Found it! Mitt Romney denies first vision

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

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.

What was it that Mitt didn't know? That JS was a prophet? I'm pretty sure I can judge him for not knowing that one. In case we forgot, here's a couple of the temple interview questions:

3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

deleted.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

I'd suggest a seperate thread to analyze statements of President Hinkley. Those who know about former UN Secretary Genral Kofi Annan try this one on for size.

http://deseretnews.com/oly/view/0,3949,70000273,00.html

"The historic meeting between U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and President Gordon B. Hinckley happened during a prestigious gathering of international visitors, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu and film star Angelina Jolie.
They came to participate in a forum about a special program called Olympic Aid.
"We are highly honored to have this good, wonderful leader with us," President Hinckley said of Secretary General Annan. "What a tremendous work he's doing in trying to bring peace and goodness to the people of the world."

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

What was it that Mitt didn't know? That JS was a prophet? I'm pretty sure I can judge him for not knowing that one. In case we forgot, here's a couple of the temple interview questions:

3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Mitt didn't deny that Jospeh Smith was a prophet!! Can you not get that through your head?
Also,

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.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

What was it that Mitt didn't know? That JS was a prophet? I'm pretty sure I can judge him for not knowing that one. In case we forgot, here's a couple of the temple interview questions:

3. Do you have a testimony of the restoration of the gospel in these the latter days?

4. Do you sustain the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church?

Mitt didn't deny that Jospeh Smith was a prophet!! Can you not get that through your head?
Also,

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.

Let's break this down, Shadow.

'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney

If God hasn't spoken to anyone since Moses, that would mean Joseph Smith did not see the first vision.

I'm 100% sure that our church leaders wouldn't "duck" this question. Maaaybe blacks receiving the priesthood, the Adam-God theory, where the garden of eden is located, or some other obscure doctrine...

[lumberjacksdaughtercaptain of 50]

If I say in a TV interview that God hasn't spoken to anyone since Moses then I'm categorically denying the First Vision and the Restoration. Romney knew that the interviewer was asking the questions in the full knowledge that he claims to be LDS. The interviewer knew that the First Vision is pivotal in LDS theology and yet Romney glibly brushes it off.

If this was any other person you would be leaping all over him - but because it's Romney and he is rich and powerful many of you will excuse him and say it's ok. Your addiction to the illusion that Mormonism is accepted and admired by the world overrides your intellect.

The Church declined to give a response because it wants to stay clear of controversy and negative press coverage.

This is the guy who as a Stake President was pro-abortion. Are we really surprised that he denies the restoration? :?

I agree.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

I am simply arguing linguistics
I find your what-if a straw-man-argument

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

I find your what-if a straw-man-argument

That's unfortunate because it isn't a straw man argument.

[gkearneycaptain of 1,000]

Shadow;

You need to know that on these boards the way to end any argument is to claim it is a "straw-man" and no the person making such a claim is never expected to show why it is a "straw-man" either.

[mes5464captain of 1,000]

If I say in a TV interview that God hasn't spoken to anyone since Moses then I'm categorically denying the First Vision and the Restoration. Romney knew that the interviewer was asking the questions in the full knowledge that he claims to be LDS. The interviewer knew that the First Vision is pivotal in LDS theology and yet Romney glibly brushes it off.

If this was any other person you would be leaping all over him - but because it's Romney and he is rich and powerful many of you will excuse him and say it's ok. Your addiction to the illusion that Mormonism is accepted and admired by the world overrides your intellect.

The Church declined to give a response because it wants to stay clear of controversy and negative press coverage.

This is the guy who as a Stake President was pro-abortion. Are we really surprised that he denies the restoration? :?

I agree.

Me too. I agree with you LukeAir2008.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

I find your what-if a straw-man-argument

That's unfortunate because it isn't a straw man argument.

Then show me the example.....

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

Shadow;

You need to know that on these boards the way to end any argument is to claim it is a "straw-man" and no the person making such a claim is never expected to show why it is a "straw-man" either.

Hey I call them like I see 'em.

straw man ar·gu·ment
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually .... More »

Seems pretty close to what shadow did here, at least in my own opinion

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

Shadow;

You need to know that on these boards the way to end any argument is to claim it is a "straw-man" and no the person making such a claim is never expected to show why it is a "straw-man" either.

Hey I call them like I see 'em.

straw man ar·gu·ment
A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually .... More »

Seems pretty close to what shadow did here, at least in my own opinion

Problem is I'm not making an argument. I'm asking you and infowarrior to explain how you justify what Mitt did as a denial of faith but when the prophet does a very similar thing you're silent. Seems hypocritical to me... And no infowarrior, it didn't have to do with blacks/priesthood or polygamy etc. etc. (not that it should matter) It had to do with the potential of what "man may become", which is a MAJOR doctrine of the church. We know darn well what "man may become" but President Hinckley said he didn't know. He skirted to avoid a trap or something like it. Possibly the same as what Mitt did. I say "possibly" because I have no idea why either one of them skirted their question and I doubt you do either, which makes the whole "denial" judgement unrighteous IMO.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

We know darn well what "man may become

We do?

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

We know darn well what "man may become

We do?

You don't??

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Let's break this down, Shadow.

'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney



If God hasn't spoken to anyone since Moses, that would mean Joseph Smith did not see the first vision.

I'm 100% sure that our church leaders wouldn't "duck" this question. Maaaybe blacks receiving the priesthood, the Adam-God theory, where the garden of eden is located, or some other obscure doctrine...

Problem is I'm not making an argument. I'm asking you and infowarrior to explain how you justify what Mitt did as a denial of faith but when the prophet does a very similar thing you're silent. Seems hypocritical to me... And no infowarrior, it didn't have to do with blacks/priesthood or polygamy etc. etc. (not that it should matter) It had to do with the potential of what "man may become", which is a MAJOR doctrine of the church. We know darn well what "man may become" but President Hinckley said he didn't know. He skirted to avoid a trap or something like it. Possibly the same as what Mitt did. I say "possibly" because I have no idea why either one of them skirted their question and I doubt you do either, which makes the whole "denial" judgement unrighteous IMO.

Ah! So it was something like the Adam-God theory. Shadow, I consider that to be deep doctrine. I'm sure that's why GBH decided not to comment. Here's something that's not deep doctrine, though:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

We know darn well what "man may become

We do?

You don't??

Perhaps

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Let's break this down, Shadow.

'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney



If God hasn't spoken to anyone since Moses, that would mean Joseph Smith did not see the first vision.

I'm 100% sure that our church leaders wouldn't "duck" this question. Maaaybe blacks receiving the priesthood, the Adam-God theory, where the garden of eden is located, or some other obscure doctrine...

Problem is I'm not making an argument. I'm asking you and infowarrior to explain how you justify what Mitt did as a denial of faith but when the prophet does a very similar thing you're silent. Seems hypocritical to me... And no infowarrior, it didn't have to do with blacks/priesthood or polygamy etc. etc. (not that it should matter) It had to do with the potential of what "man may become", which is a MAJOR doctrine of the church. We know darn well what "man may become" but President Hinckley said he didn't know. He skirted to avoid a trap or something like it. Possibly the same as what Mitt did. I say "possibly" because I have no idea why either one of them skirted their question and I doubt you do either, which makes the whole "denial" judgement unrighteous IMO.

Ah! So it was something like the Adam-God theory. Shadow, I consider that to be deep doctrine. I'm sure that's why GBH decided not to comment. Here's something that's not deep doctrine, though:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

So Romney should have started quoting all the articles of faith? Info you refuse to see the connections here between Pres. Hinckleys decision and that of Romney because you are afraid it may weaken your argument against Romney. So be it Bro. This is just a waste of time Shadow. Go take the wife to the temple for something productive to do.

[lumberjacksdaughtercaptain of 50]

Has anyone here actually stated the question that President Hinkley refused to answer. Maybe it was a "do not cast your pearls before swine" type of scenario. I don't feel this is the case with Romney.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Let's break this down, Shadow.

'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney



If God hasn't spoken to anyone since Moses, that would mean Joseph Smith did not see the first vision.

I'm 100% sure that our church leaders wouldn't "duck" this question. Maaaybe blacks receiving the priesthood, the Adam-God theory, where the garden of eden is located, or some other obscure doctrine...

Problem is I'm not making an argument. I'm asking you and infowarrior to explain how you justify what Mitt did as a denial of faith but when the prophet does a very similar thing you're silent. Seems hypocritical to me... And no infowarrior, it didn't have to do with blacks/priesthood or polygamy etc. etc. (not that it should matter) It had to do with the potential of what "man may become", which is a MAJOR doctrine of the church. We know darn well what "man may become" but President Hinckley said he didn't know. He skirted to avoid a trap or something like it. Possibly the same as what Mitt did. I say "possibly" because I have no idea why either one of them skirted their question and I doubt you do either, which makes the whole "denial" judgement unrighteous IMO.

Ah! So it was something like the Adam-God theory. Shadow, I consider that to be deep doctrine. I'm sure that's why GBH decided not to comment. Here's something that's not deep doctrine, though:

We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof.

We believe in the same organization that existed in the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.

We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth.

So Romney should have started quoting all the articles of faith? Info you refuse to see the connections here between Pres. Hinckleys decision and that of Romney because you are afraid it may weaken your argument against Romney. So be it Bro. This is just a waste of time Shadow. Go take the wife to the temple for something productive to do.

He didn't have to quote the articles of faith, Mark. I don't quote them when I explain to people in a few sentences what Mormons believe... do I start out by trying to explain how man may eventually be like God to those I meet? No.

Mark, Mark, Mark... there is a HUGE difference in the basic doctri
ne we learn in primary (the restoration) and the doctrine we discuss in high priest's group (man becoming like God.) I don't think I can be more clear than this. The decision that GBH made and the decision that Romney made are in two completely separate worlds it's not even funny.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Has anyone here actually stated the question that President Hinkley refused to answer. Maybe it was a "do not cast your pearls before swine" type of scenario. I don't feel this is the case with Romney.

The reason you dont feel that was the case with Romney while giving the Prophet a pass is because you respect and like the Prophet but Romney is just a sleazy politician in your eyes. It is a bias whether you or anyone else here admits it or not.

The interviewer was trying to make Romney look like someone who may try and establish a theocracy as the President. Her question was a mocking attack of Romney's faith in the principle of direct revelation from God to a prophet that He believes in. This newscaster would never in a million years have asked that same question to any of the other candidates who were not LDS. That is just a fact if you listen to the question that was asked and everyone who is honest with themselves here knows it.

Let me repeat the question asked of Romney. "Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as President or should He speak to your Prophet who would then speak to you how would you make that decision?"

Romney knew that the lady was trying to associate him with cult like religious zealotry so he did the best he could to defuse this by saying that God had not appeared to him personally or anyone else since Moses or perhaps some others in history. You need to look at the context of this question asked to Romney. It was an attempt by the interviewer to make Romney look dangerous to the country by following voices of God that only Romney would accept as legit.

Romney only did what he thought would get this lady off her "gotcha" question and it may not be exactly how I would have answered but I understand what his intent was in this hostile setting with someone just trying to discredit you as this lady was clearly trying to do to him.

This was the same as what was done to Pres. Hinckley on the question about becoming Gods. He defused it so as not to get into a long detailed discussion about this doctrinal issue. I respect that and have no problem with it. Just as I don't have a problem with what Romney did when He was put on the hot seat with an intent of making him look like David Koresh.

Come on guys be fair here and acknowlege the similarities of both situations. Romney did not deny the first vision or the calling of Joseph Smith. The insinuations here that he did are just plain wrong and are meant as a personal attack on the mans testimony and that is wrong as well.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

During the October 1979 General Conference we were told that we should be looking for a candidate for President and candidates for other government offices who will uphold the Constitution of the United States in the tradition of the Founding Fathers. I am aware of no indication that Mitt Romney meets this qualification. He may be good. Wise he is not. Honest; there is cause for doubt.

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Had I been asked the question ""Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as a congressional representative or should He speak to your Prophet who would then speak to you how would you make that decision?" My reply would have been "I'd be a damned fool if I did not do as God told me, as would any person."

In my 2008 campaign, which included stumping for the Constitution Party candidate for President, I had to on occasion say that I believe that God inspired the US Constitution as well as the establishment of the United States of America. Nobody ever challenged that openly. Some people expressed agreement.

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Has anyone here actually stated the question that President Hinkley refused to answer. Maybe it was a "do not cast your pearls before swine" type of scenario. I don't feel this is the case with Romney.

The reason you dont feel that was the case with Romney while giving the Prophet a pass is because you respect and like the Prophet but Romney is just a sleazy politician in your eyes. It is a bias whether you or anyone else here admits it or not.

The interviewer was trying to make Romney look like someone who may try and establish a theocracy as the President. Her question was a mocking attack of Romney's faith in the principle of direct revelation from God to a prophet that He believes in. This newscaster would never in a million years have asked that same question to any of the other candidates who were not LDS. That is just a fact if you listen to the question that was asked and everyone who is honest with themselves here knows it.

Let me repeat the question asked of Romney. "Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as President or should He speak to your Prophet who would then speak to you how would you make that decision?"

Romney knew that the lady was trying to associate him with cult like religious zealotry so he did the best he could to defuse this by saying that God had not appeared to him personally or anyone else since Moses or perhaps some others in history. You need to look at the context of this question asked to Romney. It was an attempt by the interviewer to make Romney look dangerous to the country by following voices of God that only Romney would accept as legit.

Romney only did what he thought would get this lady off her "gotcha" question and it may not be exactly how I would have answered but I understand what his intent was in this hostile setting with someone just trying to discredit you as this lady was clearly trying to do to him.

This was the same as what was done to Pres. Hinckley on the question about becoming Gods. He defused it so as not to get into a long detailed discussion about this doctrinal issue. I respect that and have no problem with it. Just as I don't have a problem with what Romney did when He was put on the hot seat with an intent of making him look like David Koresh.

Come on guys be fair here and acknowlege the similarities of both situations. Romney did not deny the first vision or the calling of Joseph Smith. The insinuations here that he did are just plain wrong and are meant as a personal attack on the mans testimony and that is wrong as well.

Maybe Romney should have taken some pointers from JFK.

...and yes, Mitt Romney did deny a key tenant of the LDS faith.
'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney

I really don't know how that can be taken out of context.

That's like JFK saying "I don't think the Pope has authority." But he didn't, did he?

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Had I been asked the question ""Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as a congressional representative or should He speak to your Prophet who would then speak to you how would you make that decision?" My reply would have been "I'd be a damned fool if I did not do as God told me, as would any person."

In my 2008 campaign, which included stumping for the Constitution Party candidate for President, I had to on occasion say that I believe that God inspired the US Constitution as well as the establishment of the United States of America. Nobody ever challenged that openly. Some people expressed agreement.

Its so easy to sit here and armchair quarterback what Romney should or should not have said in this setting. Your reply here shows how naive you would be in completely opening yourself up to a pack of wolves Lundbaek. The press would have a field day with your bravado answer and before the week was over you would be painted as someone who would push to reinstate polygamy and the united order as federal law. The anti Mormons would absolutely have you for lunch and you would be painted in the worst possible light to the public. Your election possibilities would be over before it began. Maybe thats why you are spending your time sitting by your computer typing on the LDSFF and not sitting in the halls of congress right now debating with Chuck Schumer.

[MahonriMaster]

ya Mark. We should all cower to the wolves in the media. That shows our love for the Lord

Joseph F. Smith is the example we all learned growing up on how to deal with these types of situations

1857, the nineteen-year-old Joseph F. was returning from his mission in Hawaii, and in California he joined a wagon train. It was a volatile time for the Saints. Johnston’s Army was marching towards Utah, and many had bitter feelings towards the Church. One evening several hoodlums rode into camp, cursing and threatening to hurt every Mormon they could find. Most in the wagon train ran and hid in the brush. But Joseph F. thought to himself: “Shall I run from these fellows? Why should I fear them?” With that, he walked up to one of the intruders who, with pistol in hand, demanded, “Are you a Mormon?” Joseph F. Smith responded, “Yes siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through.” At that, the hoodlum grasped his hand and said, “Well you are the [blankety-blank] pleasantest man I ever met! Shake hands, young fellow. I am glad to see a man that stands up for his convictions” (See Gospel Doctrine, 518).

If a 19 year old boy can be that example, surely a man with Mitt's "wisdom" can. Too bad he chose not to.

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

ya Mark. We should all cower to the wolves in the media. That shows our love for the Lord

Joseph F. Smith is the example we all learned growing up on how to deal with these types of situations

1857, the nineteen-year-old Joseph F. was returning from his mission in Hawaii, and in California he joined a wagon train. It was a volatile time for the Saints. Johnston’s Army was marching towards Utah, and many had bitter feelings towards the Church. One evening several hoodlums rode into camp, cursing and threatening to hurt every Mormon they could find. Most in the wagon train ran and hid in the brush. But Joseph F. thought to himself: “Shall I run from these fellows? Why should I fear them?” With that, he walked up to one of the intruders who, with pistol in hand, demanded, “Are you a Mormon?” Joseph F. Smith responded, “Yes siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through.” At that, the hoodlum grasped his hand and said, “Well you are the [blankety-blank] pleasantest man I ever met! Shake hands, young fellow. I am glad to see a man that stands up for his convictions” (See Gospel Doctrine, 518).

If a 19 year old boy can be that example, surely a man with Mitt's "wisdom" can. Too bad he chose not to.

again pretty circumstantial I mean Abraham was told to introduce his wife as his sister instead to avoid "unwanted questions"....why don't you hold him to the same standard? What a coward right? He totally didn't stick up for his God.....

I've said it before and i'll say it again i'm not comfortable with Mitt's politics, but i'm far less comfortable with questioning his testimony and holding my self a judge over his convictions.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

...and yes, Mitt Romney did deny a key tenant of the LDS faith.
'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney

I really don't know how that can be taken out of context.

And president Hinckleys "I don't know" answer can't be taken out of context either. It wasn't a deep doctrine question. I've taught Primary before and know that this is taught in primary. We can become like our Heavenly Father, it's taught in lessons and in the songs children sing. The prophet did the wise thing by giving an answer that wouldn't allow a tangent to go in a direction he didn't want it to go. He also said polygamy isn't our doctrine which I know bothers many on this site. Mitt's reply wasn't what I would have said, but I wasn't stuck in the moment in a high pressure national interview where the interviewer was trying to paint me into a bad corner either. He had to think fast and it's possible that his words didn't quite come out as he wanted. He hasn't denied the faith and still claims to be LDS and continues to attend church so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt which is something else I learned in primary.

[MahonriMaster]

ya Mark. We should all cower to the wolves in the media. That shows our love for the Lord

Joseph F. Smith is the example we all learned growing up on how to deal with these types of situations

1857, the nineteen-year-old Joseph F. was returning from his mission in Hawaii, and in California he joined a wagon train. It was a volatile time for the Saints. Johnston’s Army was marching towards Utah, and many had bitter feelings towards the Church. One evening several hoodlums rode into camp, cursing and threatening to hurt every Mormon they could find. Most in the wagon train ran and hid in the brush. But Joseph F. thought to himself: “Shall I run from these fellows? Why should I fear them?” With that, he walked up to one of the intruders who, with pistol in hand, demanded, “Are you a Mormon?” Joseph F. Smith responded, “Yes siree; dyed in the wool; true blue, through and through.” At that, the hoodlum grasped his hand and said, “Well you are the [blankety-blank] pleasantest man I ever met! Shake hands, young fellow. I am glad to see a man that stands up for his convictions” (See Gospel Doctrine, 518).

If a 19 year old boy can be that example, surely a man with Mitt's "wisdom" can. Too bad he chose not to.

again pretty circumstantial I mean Abraham was told to introduce his wife as his sister instead to avoid "unwanted questions"....why don't you hold him to the same standard? What a coward right? He totally didn't stick up for his God.....

I've said it before and i'll say it again i'm not comfortable with Mitt's politics, but i'm far less comfortable with questioning his testimony and holding my self a judge over his convictions.

Give me a break. You point out the difference. He was told. That is intellectual dishonesty to the extreme to try and compare the two.

I don't question his testimony, HE DENIED IT all by himself. The D&C requires us to choose candidates that are honest, which makes this a vital part of LDS deciding to vote for him or not. This shows he is not honest. Either he has a testimony and lied about it. Or he doesn't (as he states here) and lied to be in the positions in the Church he has had. Either way, he is not honest.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Has anyone here actually stated the question that President Hinkley refused to answer. Maybe it was a "do not cast your pearls before swine" type of scenario. I don't feel this is the case with Romney.

The reason you dont feel that was the case with Romney while giving the Prophet a pass is because you respect and like the Prophet but Romney is just a sleazy politician in your eyes. It is a bias whether you or anyone else here admits it or not.

The interviewer was trying to make Romney look like someone who may try and establish a theocracy as the President. Her question was a mocking attack of Romney's faith in the principle of direct revelation from God to a prophet that He believes in. This newscaster would never in a million years have asked that same question to any of the other candidates who were not LDS. That is just a fact if you listen to the question that was asked and everyone who is honest with themselves here knows it.

Let me repeat the question asked of Romney. "Should God speak to you and ask you to do something that might be in conflict with your duties as President or should He speak to your Prophet who would then speak to you how would you make that decision?"

Romney knew that the lady was trying to associate him with cult like religious zealotry so he did the best he could to defuse this by saying that God had not appeared to him personally or anyone else since Moses or perhaps some others in history. You need to look at the context of this question asked to Romney. It was an attempt by the interviewer to make Romney look dangerous to the country by following voices of God that only Romney would accept as legit.

Romney only did what he thought would get this lady off her "gotcha" question and it may not be exactly how I would have answered but I understand what his intent was in this hostile setting with someone just trying to discredit you as this lady was clearly trying to do to him.

This was the same as what was done to Pres. Hinckley on the question about becoming Gods. He defused it so as not to get into a long detailed discussion about this doctrinal issue. I respect that and have no problem with it. Just as I don't have a problem with what Romney did when He was put on the hot seat with an intent of making him look like David Koresh.

Come on guys be fair here and acknowlege the similarities of both situations. Romney did not deny the first vision or the calling of Joseph Smith. The insinuations here that he did are just plain wrong and are meant as a personal attack on the mans testimony and that is wrong as well.

Maybe Romney should have taken some pointers from JFK.

...and yes, Mitt Romney did deny a key tenant of the LDS faith.
'I don't know that He [God] has spoken to anyone since Moses in the bush or perhaps others'. -Mitt Romney

I really don't know how that can be taken out of context.

That's like JFK saying "I don't think the Pope has authority." But he didn't, did he?

Please read this hit piece on the prophet and tell me that you are not doing to Romney exactly what this guy is trying to do to the prophet. That you see no similarities here between the 2 is very telling of your bias in this whole accusation directed at Romney and his faith.


http://www.irr.org/mit/hinckley.html