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

[_maklelan]

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

And Romney knows it, so don't call him a liar because he represents doctrines you're ignorant of.

What's the consistent thread connecting them?

The only people I'm aware of that don't know it are people who are very close to you.

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?

You're welcome to give it a shot.

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.

This is a pretty basic doctrine, and if someone takes the gospel seriously, and reads their scriptures and prays every day, there's no reason I can think of that they would not be aware of this. It's taught every single time the issue is addressed in Sunday School, Seminary or institute. I taught it countless times to new members as a missionary. It hardly requires spending every waking hour "immersed in Mormonism."

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

Are you insinuating that I don't?

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.

Shall we review exactly why I called this person ignorant?

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

I don't call most people ignorant, but when someone touts their gospel knowledge in the face of such a blatant lack of understanding like this I will point it out.

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?

Among people who boast that they need no instruction about doctrine? I'd say it's pretty high.

[_guy sajer]

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

And Romney knows it, so don't call him a liar because he represents doctrines you're ignorant of.

What's the consistent thread connecting them?

The only people I'm aware of that don't know it are people who are very close to you.

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?

You're welcome to give it a shot.

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.

This is a pretty basic doctrine, and if someone takes the gospel seriously, and reads their scriptures and prays every day, there's no reason I can think of that they would not be aware of this. It's taught every single time the issue is addressed in Sunday School, Seminary or institute. I taught it countless times to new members as a missionary. It hardly requires spending every waking hour "immersed in Mormonism."

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

Are you insinuating that I don't?

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.

Shall we review exactly why I called this person ignorant?

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

I don't call most people ignorant, but when someone touts their gospel knowledge in the face of such a blatant lack of understanding like this I will point it out.

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?

Among people who boast that they need no instruction about doctrine? I'd say it's pretty high.

Show me one quote where I call Romney a liar.

If he misrepresented Mormon doctrine, I am inclined to assume he doesn't know it or misunderstands it. I have no a priori reason to believe Romney's a liar, as I believe him to be an honorable man.

[_Gazelam]

I'm going off of memory here, but from what I understand one Jerusalem will be a religious center, and the other will be a governmental center. I can't remember which is which.

The Millinium isn't my specialty, since I've never really studied it at all.

Gaz

[_maklelan]

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

And Romney knows it, so don't call him a liar because he represents doctrines you're ignorant of.

Show me one quote where I call Romney a liar.

If he misrepresented Mormon doctrine, I am inclined to assume he doesn't know it or misunderstands it. I have no a priori reason to believe Romney's a liar, as I believe him to be an honorable man.

I apologize. That should have been addressed to those who were doing so. I brought this up because someone was calling him a liar, and my point above was addressed to those people. Again, sorry for being unclear about who I wanted to address.

[_guy sajer]

What's the consistent thread connecting them?

The only people I'm aware of that don't know it are people who are very close to you.[/quote]

And you've no doubt taken a wide survey of the rank and file to support your contention that this is a well-known doctrine. My sample is as small and biased as yours, so our conclusions are equally valid or invalid. My sample, however, is sufficient to demonstrate that being smart and informed does not necessarily mean someone knows this particular doctrine inside and out.

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?

You're welcome to give it a shot.[/quote]

I note that you just, by inference, accused my wife and father of being ignorant, people whom you've never met. I'm confident that my wife is vastly your intellectual superior.

I'd call them ignorant, but since I know them all too well, I'll call them what they are: intelligent, knowledgable, devoted Mormons who love this silly cult every bit as much as you do.

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.

This is a pretty basic doctrine, and if someone takes the gospel seriously, and reads their scriptures and prays every day, there's no reason I can think of that they would not be aware of this. It's taught every single time the issue is addressed in Sunday School, Seminary or institute. I taught it countless times to new members as a missionary. It hardly requires spending every waking hour "immersed in Mormonism."[/quote]

This statement only goes to show your naivte. You remind me of a new parent lecturing parents of teenagers on how they should discipline their child. The whole world is a figgn' abstraction to you, so lacking in real world experience as your twenty some odd years make you.

You'll figure out one day that you know a whole lot less than you think you do.

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

Are you insinuating that I don't?[/quote]

Your welcome to give it a shot to say it.

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.

Shall we review exactly why I called this person ignorant?[/quote]

OK, I'm lost here. What's your point of reference?

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

I don't call most people ignorant, but when someone touts their gospel knowledge in the face of such a blatant lack of understanding like this I will point it out. [/quote]

Again, you and I disagree on how common of a doctrine this is and how well known it is. You have your twenty years and theoretical abstractions; I have double that plus interactions with LDS Church members in mulitple contries on multiple continents. This doesn't necessarily make me correct, but it at least means that my views are not wholly misinforned or based on theoretical propositions.

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?

Among people who boast that they need no instruction about doctrine? I'd say it's pretty high.[/quote]

What the hell does this refer to? I don't see the humble members in Ghana and Bolivia making these kinds of boasts.

[_maklelan]

And you've no doubt taken a wide survey of the rank and file to support your contention that this is a well-known doctrine. My sample is as small and biased as yours, so our conclusions are equally valid or invalid. My sample, however, is sufficient to demonstrate that being smart and informed does not necessarily mean someone knows this particular doctrine inside and out.

Well, I've taught it countless times on my mission. I've taught it in several Sunday School classes where everyone knew it. I've been in three different Institute classes that addressed it and everyone knew it, and I've just recently asked everyone immediately available to me and they all knew it. How big a sample would you like me to take before it has the same value as the three people you asked?

I note that you just, by inference, accused my wife and father of being ignorant, people whom you've never met. I'm confident that my wife is vastly your intellectual superior.

You don't have to assume that my statement goes beyond anything but gospel knowledge, but you appear to want to.

This statement only goes to show your naivte. You remind me of a new parent lecturing parents of teenagers on how they should discipline their child. The whole world is a figgn' abstraction to you, so lacking in real world experience as your twenty some odd years make you.

And you base this off of an assumption that I don't have any experience, but, as I've stated before, you have no idea what my experiences have been.

You'll figure out one day that you know a whole lot less than you think you do.

I figure that out every day, but you always manage to make me feel better.

Your welcome to give it a shot to say it.

This sentence doesn't make much sense.

OK, I'm lost here. What's your point of reference?

The statement below comes in closing a post that basically said that Romney's a liar and that the doctrine that I've pointed out is not subscribed to by Mormons. I called this person on the statement below and showed exactly what the doctrine is.

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

Again, you and I disagree on how common of a doctrine this is and how well known it is. You have your twenty years and theoretical abstractions; I have double that plus interactions with LDS Church members in mulitple contries on multiple continents. This doesn't necessarily make me correct, but it at least means that my views are not wholly misinforned or based on theoretical propositions.

All I need is interaction with multiple church members in multiple countries on multiple continents? I've got that. In fact I've been a church leader on a different continent, as well as interacted with church members in several countries and on other continents as a member and as a non-member. I'll say again that you haven't a clue what I've done in my 26 years, so please stop trying to pigeonhole me.

What the hell does this refer to? I don't see the humble members in Ghana and Bolivia making these kinds of boasts.

This refers to the fact that my calling Who Knows ignorant was based on their silly little rant about not needing instruction because of their superior familiarity with it.

[_Polygamy Porter]

The following is taken from the ABCNEWS.com website, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview"

Stephanopoulos: I just have one more question about this and it has to do with the Muslim world.

In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years.

And I wonder how that would be viewed in the Muslim world. Have you thought about how the Muslim world will react to that and whether it would make it more difficult, if you were president, to build alliances with the Muslim world?

Mitt Romney: Well, I'm not a spokesman for my church. I'm not running for pastor in chief. I'm running for commander in chief.

So the best place to go for my church's doctrines would be my church.

Stephanopoulos: But I'm talking about how they will take it, how they will perceive it.

Mitt Romney: I understand, but that doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my church.

Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth.

It's the same as the other Christian tradition. 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.

Stephanopoulos: But your church does teach that Jesus will reign on earth for the millennium, right?

Mitt Romney: Yes.

[_Polygamy Porter]

Video: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=2885029

[Guest]

The following is taken from the ABCNEWS.com website, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview"

Stephanopoulos: I just have one more question about this and it has to do with the Muslim world.

In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years.

And I wonder how that would be viewed in the Muslim world. Have you thought about how the Muslim world will react to that and whether it would make it more difficult, if you were president, to build alliances with the Muslim world?

Mitt Romney: Well, I'm not a spokesman for my church. I'm not running for pastor in chief. I'm running for commander in chief.

So the best place to go for my church's doctrines would be my church.

Stephanopoulos: But I'm talking about how they will take it, how they will perceive it.

Mitt Romney: I understand, but that doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my church.

Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth.

It's the same as the other Christian tradition. 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.

Stephanopoulos: But your church does teach that Jesus will reign on earth for the millennium, right?

Mitt Romney: Yes.

Perfectly accurate. Jesus' return will take place on Mt. Olivet. From the D&C institute manual regarding Adam-ondi-Ahman (p. 288):

When this gathering is held, the world will not know of it; the members of the church at large will not know of it, yet it shall be preparatory to the coming in clouds of glory of our Savior Jesus Christ as the Prophet Joseph Smith has said. The world cannot know of it. The Saints cannot know of it--except those who officially shall be called into his council--for it shall precede the coming of Jesus Christ as a thief in the night, unbeknown to all the world.

So, if one wants to make the point that his Second Coming may be in Jerusalem, but he's still coming in some capacity to the US, then they'll have to deal with all the sightings all over the world of Christ appearing to different people since the first time he promised his next coming would be in power and glory. Christ has appeared on earth several times in many different places (and every Christian I've ever met believes that), but his Second Coming will be on the Mount of Olives, just like every other Christian I've ever met believes. Romneys statement was accurate in every single sense of the word.

The question deals with how that relates to the Muslim world, which I don't understand. Since they don't believe Christ's return means anything at all, why would they care where it takes place?

[_Mercury]

The following is taken from the ABCNEWS.com website, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview"

Stephanopoulos: I just have one more question about this and it has to do with the Muslim world.

In your faith, if I understand it correctly, it teaches that Jesus will return probably to the United States and reign on earth for 1,000 years.

And I wonder how that would be viewed in the Muslim world. Have you thought about how the Muslim world will react to that and whether it would make it more difficult, if you were president, to build alliances with the Muslim world?

Mitt Romney: Well, I'm not a spokesman for my church. I'm not running for pastor in chief. I'm running for commander in chief.

So the best place to go for my church's doctrines would be my church.

Stephanopoulos: But I'm talking about how they will take it, how they will perceive it.

Mitt Romney: I understand, but that doesn't happen to be a doctrine of my church.

Our belief is just as it says in the Bible, that the messiah will come to Jerusalem, stand on the Mount of Olives and that the Mount of Olives will be the place for the great gathering and so forth.

It's the same as the other Christian tradition. 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.

Stephanopoulos: But your church does teach that Jesus will reign on earth for the millennium, right?

Mitt Romney: Yes.

Perfectly accurate. Jesus' return will take place on Mt. Olivet.

...after visiting Salt Lake and his new digs in Missouri. My mission president made this evident when speaking to us one winter afternoon. Jesus and joe smith would come to SLC and Missouri before announcing his return to the world in Jerusalem.