Mitt unplugged

Politico ^ | August 04, 2007 | Jonathan Martin

[mmanager]

Mitt Romney engaged in a heated discussion about his Mormon faith with a prominent Des Moines talk show host off the air on Thursday morning. The contentious back-and-forth between Romney and WHO's Jan Mickelson began on the air (video link courtesy Breitbart.tv) when the former governor appeared on the popular program that has become a regular stop for GOP presidential hopefuls. But the conversation spilled over to a commercial break and went on after the program ended, where a visibly annoyed Romney spoke in much greater detail about his church's doctrines than he is comfortable doing so in public.

The footage was captured by the station's in-studio camera and posted on its website. But Romney, who is careful to portray a sunny and upbeat public image, clearly did not know he was being recorded. The candidate reveals a private side that is at turns cutting, combative and sarcastic, but most of all agitated at being forced to defend what he and his church stand for.

[L.N. Smithee]

Why is it that the first thing a mormon does is accuse someone they disagree with of lying and distorting the truth? Do they teach that as a tactic?

1. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a Mormon.
2. I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a "Miss."
3. I didn't accuse you of lying or distorting the truth. I did say you disingenuously changed my question from being one about a hypothetical Mormon Presidential candidate into one specifically about Mitt Romney because that's exactly what you did.
4. I have indeed engaged in discussions about Romney and the issue of his faith many times. Most of the Romneyphobes don't like him because they think he's a RINO, but few have said they couldn't never vote for him solely because he's in the LDS Church. The ones that I have seen say that -- like you -- can't articulate a reason why they couldn't.

[Elsie]

During the rite of initiation, the candidate could be taught certain “higher teachings” which were reserved only for members who were deemed ready and worthy to receive them.

There goes that 'no respecter of persons' thing!

---

Extra-scriptural higher teachings are mentioned by several early Christian bishops and apologists. For example, Clement of Alexandria (A.D. 150-215), a prominent theologian in the early church and head of the Christian academy in Alexandria, stated that these higher teachings were not included in Christ’s public preaching but were transmitted UNWRITTEN by the apostles and were given only to church members who were qualified to receive them (MaGill 47). Clement declared that these sacred teachings were the key to entering into the “highest sphere” of heaven (MaGill 47).

Like the KFD, this reference is NOT scripture!

It has NEVER been practiced by the Church!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Mr./Ms. Smithee,

I was not disingenuous in my response to you.
I was writing about Mitt.

As to participating in the Mitt/Mormonism threads,
I’ve explained it over and over and over for 5 months.

For your benefit and for the hundredth time... I will not
vote to raise a cultist to the most powerful office in
the land. The reason is that I do not want to contribute
to lending legitimacy to a cult. Nor do I wish to contribute
to leading people to a Christless eternity by giving them
the impression through that elevated cultist that his or
her false religion is legitimate. I don’t know how to be
any more clear for you. That’s it.

Even if Mitt were not a Rhino. If he were not friendly
toward gay unions. If he were not a man who seemingly
violated his own standards by not speaking out about
Marriott porn. If he were actually a conservative and
not having POTUS conversions about prolife issues. I would
still not vote for him strictly because he is a member
of a cult.

best,
ampu

[sevenbak]

LOL! You spent the majority of this thread, upwards of a couple dozen posts asking where it’s written that we get the temple ceremony from. I post an early Christian theologian, Clement of Alexandria, who verifies that the higher mysteries were NOT written down as scriptural, but kept hidden from the uninitiated public, and you response is that you don't’ accept it because it’s not scripture.

We, sir, are at a very funny impasse.

Good morning! You finally have your answer, but I expect you to keep asking the question. Don't expect another answer.

[Elsie]

Impasse indeed!

 

We have Protestants pointing to what you folks claim is NOT scripture: the KFD, and saying it's what YOU believe and you say it's not.

 

And here you want to say something that is not Protestant (or Catholic) scripture and say that where YOUR Temple rites came from!

 

 

 

 

 

I can only stand with these fellows:

 

 

 1 Corinthians 4:6
   Now, brothers, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not take pride in one man over against another.

 

 

2 Corinthians 4:2
  Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.

 

 

 Revelation 2:24-25
 24.  Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan's so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you):
 25.  Only hold on to what you have until I come.

 

 

 

[Elsie]

I post an early Christian theologian, Clement of Alexandria, who verifies that the higher mysteries were NOT written down as scriptural, but kept hidden from the uninitiated public, and you response is that you don't’ accept it because it’s not scripture.

He 'verified' nothing; merely made a statement. No one else seems to have had this viewpoint.

[sevenbak]

LOL. I didn’t say that the rites come from a 2nd century Christian theologian, I said that he referenced them not being written in cannon, but still passed unwritten among the faithful.

Let me share one of many biblical references with you, since that is apparently what you want to hear.

Amos 3:7
Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.

Now, besides the secrets being revealed to His prophets, it's important to remember which religion has a living prophet and which has no secrets revealed because they have no prophet.

How on earth would you know what secrets God has to reveal to His prophets when you refuse to believe in them, and mock them?

[sevenbak]

Yes, I did say verify, because secrets and mysteries are held back all throughout the scriptures.

And plenty held this viewpoint...

Deut. 29: 29 secret things belong unto the Lord.
Ps. 25: 14 secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.
Dan. 2: 28 God in heaven that revealeth secrets.
Matt. 13: 11 (Mark 4: 11; Luke 8: 10) given unto you to know the mysteries.
Rom. 11: 25 I would not . . . that ye should be ignorant of this mystery.
Rom. 16: 25 according to the revelation of the mystery.
1 Cor. 2: 7 we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery.
1 Cor. 4: 1 ministers of Christ, and stewards of the mysteries of God.
1 Cor. 13: 2 understand all mysteries . . . and have not charity.
1 Cor. 14: 2 in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.
1 Cor. 15: 51 I shew you a mystery.
Eph. 1: 9 made known unto us the mystery of his will.
Eph. 3: 3 by revelation he made known unto me the mystery.
Eph. 3: 9 make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery.
Eph. 5: 32 a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ.
Eph. 6: 19 make known the mystery of the gospel.
Col. 1: 26 mystery which hath been hid from ages.
1 Tim. 3: 16 (1 Tim. 3: 9) great is the mystery of godliness.
Rev. 10: 7 mystery of God should be finished.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

seven,
you are back to your modus operandi, finding words here
and there in order to supposedly support mormonism.

I suggest you begin a program of Bible Study like this...

Why don’t you start with creating an outline of the Book of
John - determine its theme, major divisions, history, geography,
figures of speech, and then how it fits into the prophecies
of the Old and New Testaments. If you do this, you will
quickly find that the beliefs you are putting forth here
are foreign to the Bible. Have you ever done this Seven?

That way you would have some idea of how it fits together
and what it teaches. It would be a good starting point
for you.

best,
ampu

[sevenbak]

ampu, firstly, you’ve posted this advice about John now 3 times. I’ve responded. Please don’t cross over threads, it’s called spam.

Secondly, are you familiar with the Topical Guide to the LDS scriptures? It’s not a word based search, it’s a topic search. You are certainly quick to Judge. Did you read any of the references at all?

Let’s take a couple for example, and fill in the rest of the reference...

Dan 2: 28 But there is a God in heaven that revealeth secrets, and maketh known to the king Nebuchadnezzar what shall be in the latter days.

Col. 1: 25 Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;
26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

[L.N. Smithee]

For your benefit and for the hundredth time...

And in the first time in this thread...

I will not vote to raise a cultist to the most powerful office in the land. The reason is that I do not want to contribute to lending legitimacy to a cult.

So you think that a vote for Romney is a vote for Mormonism. Finally, a straight answer! How ironic that someone who criticizes Romney about not being straightforward about his beliefs had so much difficulty expressing his own.

Nor do I wish to contribute to leading people to a Christless eternity by giving them the impression through that elevated cultist that his or her false religion is legitimate. I don’t know how to be any more clear for you. That’s it.

Regarding your "Christless eternity" reference...does that mean you would never vote for a religious Jew either?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

LN,

You are full of bile FRiend.

But to answer your question, I would vote for
a Jew. Thanks for asking. I would not vote for
someone in a cult, like Mitt, who is caught in
mormonism... which perhaps, is true of you too.

I see you’ve not been on the Mitt threads. I have stated
my belief over and over.

best,
ampu

[L.N. Smithee]

You are full of bile FRiend. But to answer your question, I would vote for a Jew. Thanks for asking.

And a sarcastic "You're welcome," "FRiend."

I'm full of bile? Hey, I'm not the one that said should such a dilemma ever occur, not "promoting" Mormonism would trump supporting the perfect Presidential candidate. I'm not the one who's pretending he thinks Mitt Romney ought to "[talk] with the American people about his basic beliefs and [convince] them that even though he is in a fringe religious group (numerically), that he is still normal" when in fact, you don't think he should be President regardless of how "normal" he proved himself to be.

Come on, pal -- after saying you didn't want your vote "to contribute to leading people to a Christless eternity" by voting for someone who practices false Christianity, did you really think you were going to slide away without answering as to whether that standard applied to a candidate who doesn't even believe Christ was Messiah?