Mitt Romney: No revelation since Moses.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Why am I not surprised that you would chime in too. The complete quote has already been posted. It isn't like it changes the fact that Romney essentially disavowed revelation since Moses. He knows for a fact that what he is saying is totally misleading, and he knows he doesn't even believe what he is saying. So what if the "main" point he was making is that he doesn't have frequent communication with God?

And the wiggle room that DJ wants to lean on isn't even helpful for Romney. "Perhaps some others?" Perhaps? That works if you aren't a firm believer in the restoration of the gospel. But he is (or at least says he is), making his statement a blatant lie.

I have no problem with dodging questions on religion. I have no problem with refusing to answer religious questions, or hedging on them. But to outright lie about your religious beliefs suggests to me that he is a person who is willing to say or do anything to get elected, and that is a dangerous man. He has shown himself willing to flip on any given political issue; now he has shown himself willing to flip on religious issues as well.

All of DJ's rationales given are excuses for not talking about religion at all. Mitt chose to discuss religion, so those excuses are bunk in this example.

But the complete quote hasn't been posted ... we still do not have the transcripts. And the unwillingness on your part to admit that he mispoke but his intent was NOT to say no one has received revelation ect. is rediculous.

Reasonable people can agree that for sensational purposes he is being quoted out of context.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

he knows he doesn't even believe what he is saying.

How do you know what he believes?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

How do you know what he believes?

I will grant you that. I don't know. But I know that he proclaims a belief in the restoration of the gospel, and I know he later said something that totally contradicts a belief in the restoration of the gospel, so I know that one way or the other he lied. Feel free to choose which statement was a lie. I find it more likely to believe that his "Moses" quote was the lie of the two.

[BYU71]

Mitt would be an idiot to open up the door and talk about everything the "mormon orthodox" in the church believe.

I dare say 70% of the church doesn't believe everything that 10% who I can consider "the orthodox sector" believe.

By answering the question affirmatively like the orthodox element would have, he would have opened himself up to a myriad of questions that would have led no where.

If he indicated in any way shape or form anything the Prophet says comes from God, I wouldn't vote for him.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by tooblue

But the complete quote hasn't been posted ... we still do not have the transcripts. And the unwillingness on your part to admit that he mispoke but his intent was NOT to say no one has received revelation ect. is rediculous.

Reasonable people can agree that for sensational purposes he is being quote out of context.

Unless he was on Colbert and Colbert told him to say something that he knew was false, I don't have a clue what else could have been said that would enlighten us further.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Mitt would be an idiot to open up the door and talk about everything the "mormon orthodox" in the church believe.

I dare say 70% of the church doesn't believe everything that 10% who I can consider "the orthodox sector" believe.

By answering the question affirmatively like the orthodox element would have, he would have opened himself up to a myriad of questions that would have led no where.

If he indicated in any way shape or form anything the Prophet says comes from God, I wouldn't vote for him.

Fine. Then don't answer the question. Or just stick with "God doesn't talk to me personally." Or say "the church will never dictate my decisions as president." Or a myriad of other possibilities. But don't lie about what you actually do believe (or profess to believe).

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Fine. Then don't answer the question. Or just stick with "God doesn't talk to me personally." Or say "the church will never dictate my decisions as president." Or a myriad of other possibilities. But don't lie about what you actually do believe (or profess to believe).

What's fine is apparently you aren't happy with the answer and I am. I understand the lieing is quite acceptable in politics if you can say it is really "spin". That concept is also OK at BYU and in the church.

A lie isn't really a lie if it is spin.

It is as accepted by the public as is illegals aren't really breaking the law is.

[MikeWaters]

I'm fine with the idea that Mitt has no testimony of the church and the restoration. Wouldn't surprise me in the least.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJRoss

What about with Wallace on 60 minutes asked Romney if he was having sex with his wife prior to their getting married. Talk about behaving like a swine.

In spite of all this he remains a strong candidate, and the amount of negative press he has garnered is proof that he is the guy to beat right now.

I agree that this question falls into the borderline ridiculous....because it has no bearing on how he will be President..same with garments, Jesus and Satan, etc. Who cares how he behaved with his then-girlfriend?

I still maintain that questions about our belief in divine guidance and revelation are fair game (to a certain extent) because we profess to consult with the Lord when we make decisions. People will want to know what kind of answers we are used to receiving, how we claim to receive them, etc.

I just don't get why Mitt cannot answer simply, directly, and honestly when it comes to fair questions about our Church--by fair, I mean questions that have a direct correlation to how Mitt will act as a President. Questions about the WoW have no bearing, questions about whether Joseph Smith hunted for treasure have no bearing. Questions about how we as individual members use prayer and revelation to make life's important decisions, in my opinion, deserve an answer.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I agree that this question falls into the borderline ridiculous....because it has no bearing on how he will be President..same with garments, Jesus and Satan, etc. Who cares how he behaved with his then-girlfriend?

I still maintain that questions about our belief in divine guidance and revelation are fair game (to a certain extent) because we profess to consult with the Lord when we make decisions. People will want to know what kind of answers we are used to receiving, how we claim to receive them, etc.

I just don't get why Mitt cannot answer simply, directly, and honestly when it comes to fair questions about our Church--by fair, I mean questions that have a direct correlation to how Mitt will act as a President. Questions about the WoW have no bearing, questions about whether Joseph Smith hunted for treasure have no bearing. Questions about how we as individual members use prayer and revelation to make life's important decisions, in my opinion, deserve an answer.

There is no concensus on how we as individual memers use prayer and revelation to make life's important decisions. So he would be answering an question that isn't being posed to McCain, Huck, Hillary, Barak, etc.