apologists, or those who hang out on Mormon message boards and/or read works of Mormon history/doctrine/etc. tend, in my observation, to look down on the rank and file schlubs who don't possess their command of Mormon minutae.

[/list]

[_Coggins7]

Straight up, Coggins. Do LDS believe that the New Jerusalem will be in Missouri?

Yes, and this is the city of Enoch. Another Jerusalem will be at the site of the present one in the Middle East.

But none of this is to the point. We don't as yet know what question Romney was asked to respond to (except what Stephie claimed to have asked him), so we don't know what Mitt actualy thought he was responding to. Further, as I've now said over and over again, Stephanopoulis got the doctrine wrong himself, claiming that we believe Christ is going to return to the American Jerusalem and rule there as if this was his only appearance and the only world capital referenced in LDS doctrine.

Indeed, LDS teaching adheres to the concept that his first major appearance will be upon the Mount of Olives to the Jews as the armies of the world are about to finalize what the Islamic world has been planning for the last 50 years. There will be a general appearance to the entire world, as well as numerous private apperances preceeding his general appearance to the world and to the Jews. The city of Enoch is to come down from heaven at some point and become the "New Jerusalem" in North America. At what point in the chronology of things I don't know.

I see nothing amiss in Romney's explanation given what we know about the entire context of the situation. His statements are correct. Was he lying about the American aspect of the question. We don't know as yet, because Stephie didn't let us see the larger interview in context, but only related to us what he claimed he asked Romney.

[_maklelan]

In fairness, I'd bet that a non-trivial percentage of active Mormons don't know this finer point of doctrine, or other finer points of doctrine.

If that's true then those members aren't studying the gospel like they're supposed to. It's in the scriptures, the institute manuals and all the articles on the subject.

[_Jersey Girl]

Straight up, Coggins. Do LDS believe that the New Jerusalem will be in Missouri?

Yes, and this is the city of Enoch. Another Jerusalem will be at the site of the present one in the Middle East.

But none of this is to the point. We don't as yet know what question Romney was asked to respond to (except what Stephie claimed to have asked him), so we don't know what Mitt actualy thought he was responding to. Further, as I've now said over and over again, Stephanopoulis got the doctrine wrong himself, claiming that we believe Christ is going to return to the American Jerusalem and rule there as if this was his only appearance and the only world capital referenced in LDS doctrine.

Indeed, LDS teaching adheres to the concept that his first major appearance will be upon the Mount of Olives to the Jews as the armies of the world are about to finalize what the Islamic world has been planning for the last 50 years. There will be a general appearance to the entire world, as well as numerous private apperances preceeding his general appearance to the world and to the Jews. The city of Enoch is to come down from heaven at some point and become the "New Jerusalem" in North America. At what point in the chronology of things I don't know.

I see nothing amiss in Romney's explanation given what we know about the entire context of the situation. His statements are correct. Was he lying about the American aspect of the question. We don't know as yet, because Stephie didn't let us see the larger interview in context, but only related to us what he claimed he asked Romney.

If you have a concern about context, Loran, please go to the ABC.com website, listen to the interview and let us know what question Mr. Romney was replying to. Thanks.

Jersey Girl

[_guy sajer]

In fairness, I'd bet that a non-trivial percentage of active Mormons don't know this finer point of doctrine, or other finer points of doctrine.

If that's true then those members aren't studying the gospel like they're supposed to. It's in the scriptures, the institute manuals and all the articles on the subject.

Typical apologist reply. Translated it means, "If that's true, then those members aren't studying the gospel like they're supposed to; in other words, like I do. I know it, and they're lazy and uninformed if they don't know like I do."

Update on my informal poll. I called my father. 80 years old, faithful to the core, very well read on Mormon teachings, held nearly every leadership position at the ward and stake level. He could discuss the doctrine, but not at the level of specificity satisfying the non-ignorant criteria of Coggins and Makelan.

[_Coggins7]

A search at the main ABC.com website returns no matches for "Mitt Romney".

[_Jersey Girl]

In fairness, I'd bet that a non-trivial percentage of active Mormons don't know this finer point of doctrine, or other finer points of doctrine.

If that's true then those members aren't studying the gospel like they're supposed to. It's in the scriptures, the institute manuals and all the articles on the subject.

Typical apologist reply. Translated it means, "If that's true, then those members aren't studying the gospel like they're supposed to; in other words, like I do. I know it, and they're lazy and uninformed if they don't know like I do."

Update on my informal poll. I called my father. 80 years old, faithful to the core, very well read on Mormon teachings, held nearly every leadership position at the ward and stake level. He could discuss the doctrine, but not at the level of specificity satisfying the non-ignorant criteria of Coggins and Makelan.

I'm a never-Mo. D&C 84. How'd I do?

Jersey Girl