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

[Guest]

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 just asked my 25 year old wife, and another low-twenties couple that we're entertaining tonight and they all knew the doctrine exactly as I had explained it. They didn't think it was a mystery at all.

Am I really supposed to respect any of your assertions about what we believe when you go off about how we're acting so superior because we know Christ comes in glory to Mt. Olivet after privately visiting Adam-ondi-ahman?

[_Who Knows]

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.

So, what, you're calling Stephie a liar now? I'm taking him on his word that he asked Mitt if LDS believe that Christ will return to the US to begin the millenium. Do you have reason to believe otherwise?

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.

Oh jeez, why are you making stuff up? He said no such thing. He simply said that Mormons claimed that Jesus would return to the US to begin his millenial rule. Perfectly in line with LDS teachings.

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.

Well then, you need to study your church teachings then. Adam will first appear at AAA, have a secret meeting with his fellow TBMers, welcome Christ back to earth, and turn over the 'reigns' to him. This marks the beginning of his millenial rule.

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.

Romney made no mention of Christ's return to the US, when he was asked about it. In fact, he only talked about Christ returning to jerusalem. He was being deceitful.

Yours (and the other TBMs here) only answer is that steph edited the thing to make it look like mitt was lying. In all fairness, if they did edit it that way, then you have a point. But I see no reason to think that.

[_maklelan]

Romney made no mention of Christ's return to the US, when he was asked about it. In fact, he only talked about Christ returning to jerusalem. He was being deceitful.

He's not being deceitful at all, you are. The question wasn't about a visit to the US, it was about reigning over the US (evidently), so the question was answered honestly.

[_Who Knows]

Romney made no mention of Christ's return to the US, when he was asked about it. In fact, he only talked about Christ returning to jerusalem. He was being deceitful.

He's not being deceitful at all, you are. The question wasn't about a visit to the US, it was about reigning over the US (evidently), so the question was answered honestly.

No it wasn't. Did you watch the clip?

[_Jersey Girl]

You can watch the whole interview at the ABC website, it's about 30 minutes. Let's see what Coggins has to report after he's viewed it...as I hope he is.

Jersey Girl

[_Jersey Girl]

So, let's consider motive. If Romney did indeed lie, what do you all think his motive for lying would be?

Jersey Girl

[_Bond...James Bond]

So, let's consider motive. If Romney did indeed lie, what do you all think his motive for lying would be?

Jersey Girl

To tell his "supposed" base (the EV right) what they want to hear.

[_guy sajer]

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 just asked my 25 year old wife, and another low-twenties couple that we're entertaining tonight and they all knew the doctrine exactly as I had explained it. They didn't think it was a mystery at all.

Am I really supposed to respect any of your assertions about what we believe when you go off about how we're acting so superior because we know Christ comes in glory to Mt. Olivet after privately visiting Adam-ondi-ahman?

So what does this prove? Some know the doctrine, others don't.

What's the consistent thread connecting them?

There is none.

Odds are that I, or someone else, could pull up some other doctrine that your 25 year-old wife and your couple friends would not know.

Would I be justified in this case to call them ignorant?

Not everyone is a gospel scholar, and not everyone knows all the doctrines backwards and forwards. Not everyone has the same time or inclination as everyone else to read the scriptures, lesson manuals, etc. or to spend their waking lives immersed in Mormonism.

Some of the rank and file actually have a . . . oh what do you call it ?. . . oh yeah, life outside of Mormonism.

Calling people who do not have the same level of knowledge about Mormon doctrine as you ignorant, although they be as stalwart and faithful as you, is plain arrogant.

By the way, what do you think the odds are that this is a well-known doctrine among the faithful Saints in, say, Ghana or Bolivia?

[_Mercury]

[By the way, what do you think the odds are that this is a well-known doctrine among the faithful Saints in, say, Ghana or Bolivia?

I would assume the Ghanans and Bolivians would say something to the effect of:

"Yes yes, Joseph Smith, Jesus and the Virgin Mary of Guadeloupe. We pray now and eat afterwards, yes? You get my daughter to America when you leave? oh very good. yes, gold plates and the Bible. We wait for rapture then go to celestial kingdom. OK Mr branch president, I wash your car so i may pay tithing. very nice. yes, yes."

[_Mercury]

So, let's consider motive. If Romney did indeed lie, what do you all think his motive for lying would be?

Jersey Girl

In order to not show mormonisms true nature - a weird religion with weird beliefs. The church was tight lipped during the 60 minutes interview about adam ondi ahman, so maybe mitt has been coached by church PR to not mention such in order to avoid discussions of potential red flags.