VegasRefugee wrote:...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.
How many times has he already visited the earth (since his ascension), according to our beliefs?
Its irrelevant how many times. The fact remains that Mormons generally view Missouri as the "new Jerusalem". The weasel wording your playing is still unable to deflect the fact Joe taught what he did, that America, not Jerusalem would be the geographic center of the second coming. Within your system of belief this remains and jerusalem is a side note and not the central focus.
Just admit it and move on.
And what does the New Jerusalem have to do with Stephanopoulus' question? Absolutely nothing.
maklelan wrote:And what does the New Jerusalem have to do with Stephanopoulus' question? Absolutely nothing.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think Romney misstated. My understanding is that Jesus is supposed to do the whole Mount Zion thing at His second coming. The New Jerusalem part is a separate issue.
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?
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.
No, you are wrong still. Read above. He returns to Jerusalem to begin his erthly reign, at the mount of Olives.
Twist, weave, juke, jive, etc.
Does the LDS church teach that Jesus will come to AAA to take over the reigns of earth from Adam, and that this will mark the beginning of his millenial rule? (whether or not he will go and appear at Jerusalem after that is irrelevant).
Does the LDS church teach that Christ will come to the US (AAA)?
Yes or no please.
I teaches that he will come to the US preliminary to his grand appearence in Jerusalem and that there will be two world capitals-Zion and Jerusalem.
maklelan wrote:And what does the New Jerusalem have to do with Stephanopoulus' question? Absolutely nothing.
Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't think Romney misstated. My understanding is that Jesus is supposed to do the whole Mount Zion thing at His second coming. The New Jerusalem part is a separate issue.
Thank you for breathng some objectivity into the argument. It is a separate issue, but some people here want to force them into the same question, which is silly.
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.
How is any of what you wrote pointing out that I'm wrong. What I stated above and what I've stated throughout this entire thread is perfectly consistent with what you wrote.
Are you focusing on the fact that I used the phrase "glorious return to earth"? Is that it? Do you not consider Christ's return to AAA to take over the earthly reigns from Adam a 'glorious return to earth'?
Again, you have not demonstrated how any of what I have said is inconsistent with LDS teachings.
And again, I assert that Mitt's failure to mention Christ's return to the US - in answer to that exact question posed to him, is a blatant lie.
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...
I'm sorry but to suggest the LDS church has the SAME doctrine regarding the second coming is absolutly incorrect.
Unless you can show me that other Christian churches believe the New Jerusalem is in America, Mitt was incorrect and/or misleading.
One could get away with saying... the doctrine is similar, or include, "we also believe"... or something but to say the doctrine is the same is just not so.
~dancer~
"That Zion (The New Jerusalem) will be built upon this the American continent." Please document other Christian churches agreeing with this LDS doctrine.
"The search for reality is the most dangerous of all undertakings for it destroys the world in which you live." Nisargadatta Maharaj
Who Knows wrote:How is any of what you wrote pointing out that I'm wrong. What I stated above and what I've stated throughout this entire thread is perfectly consistent with what you wrote.
You force Second Coming conditions into a situation that is completely different and then demand that Romney address the different situation because your definition of it is couched in the same tarms that are reserved for the second coming.
Who Knows wrote:Are you focusing on the fact that I used the phrase "glorious return to earth"? Is that it? Do you not consider Christ's return to AAA to take over the earthly reigns from Adam a 'glorious return to earth'?
You know exactly what "glorius return to the earth" means and so does Romney. AAA will be completely unknown to the world and the church at large.
Who Knows wrote:Again, you have not demonstrated how any of what I have said is inconsistent with LDS teachings.
And again, I assert that Mitt's failure to mention Christ's return to the US - in answer to that exact question posed to him, is a blatant lie.
But Christ has already returned to the US several times, and none of it has anythign at all to do with his Second Coming. Why is AAA different?
I'm sorry but to suggest the LDS church has the SAME doctrine regarding the second coming is absolutly incorrect.
Unless you can show me that other Christian churches believe the New Jerusalem is in America, Mitt was incorrect and/or misleading.
The New Jerusalem has nothing to do with Stephanopoulus' question or the Second Coming in glory.
truth dancer wrote:"That Zion (The New Jerusalem) will be built upon this the American continent." Please document other Christian churches agreeing with this LDS doctrine.
And this will precede the Second Coming by years. What has this to do with Stephanopoulus' question?
Jason Bourne wrote:I teaches that he will come to the US preliminary to his grand appearence in Jerusalem and that there will be two world capitals-Zion and Jerusalem.
There, what was so hard about that?
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...