Here Adam and his righteous posterity met (see D&C 107:53-57). Adam, other prophets, and faithful Saints from all ages will meet the Savior here prior to His Second Coming.
Looking eastward across the valley of Adam-ondi-Ahman, a quiet, beautiful valley located in northwestern Missouri near the community of Gallatin.
Three years before he died, Adam called his righteous posterity into this valley and bestowed on them his last blessing (D&C 107:53-56). In 1838 Adam-ondi-Ahman was the location of a settlement of between 500 and 1,000 Latter-day Saints. The Saints abandoned this settlement when they were expelled from Missouri. Before Christ’s Second Coming in glory, Adam and his righteous posterity, which includes Saints of all dispensations, will again assemble in this valley to meet with the Savior.
And this has nothing to do with Stephanopoulus' question.
guy sajer wrote:Is it possible that Mitt does not understand this doctrine as well as Makelan and his wife?
Would that make him ignorant too?
I seriously doubt it. Everyone who grows up in the church knows Christ will come to Adam-Ondi-Ahman to start off the millenium. Some may get caught up in who he's going to visit, what he'll do, where he'll go next, etc. but even my 7 year old knows when the second coming arrives, Christ is coming to AAA.
Well apparently not everyone. Guy said his wife and 80 year old dad didn't and you clearly canont get it accurate either. Don't ask me to show you where you are wrong.. I did. Twice, as have others.
maklelan wrote:Please quote the question and then show the blatant falsehood in the answer. I've been over it and I see nothing other than perfect accuracy in representing our doctrine.
The question was posted earlier, but here it is again for you:
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.
If you can't see deception in Mitt's failure to even address the fact that Christ WILL return to the US, then I can't help you.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Jason Bourne wrote:Don't ask me to show you where you are wrong.. I did. Twice, as have others.
No you didn't. If you're going to assert that I'm wrong, you need to demonstrate it.
Please answer my questions I posed to you.
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
maklelan wrote:No, he's aware of it, but you're either ignorant of it or choose to misrepresent it and Stephanopoulus' question so that your argument appears valid.
The only people 'misrepresenting' here is first Mitt, and then you guys in your pathetic attempts to defend him.
Am I missing out on something here? Is Christ's return to the US a big secret or something?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
Who Knows wrote:Oh, and besides your pathetic and fruitless attempts at defending mitt, I just noticed you called me ignorant? You better back that up. Show me where in this thread I've said something to indicate I'm ignorant on this topic.
Already did. You said you needed no lesson on doctrine and I pointed out exactly how and why you were wrong about that.
maklelan wrote:Already did. You said you needed no lesson on doctrine and I pointed out exactly how and why you were wrong about that.
Oh jeez, you and jason - "i already did". Whatever, you didn't. Maybe you need to point it out to me again, because if you did, I missed it.
Can anyone please answer the questions I asked earlier?
WK: "Joseph Smith asserted that the Book of Mormon peoples were the original inhabitants of the americas"
Will Schryver: "No, he didn’t." 3/19/08
Still waiting for Will to back this up...
liz3564 wrote:Our belief is that, 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. We also believe that Christ will appear and reign in the US, and all over the world. [/b]
But he won't reign in the US. The physical location of his reign is not specified. What is specified is that the priesthood will be established in the US to reign, but about Christ it says nothing. This has nothing to do with Stephanopoulus' question.
Who Knows wrote:Oh jeez, you and jason - "i already did". Whatever, you didn't. Maybe you need to point it out to me again, because if you did, I missed it.
Can anyone please answer the questions I asked earlier?
OK, but this is the last time.
maklelan wrote:
Who Knows wrote: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.
