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

[_Who Knows]

He's returned to the US dozens of times since his ascension. He's also returned to Jerusalem and Galilee and dozens of other locales. Obviously Stephanopoulus was not speaking of Christ's visit to the earth in a general capacity, but one of special significance. Since it is immediately followed by this question,

Exactly - which is why it appears obvious to anyone that he was referring to Christ's supposed visit to AAA, and not to any 'ole visit.

we have a context for this question. Obviously this "return" is the one that will usher in the Millenium. Since Stephanopoulus is utterly unaware of our belief that a private meeting at AAA will take place at some point prior to the Second Coming (since he says "probably" we know he's got no grasp of the doctrine at all), we know he's not alluding to that, but to the Second Coming, which is exactly how the question was interpreted by Romney (and myself and other Mormons and ex-Mormons here), and it was answered accordingly. Concerning the Second Coming of Christ (the only possible meanign of Stephanopoulus' question), Romney answered exactly as any competent Mormon would, that we believe the same as the rest of Christianity.

Again, I disagree. The question when coupled with 'the millenium' obviously refers to Christ's visit to AAA which I assert is part of the whole 2nd coming/millenium grand event. As you stated, it sounded like Steph wasn't totally up to speed on the doctrine. But he knew enough to know that LDS believe that as part of the millenial events, Christ will return to the US. It was a perfectly valid question for someone not totally familiar with LDS claims. What a perfect opportunity to enlighten Steph as to what LDS actually believe surrounding Christ's visit to AAA. Unfortunately, he gave the impression that there was no such belief in the LDS church.

Your point has been noted, but it's a forced inference and your own constituents have expressed the same concern.

Well, I don't believe it's a 'forced inference'. I believe your rationalizations of his deceptive answer is forced.

You say tom-ay-to, i say tom-ah-to i guess.

[_guy sajer]

This statement only goes to highlight your naivte and lack of practical experience. In the real world, misunderstanding and diverse interpretations happen all the time, even regarding concepts that one might think are totally clear cut.

Oh, I'm aware that different interpretations are made about every clear cut doctrine, but that doesn't make them valid.

According to you, at least.

One teaching I'm not aware of is the one that made you the final arbiter of what constitutes "valid" interpretations.

The diversity in terms of humans, human cognition, human perceptions, human understandings, human interpretations is immense. There is rarely anything constituting "objective truth" in this regard.

A common human tendency is to assume that one's perceptions constitute objective truth.

Which, taken all together, makes somewhat ridiculous any doctrine that eternal salvation/exaltation requires that individuals, as wonderfully diverse and complex as they are, to arrive at a single pre-determined conclusion as to what constitutes "truth."

[_maklelan]

He's returned to the US dozens of times since his ascension. He's also returned to Jerusalem and Galilee and dozens of other locales. Obviously Stephanopoulus was not speaking of Christ's visit to the earth in a general capacity, but one of special significance. Since it is immediately followed by this question,

Exactly - which is why it appears obvious to anyone that he was referring to Christ's supposed visit to AAA, and not to any 'ole visit.

Or, much more likely, he's referring to the Second Coming and has heard at some point that Mormons might believe that Christ will make his Second Coming appearance in the US. One theory makes Stephanopoulus much more informed than you and, according to guy, most Mormons, (although the word "probably" immediately makes it clear he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about) and the other fits in perfectly with the way in which unconcerned reporters gather information about Latter-day Saints. I'll go with the latter.

Again, I disagree. The question when coupled with 'the millenium' obviously refers to Christ's visit to AAA which I assert is part of the whole 2nd coming/millenium grand event.

But the lesson quoted above:

Adam-ondi-Ahman will also be an important place in the future: near the time of Christ’s second coming, Adam will come again to Adam-ondi-Ahman and hold a great council. All the prophets who have held keys of priesthood authority upon the earth will come to this council to give a report of their work to Adam. Jesus Christ will then come to Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Adam will return the priesthood keys to him. Christ will then return to earth to begin the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will live on and reign over the earth.

makes it abundantly clear that they are separate and distinct events. We think of them as entirely separate. Why force your unique opinion onto Romney?

As you stated, it sounded like Steph wasn't totally up to speed on the doctrine. But he knew enough to know that LDS believe that as part of the millenial events, Christ will return to the US. It was a perfectly valid question for someone not totally familiar with LDS claims. What a perfect opportunity to enlighten Steph as to what LDS actually believe surrounding Christ's visit to AAA. Unfortunately, he gave the impression that there was no such belief in the LDS church.

But I and pretty much everyone else here intimately familair with the doctrine immediately thought Stephanopoulus was talking about the Second Coming. Why do you insist that Romney could not have been?

Well, I don't believe it's a 'forced inference'. I believe your rationalizations of his deceptive answer is forced.

You say tom-ay-to, i say tom-ah-to i guess.

Well, you're the only one left standing that still wants to support the idea that he was lying. If you feel your interpretation is correct, then that's your prerogative, but you're the only one. As I show above, you continue to push your etic assumptions about our doctrine into Romney's mind, without even considering that everyone here who knows the doctrine has said that they don't believe it was deception at all, but at most a misunderstanding of the question, and at least (and more likely in my opinion) an honest answer of a weird and misinformed question. If you want to continue in the proud anti-Mormon tradition of telling us exactly what we're thinking and even what we're subconsciously thinking when we lie about our beliefs then go right ahead, but know you betray your bias and unwillingness to be objective.

[_Alter Idem]

I listened to the sound bite and found nothing wrong with what Romney said. I did find Stephanopolous' comments to be a little off.

As an LDS person, I don't believe Jesus will "reign here in the US" as Stephanopolous stated. He's making assumptions and mixing up two events. Adam-ohndi-ahmun precedes the second coming and Joseph Fielding Smith said hardly anyone would even know when it takes place--for all we know, it's already happened. It is at AAA that the reigns or keys are handed over to Jesus, but the wickedness does not stop--he does not "reign in the US".

As Romney stated, For LDS, the second coming is what is described in the Old and New Testaments. Jesus appears on the Mount of Olives. This is when Jesus officially rules and is acknowledged by all the world that he is the King and he will rule the world personally for 1,000 years. There are two seats of Govt., the Old and New Jerusalem, one in the east and one in the west of the world.

[_maklelan]

Which, taken all together, makes somewhat ridiculous any doctrine that eternal salvation/exaltation requires that individuals, as wonderfully diverse and complex as they are, to arrive at a single pre-determined conclusion as to what constitutes "truth."

But we believe in absolute truth, and that a necessary element of real faith is familiarity with certain aspects of it. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't tell us what we're allowed to believe about the nature of truth.

[_guy sajer]

Which, taken all together, makes somewhat ridiculous any doctrine that eternal salvation/exaltation requires that individuals, as wonderfully diverse and complex as they are, to arrive at a single pre-determined conclusion as to what constitutes "truth."

But we believe in absolute truth, and that a necessary element of real faith is familiarity with certain aspects of it. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't tell us what we're allowed to believe about the nature of truth.

I'm not telling you what you're allowed to believe. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I'm merely commenting on the unreasonableness of what you believe.

One difference between you and me, however, is that I have no expectations that one's eternal well-being is dependent on reaching the same conclusions about truth that I have.

[_maklelan]

Which, taken all together, makes somewhat ridiculous any doctrine that eternal salvation/exaltation requires that individuals, as wonderfully diverse and complex as they are, to arrive at a single pre-determined conclusion as to what constitutes "truth."

But we believe in absolute truth, and that a necessary element of real faith is familiarity with certain aspects of it. If you don't agree that's fine, but don't tell us what we're allowed to believe about the nature of truth.

I'm not telling you what you're allowed to believe. I couldn't care less what you believe.

I'm merely commenting on the unreasonableness of what you believe.

One difference between you and me, however, is that I have no expectations that one's eternal well-being is dependent on reaching the same conclusions about truth that I have.

But the conclusions that I push are the ones that the church pushes, not my own speculation and assumption.

[_Who Knows]

But the lesson quoted above:

Adam-ondi-Ahman will also be an important place in the future: near the time of Christ’s second coming, Adam will come again to Adam-ondi-Ahman and hold a great council. All the prophets who have held keys of priesthood authority upon the earth will come to this council to give a report of their work to Adam. Jesus Christ will then come to Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Adam will return the priesthood keys to him. Christ will then return to earth to begin the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will live on and reign over the earth.

makes it abundantly clear that they are separate and distinct events. We think of them as entirely separate. Why force your unique opinion onto Romney?

Well, yeah, if you want to nitpick. Kinda like how Joseph Smith reading James 1:5 was separate from the actual event of 'having' the first vision. Alternatively, we can refer to the first vision as one large event, containing numerous distinct events (Joseph Smith questioning the churches around him, him reading James 1:5, going out to a field to pray, etc.). Depends on how granular you want to go. It should be clear to anyone that when Christ is referenced coming to the US with the millenium, that his visit to AAA is what is actually meant. Especially if the person referencing it is not completely clear on what LDS doctrine actually is. I mean, when you heard the question, were you like 'what the heck is he talking about - christ comes to america?' Or were you like 'oh, he's referring to AAA'. I knew immediately that he was referring to AAA, and was like 'wtf?' when romney went on about jerusalem, mount of olives, LDS believe the same thing as other christians, etc.

But I and pretty much everyone else here intimately familair with the doctrine immediately thought Stephanopoulus was talking about the Second Coming. Why do you insist that Romney could not have been?

Actually, I thought he was talking about the LDS belief that Christ will come to AAA as part of the millenial events. Seeing as how that's what the question was ("will Christ come to the US"), i think that makes sense.

What you must also remember is that this is being seen by people who are not familiar with LDS doctrine. While you can say, 'Mitt' was correct on some nit-pick techinicality, I'm not sure those who aren't familiar with the doctrine will understand that LDS DO believe that Christ will come to the US as part of the millenium, as the question was asked.

Well, you're the only one left standing that still wants to support the idea that he was lying.

Apparently. But that doesn't phase me.

Incidentally, you're part of a religion that less than 1% of the world believes in. I'm guessing that doesn't phase you either.

If you feel your interpretation is correct, then that's your prerogative, but you're the only one.

yeah, so what? I stand by what I've said.

As I show above, you continue to push your etic assumptions about our doctrine into Romney's mind

no, i don't feel like i'm making any assumptions. In contrast, I feel that you are the one making assumptions about what 'question' mitt was answering.

without even considering that everyone here who knows the doctrine has said that they don't believe it was deception at all, but at most a misunderstanding of the question, and at least (and more likely in my opinion) an honest answer of a weird and misinformed question.

Like i said, i could care less about what the majority here think. I've read all the arguments, and find mine most reasonable.

If you want to continue in the proud anti-Mormon tradition of telling us exactly what we're thinking and even what we're subconsciously thinking when we lie about our beliefs then go right ahead, but know you betray your bias and unwillingness to be objective.

oh puleeze. i've done no such thing. would you like to bear your testimony now?

[_maklelan]

But the lesson quoted above:

Adam-ondi-Ahman will also be an important place in the future: near the time of Christ’s second coming, Adam will come again to Adam-ondi-Ahman and hold a great council. All the prophets who have held keys of priesthood authority upon the earth will come to this council to give a report of their work to Adam. Jesus Christ will then come to Adam-ondi-Ahman, and Adam will return the priesthood keys to him. Christ will then return to earth to begin the Millennium, the thousand years when Christ will live on and reign over the earth.

makes it abundantly clear that they are separate and distinct events. We think of them as entirely separate. Why force your unique opinion onto Romney?

Well, yeah, if you want to nitpick.

Oh, now I'm nitpicking?!? I'm done with you. Refusing to back down when you've lost is incredibly easy to do on an online message board, so I'm not gonna continue to try to get you to realize your error. It's clear enough.

[_Who Knows]

Oh, now I'm nitpicking?!?

Yes, you have been from the beginning - by narrowly defining the terms of the question so it fits with Mitt's response in a roundabout way.

I'm done with you. Refusing to back down when you've lost is incredibly easy to do on an online message board, so I'm not gonna continue to try to get you to realize your error. It's clear enough.

Oh whatever. I say you lost. There, how's that?

You think I lost because I'm outnumbered here? You don't really want to 'score' that way do you?

Besides, on message boards, there are rarely winners/losers - only opinion. Your belief that this is the case is ignorant.