Found it! Mitt Romney denies first vision

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

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.[/quote]



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?[/quote]


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[/quote]

Thank you, Mark. As usual, you have a calm, respectful approach that makes SENSE! People here do not like Mitt Romney, therefore, their paradigm is already established. I was watching when that interview ocurred and my very first reaction was that the interviewer was trying to interject religion into the election prosess and Mitt was a little surprised and answered quickly to difuse it ending up in a discussion about religion.

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

I agree that answers like unto lundbaek's would be instant death. All you have to do is remember the atrocities committed "in the name of God" over the centuries. Aren't extreme muslims acting "in the name of God?" Didn't the Spanish explorers do much of their destruction to both people and records "in the name of God?" How would LDSs react to that answer coming from Huckabee? Let's all just get up and yell, "The Mormon Church is the only true Church in the world and I will follow my God and the world be damned!" The example of Abraham was a good one. Problem is, we LDSs are so much smarter than Abraham, there's nothing he could possibly teach us.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

If Romney were asked the question: "What might men become?" I'd have no problem with him answering "I don't know" that is a question that can be answered honestly with that answer. We don't know exactly what may become of man. Some men may recieve glory and become "as God is" but do we really know what that is?
However, as saints, if we answer the question as to whether God has spoken with man, it is extremely dishonest to say "Perhaps" (which means maybe, maybe not) when we sustain the prohpet as seer and revelator on a regular basis.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

I agree that answers like unto lundbaek's would be instant death. All you have to do is remember the atrocities committed "in the name of God" over the centuries. Aren't extreme muslims acting "in the name of God?" Didn't the Spanish explorers do much of their destruction to both people and records "in the name of God?" How would LDSs react to that answer coming from Huckabee? Let's all just get up and yell, "The Mormon Church is the only true Church in the world and I will follow my God and the world be damned!" The example of Abraham was a good one. Problem is, we LDSs are so much smarter than Abraham, there's nothing he could possibly teach us.

You make the point I have unsuccessfully tried to make here raindrop. This interviewer was trying to put Romney on par with extremists in doing whatever God would tell him to do rather than what he was mandated to do as President of the US in following his oath of office. It was a hit piece to attack Romney and his faith pure and simple. Romney wanted no part of that and he exited that tactic the best he could in the moment. I will not question his belief in the basic tenants of the church because of this interview particularly because he has reaffirmed his faith in interviews since that time. Enough already with the gotcha mentality here.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

If Romney were asked the question: "What might men become?" I'd have no problem with him answering "I don't know" that is a question that can be answered honestly with that answer. We don't know exactly what may become of man. Some men may recieve glory and become "as God is" but do we really know what that is?
However, as saints, if we answer the question as to whether God has spoken with man, it is extremely dishonest to say "Perhaps" (which means maybe, maybe not) when we sustain the prohpet as seer and revelator on a regular basis.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

If Romney were asked the question: "What might men become?" I'd have no problem with him answering "I don't know" that is a question that can be answered honestly with that answer. We don't know exactly what may become of man. Some men may recieve glory and become "as God is" but do we really know what that is?
However, as saints, if we answer the question as to whether God has spoken with man, it is extremely dishonest to say "Perhaps" (which means maybe, maybe not) when we sustain the prohpet as seer and revelator on a regular basis.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree?

I don't know

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

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

The only similarities in the two interviews is that both didn't answer the question.

Here are the differences:

GBH didn't deny LDS belief. Romney did.
GBH was the prophet. Mitt Romney is not.
One was deep doctrine. One was not.

If this isn't comparing apples to oranges, I don't know what is.

Mark, this is ridiculous! I think it's funny that you set up my position against Romney: I don't like Romney and therefore everything about him is flawed. Fact is, I used to like Romney UNTIL I researched him!

[John Lockecaptain of 1,000]

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.

No I will not give you a break how do you know he wasn't guided by the spirit on what to say at that point? You from your lofty position think to judge him, you sit as if his steward to judge his testimony (and don't act like you are judging anything else) by saying he "DENIED IT." Even if you believe he had, should not a spirit of forgiveness take place instead of a spirit of contention and unrighteous judgement?

[Raindropcaptain of 100]

Here are the differences:

GBH didn't deny LDS belief. Romney did. Neither denied LDS belief.
GBH was the prophet. Mitt Romney is not.So who is held to a higher standard?
One was deep doctrine. One was not.Teachings from Gospel Principles is deep doctrine?

If this isn't comparing apples to oranges, I don't know what is.Apparently not.

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

Perhaps a more suitable title for the thread would be "Mitt Romney refuses to profess belief in ongoing revelation"

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Here are the differences:

GBH didn't deny LDS belief. Romney did. Neither denied LDS belief.
GBH was the prophet. Mitt Romney is not.So who is held to a higher standard?
One was deep doctrine. One was not.Teachings from Gospel Principles is deep doctrine?

If this isn't comparing apples to oranges, I don't know what is.Apparently not.

Deep doctrine for the world's standards. The principle that we may become gods--- I would consider that casting pearls before swine. It is absolutely mind-blowing to deny that we have modern day prophets and revelation.

How many times do I have to keep posting this quote? Yes, Mitt did DENY an LDS belief.

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

I would forgive him for this if he actually came out publicly and corrected himself. The fact that he has not, says volumes about him... ON TOP of his horrible political beliefs. Who knows, maybe he'll be given a second chance during this up coming election.

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

Mitt Romney did not deny his faith...nor did he deny the first vision. I feel sorry for you guys!

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

Of course Romney did not deny the First Vision. He said nothing about it, nor about personal revelation. There were multiple options he could have chosen to answer the question put to him. He chose perhaps the most misinformative option.

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Of course Romney did not deny the First Vision. He said nothing about it, nor about personal revelation. There were multiple options he could have chosen to answer the question put to him. He chose perhaps the most misinformative option.

Thank you Lundbaek. You just rationally and correctly rebutted this silly threads title which I have been trying to do for days with no success. Hip Hip Horray for Lundbaek. Now go tell your anti-Romney board friends like Mahonri and Infowarrior and Small Farm and others here because they still don't get it.

[Janadelecaptain of 100]

[InfoWarrior82captain of 1,000]

Of course Romney did not deny the First Vision. He said nothing about it, nor about personal revelation. There were multiple options he could have chosen to answer the question put to him. He chose perhaps the most misinformative option.

Thank you Lundbaek. You just rationally and correctly rebutted this silly threads title which I have been trying to do for days with no success. Hip Hip Horray for Lundbaek. Now go tell your anti-Romney board friends like Mahonri and Infowarrior and Small Farm and others here because they still don't get it.

How do you interpret

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

?

Maybe there's some deeper meaning to the words in the English language that I'm not aware of...

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

What are you grinning at, Janadede ?

Shall we all suggest alternate titles for this thread ? I propose "Romney fumbles the ball".

[SmallFarmcaptain of 1,000]

Of course Romney did not deny the First Vision. He said nothing about it, nor about personal revelation. There were multiple options he could have chosen to answer the question put to him. He chose perhaps the most misinformative option.

Thank you Lundbaek. You just rationally and correctly rebutted this silly threads title which I have been trying to do for days with no success. Hip Hip Horray for Lundbaek. Now go tell your anti-Romney board friends like Mahonri and Infowarrior and Small Farm and others here because they still don't get it.

Who say's I'm anti-Romney.... I was only arguing about was said in the video

[Obiwancaptain of 100]

You Ron Paul'its, Alex Jones 9/11 conspiracy'its really don't know how to understand the English language and simple common sense do you???

Romney's statement "and perhaps some others" does not "deny" the First Vision nor fundamental LDS beliefs, but in fact does the complete opposite and AFFIRMS THEM.
The statement acknowledges the "idea" of LDS theology without going into LDS theology.

His own words directly include "other" possibilities, thus all you are doing is bearing false witness of Romney. And those of you who are mormon should be ashamed, just like you should be ashamed of your 9/11 conspiracy's. America was simply attacked by fanatics, bottom line simple. There was no secret government conspiracy, no government planted explosives, no missles hitting the towers, on and on and on. And war against evil is ALWAYS a righteous war, period.

You all need to reflect on "who" you are really worshiping.....

[Rinconcaptain of 100]

Obiwan: you really opened a can of worms now. I can hardly wait to see the next response. This is great entertainment.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

You Ron Paul'its, Alex Jones 9/11 conspiracy'its really don't know how to understand the English language and simple common sense do you???

Romney's statement "and perhaps some others" does not "deny" the First Vision nor fundamental LDS beliefs, but in fact does the complete opposite and AFFIRMS THEM.
The statement acknowledges the "idea" of LDS theology without going into LDS theology.

His own words directly include "other" possibilities, thus all you are doing is bearing false witness of Romney. And those of you who are mormon should be ashamed, just like you should be ashamed of your 9/11 conspiracy's. America was simply attacked by fanatics, bottom line simple. There was no secret government conspiracy, no government planted explosives, no missles hitting the towers, on and on and on. And war against evil is ALWAYS a righteous war, period.

You all need to reflect on "who" you are really worshiping.....

The only correct thing you stated there was that Romney did not directly deny the vision Joseph had in the Sacred Grove. Other than that, I'd have to classify the post as one of the most incorrect in recent memory.

ObiWan... you need the force bad my friend.

[MahonriMaster]

If this doesn't scare you away from Romney, nothing will

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

Of course Romney did not deny the First Vision. He said nothing about it, nor about personal revelation. There were multiple options he could have chosen to answer the question put to him. He chose perhaps the most misinformative option.

Thank you Lundbaek. You just rationally and correctly rebutted this silly threads title which I have been trying to do for days with no success. Hip Hip Horray for Lundbaek. Now go tell your anti-Romney board friends like Mahonri and Infowarrior and Small Farm and others here because they still don't get it.

Mark, while I agree that Romney did not directly deny the vision Joseph had in the Sacred Grove, he most certainly missed out on a tremendous missionary opportunity to testify of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph when God and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Being LDS, this is one of the more fundamental beliefs we have and anyone in the media who knows anything about our church knows it, so why side-step it? Fact is, Mitt has compromised his LDS principles and values over and over again as a politician. Ron Paul is more deserving of our support as Saints than Mitt... by a country mile... and needs that support! Don't make me post Mitt's short-comings and the issues he has flip-flopped on for political gain - it won't be pretty. Not only that, do you have any idea what kind of chicanery he was involved in to bring the olympics to Utah back in 2002? By worldly standards, he did what he had to do to get the IOC to select Utah, but by our standards, he engaged in conduct worthy of condemnation.

[shadowcaptain of 1,000]

If this doesn't scare you away from Romney, nothing will

Consider me scared!

[Markcaptain of 1,000]

Of course Romney did not deny the First Vision. He said nothing about it, nor about personal revelation. There were multiple options he could have chosen to answer the question put to him. He chose perhaps the most misinformative option.

Thank you Lundbaek. You just rationally and correctly rebutted this silly threads title which I have been trying to do for days with no success. Hip Hip Horray for Lundbaek. Now go tell your anti-Romney board friends like Mahonri and Infowarrior and Small Farm and others here because they still don't get it.

Mark, while I agree that Romney did not directly deny the vision Joseph had in the Sacred Grove, he most certainly missed out on a tremendous missionary opportunity to testify of the restoration of the gospel through Joseph when God and Jesus Christ appeared to him. Being LDS, this is one of the more fundamental beliefs we have and anyone in the media who knows anything about our church knows it, so why side-step it? Fact is, Mitt has compromised his LDS principles and values over and over again as a politician. Ron Paul is more deserving of our support as Saints than Mitt... by a country mile... and needs that support! Don't make me post Mitt's short-comings and the issues he has flip-flopped on for political gain - it won't be pretty. Not only that, do you have any idea what kind of chicanery he was involved in to bring the olympics to Utah back in 2002? By worldly standards, he did what he had to do to get the IOC to select Utah, but by our standards, he engaged in conduct worthy of condemnation.

I don't disagree with much of your assessment here of Romney as a politician Col. I am not a Romney man as I think he is much like most any other politician out there who stick their finger in the wind and say whatever will get them elected. I responded on this thread because I think it is totally unfair to say as the thread title suggests that Mitt Romney denied the first vision as we all know he did nothing of the sort.

As I said before Bro. you or anyone can judge his faults as the political figure and have every right and responsibility to declare where he doesn't measure up as a constitutionalist but when this kind of silliness comes up about the mans testimony of the gospel and claims are made that are blatantly false I will step in and defend him as I would any other member because I think that is just slanderous crap.

[Col. Flaggcaptain of 10,000]

I don't disagree with much of your assessment here of Romney as a politician Col. I am not a Romney man as I think he is much like most any other politician out there who stick their finger in the wind and say whatever will get them elected. I responded on this thread because I think it is totally unfair to say as the thread title suggests that Mitt Romney denied the first vision as we all know he did nothing of the sort.

That is nice to hear.

As I said before Bro. you or anyone can judge his faults as the political figure and have every right and responsibility to declare where he doesn't measure up as a constitutionalist but when this kind of silliness comes up about the mans testimony of the gospel and claims are made that are blatantly false I will step in and defend him as I would any other member because I think that is just slanderous crap.

I thought he really dropped the ball with the question and intentionally side-stepped it so as to avoid looking like a kook in the media's eyes, but the question he was posed was akin to the Pope being asked if he believes in mass... but Romney went out of his way to say that "I don't know that anyone has spoken with God since Moses". While he isn't directly denying Joseph's vision, he isn't exactly saying he believes it either. That's what a slick politician does - they find a way to side-skirt the issue and give an answer that neither denies or confirms.

[SempiternalHarbingercaptain of 1,000]

[natashacaptain of 1,000]

I don't disagree with much of your assessment here of Romney as a politician Col. I am not a Romney man as I think he is much like most any other politician out there who stick their finger in the wind and say whatever will get them elected. I responded on this thread because I think it is totally unfair to say as the thread title suggests that Mitt Romney denied the first vision as we all know he did nothing of the sort.

That is nice to hear.

As I said before Bro. you or anyone can judge his faults as the political figure and have every right and responsibility to declare where he doesn't measure up as a constitutionalist but when this kind of silliness comes up about the mans testimony of the gospel and claims are made that are blatantly false I will step in and defend him as I would any other member because I think that is just slanderous crap.

I thought he really dropped the ball with the question and intentionally side-stepped it so as to avoid looking like a kook in the media's eyes, but the question he was posed was akin to the Pope being asked if he believes in mass... but Romney went out of his way to say that "I don't know that anyone has spoken with God since Moses". While he isn't directly denying Joseph's vision, he isn't exactly saying he believes it either. That's what a slick politician does - they find a way to side-skirt the issue and give an answer that neither denies or confirms.

It never ceases to amaze me Col how you know just what is in someone else's mind. From the beginning Mitt made it clear that this election should not be decided by religion...to make it otherwise would have been a diservice to any other Latter-day Saint wanting to run for office in the future.

[AussieOicaptain of 1,000]

Mitt Romney did not deny his faith...nor did he deny the first vision. I feel sorry for you guys!

Ah Natasha

Fooled by a professional politician to the point of making excuses for him

I feel sorry for you

tell me, what does the DENY in "deny the holy ghost mean" in the context of our LDS beliefs?

Exactly

Besides, this thread is old. People take a specific covenent when they are baptised do they not? to stand as a witness at all times? No?

or does thatnot apply to LDS doctrine, just believing in Jesus?

but not if you are a politician

there was an easier way out than pandering and denying, just ignore the question. politicians are good at that

at the very least you just give the statement you want and tell them that answered the question

if journo's push you hard nowadays they get pumped from the media pool, so they dont

he is a sell out, there is a long line of them

[lundbaekcaptain of 1,000]

You cana bet your boots and saddles that among most Mormon voters this election will be a big deal will be made of religion.