Found it! Mitt Romney denies first vision

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Can somebody explain why Mitt Romney could not have just told it as it is, just as he did as a missionary, just as missionaries do, and as prophets and apostles have done and still do?

America does not need a successful businessman in the Oval Office. We need a president who, like I believe Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin, knows the Constitution as the Founders intended it to be understood and would defend, uphold, and abide by it. Anyone familiar with constitutional principles should recognize Romney's disdain for certain constitutional principles as demonstrated by his "Romneycare" and neglect of the duty of the US Congress to declare war (which Ron Paul corrected him on in that so called debate). And I would hope that anyone here who heard is words in support of Senator McCain in 2008 and again this year (I sat thru one of those bull sessions) would see him as I do.

As for Romney's disdain for certain moral principles, somebody else can carry that ball. I'm sick of it.

[Teancumcaptain of 100]

I don't know if the media distorted this interview either, as Rosabella has suggested as plausible. I also acknowledge that Rosabella could be wrong and that Romney's political side-stepping to position himself for president could be more important to him than standing like a missionary (as Lundbaek states) and declaring openly the validity of the First Vision. What I do know is that members of the Church that still support Romney today have shown that they have not performed their due diligence in electing good leaders as we are commanded by the Lord:

"Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn... Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil." (D&C 98:8-10.)

So before anyone calls LDS detractors of Mitt Romney to repentance (hint: Obiwan), they better study hard and be sure "to uphold" "honest", "wise", and "good men", "otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil."
Seeing how Romney has shreaded the Holy Constitution apart with Romneycare in Massachussetts, how he has openly and immorally stated that he would be a greater supporter of gay rights than Ted Kennedy (Romney was for homosexual marriage before he was against it), and how he continues to support undeclared, ungodly, and offensive warfare (D&C 98) against any perceived foe imaginable, I, for one, am not in doubt that he is far from the being the best presidential candidate in 2012. I would also agree with Lundbaek when he says:

The Mormon people have, I believe, the most serious responsibility of any people to prepare a remnant that will ultimately restore the principles of the U.S. Constitution as approved by the Lord to our government. And because of your experience in government and your knowledge of these principles, you (i.e. Romney) are probably the best person in the Church at this time to rally Latter-day Saints and lead the charge in preparation for that time when people will want to live under the principles of the U.S. Constitution that the American Founding Fathers and the Lord intended us to live under.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Romney has fallen on his face in attempting to step into this role of "lead[ing] the charge in preparation for that time when people will want to live under the principles of the U.S. Constitution that the American Founding Fathers and the Lord" ordained for us. So, vote for Ron Paul.

[Koiapecaptain of 50]

Obiwan,

While I would agree that it was off the top of his head, he was stating something most people could acknowledge and identify with, not trying to be a mormon. So, there WAS "thought" in the answer, contrary to your claim.

LOL. You say "thought" as if I was saying it condescendingly. You agree with me that his answer was off the top of his head MEANING not much thought went into the answer.. and then you DISAGREE me and yourself in the next sentence.

So we agree but you take it as if we disagree because of the sole reason that I am not a Mitt Romney supporter...such as yourself. Makes sense... I see that kind of logic everyday on FoxNews, CNN and MSNBC.

Let's hope you don't do that again........

It is not true at all that he said Moses was the "last" to talk to God, he said "and perhaps some others". This is far from such a claim. I am glad however that you recognized he was not trying to sound like a "religious kook"

Oops. Spoke too soon as yet...here you go again.

You attack my statement but then ultimately agree with what I said. AGAIN.

3 Points from my paragraph you obviously overlooked, misread, or ignored:

1. Moses is easily the most popular biblical prophet which is why Mitt Romney said his name. Even an atheist or a child would spout Moses off the top of their head.

2. Mitt Romney is an intelligent and religious person... meaning he KNOWS there are prophets in the bible that came AFTER Moses..he just chose Moses because the most recognizable prophet!

3. Thus people are being too nitpicky and making something out of nothing.

You sir, did not do yourself or the mighty Mitt Romney any favors on this forum.

Just a classic example of oversensitive viewers and the exaggerated media which is why the church wisely let this just fade away.

Well, you got this correct at least.

Are you sure you can't find something in the above quote that you can pathetically attempt to spin against me? You've done so thus far.

I strongly disagree. I think he's one of our best choices, if not the best. He has the skills and the know-how of what needs to be done to fix things. I would agree that Palin is not the best choice, being far from ready. Romney however is the best man for the current job. Ron Paul would be a good adviser, but not President. He is simply to far wrong on a few of his views. Way good yes on Constitutional things etc., but wrong on others. I would rather his son be President rather than he.

You think Mitt Romney is our best choice? ya don't say!?! You had me fooled there the way you kept disagreeing with everything I said in SUPPORT of Mitt Romney, in this particular case.

ANYWAY

Awesome opinion and I truly respect it. I strongly disagree with it all the same. But if it makes you feel any better (and I really hope it does) in this ever politically polarizing country, Ron Paul will never be President.

Mitt Romney, however, will perhaps be the next President ...perhaps.

I find this inflammatory false. Romney is NOTHING like any Clinton. Yes, Romney may be a little stiff, but that's basically all that is wrong with him. Everything else that is supposedly so terrible about him is nothing but bearing false witness just like the above video does. Shame shame.

I concede. I did exaggerate and over-generalized with the Clinton-Romney similarities just as you are exaggerating and over-generalizing that they have NOTHING in common. But I am not going to go your route and attempt to spin something out of nothing just because I don't share your presidential candidate of choice.

FYI, they both wear the pants in their respective marriages, lol -- that is one of the many things they share.

And please don't get upset at that last sentence, it's a compliment to Mitt Romney.

Don't write something like "Mitt doesn't wear the pants in his marriage...but I'm glad you recognize that Mitt wears the pants in his marriage."

P.S. May the Schwartz be with you....

[mattctrcaptain of 100]

We should seek out honest candidates who best represent our ideas of good government, not those we think will win. FOLLOW THE PROPHETS. They ask us to do what is right before every single election.

Do what is right, let the consequence follow. Battle for freedom... Even if Ron Paul, or other greats, don't have a chance, I feel much better voting for someone who understands the principles of freedom and is honest. No shady political dual speak like we see with Romney. No people pleasin' and sleazin' to get a vote. He speaks openly and candidly on issues, even where I may disagree.

[Koiapecaptain of 50]

Do what is right, let the consequence follow.

You know what, I'm embarrassed to admit this, but that little sentence -- although not new to me or any other Mormon or Christian -- has just struck me as being absolutely profound.

Thank you for writing that little sentence. It really made my day. Thanks again.

[AussieOicaptain of 1,000]

the politician could have simply said "look, you people know what i believe as an LDS. thats pretty clear. But ive had 30 years in public life and clearly ive been able to demonstrate that my beliefs do not interfere with doing the job. lord knows theres been plenty of times when ive voted for something i disagree with through my religious beliefs or personal values"

but no, he stated a negative. that was a cop out and a knife in the back

but ths thread is pointless asnd redundant, because we all know what he is, which is just another power seeking glory seeking politician who has done nothing substantial for the world or his community. its all abou Mitt, and good for him, he's not alone and he has his reward

but i love these threads, they serve to show how far people are prepared to apologise for these people, even to making up excuses for them

to those Mitt fanbois, wake up to yourselves. he isnt like you, he isn't like us, he cares nothing for you me or us, he's just another politician, who in this instance, like Reid or Hatch, is a cultural Mormon, born into the church, but now knows better.

[CaliforniaHi, I'm new.]

what cult are some of you from? Romney is smart enough to not cast his pearls before swine. He clearly states that God has spoken to 'others' besides Moses. If he came off as sanctimonious as most of you who are hyper critical--he'd be as ineffective as you are in living in the real world and relating to others not of your faith. Some of you come across like judgmental cave dwellers.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

what cult are some of you from? Romney is smart enough to not cast his pearls before swine.

wow, just wow.

[Janadelecaptain of 100]

... I have watched the said video posted on this forum.
It is unbecoming and unfortunate of Mitts enemies to keep seizing upon and misinterpreting this second of his life.

One must remember that in a live interview when a point is not allowed continuance, expansion or clarification, one's answer can be incorrectly interpreted and misunderstood.

There can be no mistaking that Mitt has at all times clearly stated his LDS allegiance, and that he identifies to the world as a devout and faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints...and all that entails.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

Some of you come across like judgmental cave dwellers.

I may not agree with you about Mitt, but I certainly agree with the above quoted statement

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Some of you come across like judgmental cave dwellers.

I may not agree with you about Mitt, but I certainly agree with the above quoted statement

Can you blame California for his assumptions here? My goodness there are posts dripping with self righteous contempt and judgment from some here. Just read Aussie alone and you would think Romney was Amalickiah reincarnated. I don't agree with some of Bro. Romneys positions on things political either but good grief people who come upon this forum must wonder if this place uses a rameumpton daily to thank the Lord that they are not as evil and dispicable as Mitt. Disagreeing with the mans political positions is fair game. Attacking his testimony and condemning him to the further most reaches of outer darkness is just a tad extreme in my book.

[MahonriMaster]

so are straw men Mark

The mans political views and testimony are available for all to see. Unfortunately he falls short of the claims so many LDS put upon him.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

I wnat to set something straight Re. Janadele's statement that "in a live interview when a point is not allowed continuance, expansion or clarification, one's answer can be incorrectly interpreted and misunderstood."

Re. the excuse that Mitt Romney did not have opportunity to finish or correct his statement about Moses at the bush: Hogwash. When I ran for US Congress I was interviewed (interrogated) on TV and in speeches. I learned from Romney's failure in that interview and was prepared to tell it like it is if I were questioned on my strict adherence to the US Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. But I was promoting adherence to the Constitution and the candidacy of Chuck Baldwin. My own candidacy was less important to me. If I had misstated something there was always adequate time to correct myself. The interviewee has a certain amount of control in such an interview. And in that entire interview Mitt Romney had plenty of opportunity to correct himself. It was clear that he was trying to skate around the question and get on to other subjects. The SLTrib did an accurate article on what was said.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

I wnat to set something straight Re. Janadele's statement that "in a live interview when a point is not allowed continuance, expansion or clarification, one's answer can be incorrectly interpreted and misunderstood."

Re. the excuse that Mitt Romney did not have opportunity to finish or correct his statement about Moses at the bush: Hogwash. When I ran for US Congress I was interviewed (interrogated) on TV and in speeches. I learned from Romney's failure in that interview and was prepared to tell it like it is if I were questioned on my strict adherence to the US Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. But I was promoting adherence to the Constitution and the candidacy of Chuck Baldwin. My own candidacy was less important to me. If I had misstated something there was always adequate time to correct myself. The interviewee has a certain amount of control in such an interview. And in that entire interview Mitt Romney had plenty of opportunity to correct himself. It was clear that he was trying to skate around the question and get on to other subjects. The SLTrib did an accurate article on what was said.

I think it is totally unfair to judge Bro. Romneys testimony by this interview Lundbaek. Did you see the whole interview Lundbaek?

It was clear that this Gal was trying to trap Romney into talking about visions and heavenly messengers sent to an uneducated farm boy so that she could try to belittle the church and its history and make Romney look foolish for believing in such a thing.

Romney chose not to go there because he obviously knew what the goal was in pursuing this line of questioning. The lady was notoriously anti in her views of Mormonism and wanted to discredit Romney best she could.

I have never heard Mitt Romney deny anything about the church or Joseph Smith but in fact have heard him affirm his testimony of the church a few times. I think it is gotcha politics to try and discredit him over this one interview.

Like I said before question him on the issues of this country and his stands on the constitution. Leave the testimony thing alone. It is unfair.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

There's Romney's answer...


And here's the correct answer:

Yes, I believe that Joseph Smith communed with God just like Moses did. "My Mormon faith" believes that Joseph Smith is a modern day prophet and I believe that myself as well. That is what separates us from many other Christian denominations.

See? Not so tough.

What we witnessed was saddening, and to this day, he has never made an attempt to correct his statement.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

Far as I know a judge in Israel (which you are not) declared him worthy to enter the lords house, I'll go with he has a testimony and leave it at that. I do not like his politics at all but I'm with Mark on some things are over the line....

[Janadelecaptain of 100]

I think it is totally unfair to judge Bro. Romneys testimony by this interview Lundbaek. Did you see the whole interview Lundbaek?

It was clear that this Gal was trying to trap Romney into talking about visions and heavenly messengers sent to an uneducated farm boy so that she could try to belittle the church and its history and make Romney look foolish for believing in such a thing.

Romney chose not to go there because he obviously knew what the goal was in pursuing this line of questioning. The lady was notoriously anti in her views of Mormonism and wanted to discredit Romney best she could.

I have never heard Mitt Romney deny anything about the church or Joseph Smith but in fact have heard him affirm his testimony of the church a few times. I think it is gotcha politics to try and discredit him over this one interview.

Like I said before question him on the issues of this country and his stands on the constitution. Leave the testimony thing alone. It is unfair.

Far as I know a judge in Israel (which you are not) declared him worthy to enter the lords house, I'll go with he has a testimony and leave it at that. I do not like his politics at all but I'm with Mark on some things are over the line....

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Yes, Mark, I did see the interview, and the part in question multiple times on youtube. There should be no doubt that he chose to duck the question by saying the last time that he knew of that God spoke to man was to Moses at the bush, which, of course, he knew is not true. To put it bluntly, he wimped out.

I am not willing to cut Romney any slack because he is LDS. I am trying to call the attention of Mormon voters to the real Mitt Romney and get the stars out of their eyes and look for, encourage, and support a candidates who espouse the US Constituiton in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and have the integrity to be guided by it, regardless of what the rest of Americans think of it. He should be leading the charge to bring Mormons to an awareness to our divinely mandated responsibility to the Constituiton and its preservtion. That is what needs to be done now.

Some of you folks disgust me with your continued complaining about efforts to expose Romney's failure to either understand the principles of the Constitution or be guided by it, and his sending a false statement about a major tenet of the LDS faith to however many Americans. In arguing with me you are arguing with a guy who has gone into the political arena and taken flak for his convictions. Sure, I know an interview can be rough. And I know what is is like to be considered a joke by members of my own ward and stake. But the appreciation I got from LDSs in my CD5 and in CD6 where a lot of members voted for me (not recognizing the different congressional districts) and from our bishop and a couple of others in the ward who said they voted for me made it all worth while. And knowing that I reached over 1000 LDSs in various parts of Arizona with my message that LDSs have a sspecial responsibility to the Constitution was worth more to me that being elected to serve a nation ripe for a good cleansing.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

There's Romney's answer...


And here's the correct answer:

Yes, I believe that Joseph Smith communed with God just like Moses did. "My Mormon faith" believes that Joseph Smith is a modern day prophet and I believe that myself as well. That is what separates us from many other Christian denominations.

See? Not so tough.

What we witnessed was saddening, and to this day, he has never made an attempt to correct his statement.

I don't want to beat a dead horse Info but I think you are placing certain expectations on Bro Romney that may be unfair. Think just for a minute about some of the things that Pres. Hinckley has said on his public interviews with 60 minutes and Larry King.

When questioned about things like Polygamy and Blacks in the Priesthood and other controversial issues did he give cut and dry responses as to what past prophets have or have not said? No he did not. He responded in such a way that the issue did not become a sticking point and a controversy with the interviewer.

Now the prophet could have affirmed our past stances on Polygamy for example in saying we believe it was revealed to Joseph by revelation and is an eternal principle but he went a different route so as to defuse the issue.

Can you see where I am going here? My mouth has been shut at times when certain people have questioned me about certain church beliefs and temple stuff. I do not question someone elses feelings and inspiration as to what should or should not be discussed in open company. Why not give Romney the benefit of the doubt here in allowing him that same courtesy?

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Yes, Mark, I did see the interview, and the part in question multiple times on youtube. There should be no doubt that he chose to duck the question by saying the last time that he knew of that God spoke to man was to Moses at the bush, which, of course, he knew is not true. To put it bluntly, he wimped out.

I am not willing to cut Romney any slack because he is LDS. I am trying to call the attention of Mormon voters to the real Mitt Romney and get the stars out of their eyes and look for, encourage, and support a candidates who espouse the US Constituiton in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and have the integrity to be guided by it, regardless of what the rest of Americans think of it. He should be leading the charge to bring Mormons to an awareness to our divinely mandated responsibility to the Constituiton and its preservtion. That is what needs to be done now.

Some of you folks disgust me with your continued complaining about efforts to expose Romney's failure to either understand the principles of the Constitution or be guided by it, and his sending a false statement about a major tenet of the LDS faith to however many Americans. In arguing with me you are arguing with a guy who has gone into the political arena and taken flak for his convictions. Sure, I know an interview can be rough. And I know what is is like to be considered a joke by members of my own ward and stake. But the appreciation I got from LDSs in my CD5 and in CD6 where a lot of members voted for me (not recognizing the different congressional districts) and from our bishop and a couple of others in the ward who said they voted for me made it all worth while. And knowing that I reached over 1000 LDSs in various parts of Arizona with my message that LDSs have a sspecial responsibility to the Constitution was worth more to me that being elected to serve a nation ripe for a good cleansing.

I'm sorry you are so disgusted by anyone who has a different attitude than you do Lundbaek. That comment speaks volumes as to your ability to converse in a civil and intelligent way with those who might not think exactly like you do. Sad if you ask me..

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

First of all, any LDS could get a temple recommend. All they have to do is lie. The bishop and stake presidents aren't mind readers. But that's besides the point. It was a straight forward question!!! Not some "gotcha" type of question! Its not casting pearls before swine! This is a BASIC tenant of our faith. We believe in modern day prophets!

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Here we go with a distortion by Mark. I am usually not disgusted by anyone who has a different attitude than I do. What did I say ? I said and meant I am disgusted with the continued complaining about efforts to expose Romney's failures.

Our expectations of Mitt Romney should be high. He aspires to the presidency of the United States of America. He has been a bishop, a stake president, a candidate for the US Senate, Governor of Massachusetts. He is a nationally prominent holder of the Priesthood. I expect him to promote and comply with moral principles and with the principles of the US Constituiton. I expect him to have the courage to talk about his religious beliefs and to find a way to correct the false impression he gave to many Americans about God having spoken to man. I have been around long enough and over enough roads to not be fooled by Mitt Romney nor by any of you who whine about exposere of some serious weaknesses of a man who wants to be President so badly that he will try to tell people what he thinks they want to hear and misrepresent a major tenet of his religion to avoid controversy.

[Scarecrowcaptain of 100]

Deleted

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Yes, Mark, I did see the interview, and the part in question multiple times on youtube. There should be no doubt that he chose to duck the question by saying the last time that he knew of that God spoke to man was to Moses at the bush, which, of course, he knew is not true. To put it bluntly, he wimped out.

I am not willing to cut Romney any slack because he is LDS. I am trying to call the attention of Mormon voters to the real Mitt Romney and get the stars out of their eyes and look for, encourage, and support a candidates who espouse the US Constituiton in the tradition of the Founding Fathers and have the integrity to be guided by it, regardless of what the rest of Americans think of it. He should be leading the charge to bring Mormons to an awareness to our divinely mandated responsibility to the Constituiton and its preservtion. That is what needs to be done now.

Some of you folks disgust me with your continued complaining about efforts to expose Romney's failure to either understand the principles of the Constitution or be guided by it, and his sending a false statement about a major tenet of the LDS faith to however many Americans. In arguing with me you are arguing with a guy who has gone into the political arena and taken flak for his convictions. Sure, I know an interview can be rough. And I know what is is like to be considered a joke by members of my own ward and stake. But the appreciation I got from LDSs in my CD5 and in CD6 where a lot of members voted for me (not recognizing the different congressional districts) and from our bishop and a couple of others in the ward who said they voted for me made it all worth while. And knowing that I reached over 1000 LDSs in various parts of Arizona with my message that LDSs have a sspecial responsibility to the Constitution was worth more to me that being elected to serve a nation ripe for a good cleansing.

I'm sorry you are so disgusted by anyone who has a different attitude than you do Lundbaek. That comment speaks volumes as to your ability to converse in a civil and intelligent way with those who might not think exactly like you do. Sad if you ask me..

Mark, this has nothing to do with having a different attitude or agreeing/disagreeing with someone else politically or philosophically - it has to do with the simple fact that Mitt Romney is an establishment politician and has compromised his ideals, beliefs and principles for political gain, even to the point of saying to the media 'I don't know that anyone has talked to God since Moses'. The last straw for Romney for me was when Mitt joined with other republicans in the 2008 presidential debates and attacked Ron Paul over his Constitutional stances - spoke volumes to me. Here's a kind, gentle, mild-mannered, moral, ethical, smart man who loves his country and the Constitution while loathing evil and corruption and after standing up in defense of what we should and shouldn't be doing militarily, financially and economically based on right and wrong and the Constitution, Mitt has the audacity to attack him for it. Pathetic.

Lundbaek is simply against Mitt's lack of personal integrity and inability to take a stand against the Washington establishment and corruption, but you've twisted that to having a different 'attitude' than Mitt's? Over the years, Mitt has flip-flopped on so many issues and has compromised his beliefs in order to appeal to different groups of people for votes. What if our church/prophet did that (compromised our values, principles and ideals) to blend in better with the world so that they would accept us more? Would/could you support that? Lundbaek isn't asking anyone to think like him... he's just doing and saying the same things Ron Paul has in regards to the direction and condition of our country politically while supporting simple Constitutional laws/writs while standing against establishment crapola - what you're basically doing is questioning his desire to support what is right and Constitutional and affiliating that with having a different 'attitude', which is bogus. Do you not see the err of your words here?

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

First of all, any LDS could get a temple recommend. All they have to do is lie. The bishop and stake presidents aren't mind readers. But that's besides the point. It was a straight forward question!!! Not some "gotcha" type of question! Its not casting pearls before swine! This is a BASIC tenant of our faith. We believe in modern day prophets!

Mitt wasn't asked directly about Joseph Smith so it wasn't a "straight forward question". If he would have been asked specifically, I expect he would have given the correct specific answer. The fact is that his answer regarding God talking to people included not only Moses, but a few others. Joseph Smith qualifies as being one of those few others. Plus, as has already been mentioned, he hasn't ducked the fact that he's LDS.

Did you catch Mark's earlier post about prophets ducking questions? President Hinckley was asked a specific question during a national televised interview and his response was that he didn't know. However, very clearly the church has taught and continues to teach that the answer to that particular question would be in the affirmative. How do you respond to that? According to your judgement of Mitt, the prophet denied the faith because he did the same thing Mitt did, well, actually Mitt did the same thing the prophet did. I'd like to read your take on that if you don't mind.

[iamse7encaptain of 1,000]

It was clear that this Gal was trying to trap Romney into talking about visions and heavenly messengers sent to an uneducated farm boy so that she could try to belittle the church and its history and make Romney look foolish for believing in such a thing.

Romney chose not to go there because he obviously knew what the goal was in pursuing this line of questioning. The lady was notoriously anti in her views of Mormonism and wanted to discredit Romney best she could.

Assuming this is even true (the Gal was trying to trap Romney), you can "choose not to go there" other than saying "I don't recall God speaking to me, I don't know that he's spoken to anyone since, uh, Moses in the bush, perhaps some others." I'm not sure how you can defend this answer. It's a terrible answer. You can dodge the question without demeaning the key principle of the Restored Gospel. And judging by the the context of the question and his answer, Joseph Smith and Thomas Monson could not be included in "perhaps some others." He was trying to say, my beliefs are the same as other Christians. I'm not weird. I'm no different.

Look, I know firsthand he believes in the First Vision. I also know he has a strong testimony. I don't extrapolate this incident to mean Romney is a spiritual turncoat. I think he misspoke. But he misspoke because he was so worried about how he'd be branded or labeled in the media, that he was willing to give an answer that might satisfy the world, and run counter to his beliefs and the Church's key tenets. I think he'd answer that differently now. This incident isn't why I don't support Romney. I gave him the benefit of the doubt. But it's his rejection of constitutional principles and constitutional government. However, I will say that this incident does raise questions about character: he wants to be president so bad, that he's willing to misstate his own personal beliefs so that the media doesn't label him as a self-claimed prophet, or whatnot. You saw this with the NRA, hunting, and other bizarre statements/actions. There's a history here. He didn't even dodge the question - he answered it straight on, and answered it terribly.

I don't get how you can defend his answer here. He screwed up. Admit it. It's a terrible answer that runs counter to the Church's and even his beliefs. Nobody is perfect. You can love Romney and still admit he made a mistake here. All of my Romney-supporting friends have done so with this incident.

[Rinconcaptain of 100]

Removed

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

[quoteThe fact is that his answer regarding God talking to people included not only Moses, but a few others][/quote]
He didn't say that, he said "perhaps" some others, this implies a lack of knowledge.

[LikeMember]

what cult are some of you from?

What is a cult?

Definition of CULT

1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator <health cults>
5a : great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book); especially : such devotion regarded as a literary or intellectual fad b : the object of such devotion c : a usually small group of people characterized by such devotion

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cult

We are from The Church of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-Day Saints, it is a great cult, be warned though,we are a peculiar people, some more than others but we all drink the kool-aid. Just don't ask for our baptismal certificates because that might cause some of us to get defensive and choose to be offended and allow ourselves to be acted upon because your religious bigotry... I mean questioning.

I wonder why this forum is called the LDS Freedom Forum? That's a bizarre name.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

[quoteThe fact is that his answer regarding God talking to people included not only Moses, but a few others]

He didn't say that, he said "perhaps" some others, this implies a lack of knowledge.[/quote]
And when President Hinckley was asked about a belief that the LDS church clearly teaches he replied that he didn't know, which implies a lack of knowledge. Care to judge him the same way you've judged Mitt?? Whatever your answer, I'd like to read your justification.