Posted on 08/04/2007 2:34:44 PM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Why would that be a depressing statement for them to read?
“Ok please explain to all of us how the Bible which is 2000 years old has any kind of a tie in to the book of Mormon, from the 1800’s, thereby validating the book as a legitimate addition to the original Bible.”
What happened to ‘keep it to yourself’? :)
First, I think you misunderstand what the Book of Mormon is. We do not see it as an addition to the Bible, it is a separate book of scripture that also testifies of Christ.
Second, you seem to think along the lines that if the Bible doesn’t mention it, it doesn’t exist. Well the Bible doesn’t talk about I-pods, hair gel, ball point pens, and many other things we know exist. The validity of the Book of Mormon is not determined by whether or not the Bible talks of it, it is determined by witness of the Spirit of God that comes to those who read it and earnestly strive to find out from God through prayer if it is true or not. God doesn’t lie.
Be that as it may, there are parts of the Bible that speak of the Book or Mormon or of the peoples in it. In Ezek 37 you will read of a prophecy about the stick of Joseph and the stick of Judah. We take the reference to stick to indicate a record (a scroll wrapped around a stick, or a stick used to write in a wax tablet). The stick of Judah then is the Bible, scripture that comes to us from the the descendants of Judah. The stick of Joseph is the Book of Mormon, scriptures that came to us from people descended from Joseph.
Christ also spoke of having ‘other sheep’ besides the Jews who would also hear his voice. The Book of Mormon records Christ telling the those people that they are those other sheep:
John 10
16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
3 Nephi 15
21 And verily I say unto you, that ye are they of whom I said: Other sheep I have which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
22 And they understood me not, for they supposed it had been the Gentiles; for they understood not that the Gentiles should be converted through their preaching.
23 And they understood me not that I said they shall hear my voice; and they understood me not that the Gentiles should not at any time hear my voice—that I should not manifest myself unto them save it were by the Holy Ghost.
24 But behold, ye have both heard my voice, and seen me; and ye are my sheep, and ye are numbered among those whom the Father hath given me.
Lastly, the Book of Mormon is not from the 1800’s, that is just when it was translated and published. It is a record of people who lived in the Americas mainly from 600BC to 400AD.
“Looking into this from the outside you Mormons need to realize how the whole issue seems to be a lot of mumbo-jumbo to normal Christians.”
There is a lot of disinformation out there that often misleads people into seeing us as being different than what we are.
The logic you use is twisted. In the passage you cited, the Lord spoke to a prophet to warn others of false prophets. However, because you deny the Lord the ability to call latter-day prophets, you are claiming inspiration from the Lord that you do not have and that you do not believe that you are entitled to have. How would you know that Joseph’s Smith’s visions were false, if the Lord had not revealed it to you?
Romney wasn’t in control?? You’re kidding..right? I viewed the video 3 times. I thought he did a fantastic job considering how ignorant the interviewer was. I would’ve decked the guy. How many times does he have to explain his religion??? In my opinion, never. As I stated in a previous post...So Mitt’s a Mormon..I’m Catholic. SO WHAT!! He believes in the SAME God that I do (ie., NOT Allah). I really can’t believe some of the truly idiotic Freeper postings regarding this hyped up religious ‘controversy’. Why isn’t Obama under the same scrutiny?? Everyone can tell that he’s a Muslim in Christian’s clothing. ENOUGH ALREADY!
I agree. I thought he kept his cool pretty well, especially when the daft dolt he was speaking with didn’t want to even TRY to understand Romney’s point of view.
Well, they should be a bit depressed in the Romney camp that he just isn’t gaining national traction. He’s doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire, but the rest of the country either doesn’t know him or doesn’t like him.
I sure hope nobody in his camp thinks that all Mormons will vote for him just because he’s a Mormon. To me, that’s as silly as people NOT voting for him just because he is a Mormon.
That’s what I noticed, too. I can imagine the setup:
“All right, we’ll sit Romney down here. I’ll have the camera rolling—we won’t tell him, of course. Then, when you go to a commercial break, why don’t you ask some antagonistic questions about his religion, not listen to his answers, and then tell him he doesn’t know anything about his own church. We’ll try to get him really pissed off, and then we’ll post the video on YouTube.”
I thought Romney handled the ambush fairly well. I don’t agree with all of his answers, but he showed much more class than the ambushers.
By their fruits shall you know them.
I also know a lot of Baptist type Christians who were very judgmental of me during a very hard time (Down Syndrome twins) than the Mormons. They were loving, nonjudgmental and there to help, no matter what, in my time of trouble — and NEVER EVER tried to convert me to their religion. That is the truth.
I think Mitt did well here...
Judgmental of you because you have twins with Down’s Syndrome???? What on earth could someone judge you for in such a situation? And why would they even try?
Criminy, I don’t understand people sometimes.
My heart goes out to you. We have a 14-year old son who is severely autistic, and just doesn’t “act right.” I’ve seen the stares he gets, but those kind of ignorant people are easy to ignore.
God bless you and your family.
“Romney wasn’t in control”
That’s right. He was not in control. Mikelson kept his cool while Romney became increasingly shrill. And all the Mitt posters saying he did well does not change that.
This is no “hyped up” religious controversy. Romney has been unable to explain why, until 2 years ago, his public position on abortion (pro choice, profunding) was at variance with the tenets of his religion. it is that simple. the reason why people continue to ask the question, and why it si relevant, is that he flip flopped on the issue just in time to seek to be the conservative, prolife standard bearer in 2008.
This is not about religion as far as I am concerned, although you seem to think it is, because you change the subject to a candidate of another party and cast aspersions on another religion. It is about 2 things: his position on a very important public policy issue, which has recently changed, and which needs to be explained which has not been done to the satisfaction of most prolifers; and his inability to keep his cool when being questioned on this same public policy issue vis a vis the position of his church by a conservative radio host.
Losing your cool with Jan Mikelson on the eve of the Ames straw poll may prove to be Romney’s Waterloo. He is perhaps the best known, and most widely listened to, of Iowa’s conservative talk show hosts. I repeat. He should have shown a little spine when dealing with the liberal Mike Wallace and his genuinely rude question. But he collapsed like a bowl of jello. Mitt Romney is not Presidential material, or at least he has shown no evidence of it thus far.
My perception of Mikelson was that he was trying to get Romney to answer the question and Romney kept trying to filibuster without giving an answer.
Regardless, Mikelson is not running for President. Romney is. Romney came off as thin-skinned. He is not my candidate, but I did indicate that I could vote for him if he is the nominee, but performances like his on Mikelson make that possibility, which is already a long shot, even less likely.
Getting into a fight with Mikelson on the eve of the Ames Straw poll is a bad strategic error for a guy who has to win big in that poll. If Romney has a disappointing showing, he is toast.
I do hope he lasts long enough to be in a debate with Fred Thompson, because if he can’t face Jan Mikelson and he runs away from Mike Wallace, FDT is going to eat his lunch.
The 'dustup' didn't occur until they were off the air. Jan Mikelson specifically said they were off the record. This is nothing more than a hit job by a hack journalist.
Some times it seems were only good enough to be a vote count for them; else wise get to the back of the bus!
I will never forget one time when I asked about some thing of the LDS that being undermined, and the reply to me was from FR was.
I don’t give a flying “f”! something like that with the F in it.
Well that remark said a lot and hurt a lot!
Things did change later for the better but the way things look to day you wonder if it was political expediency
I sure hope nobody in his camp thinks that all Mormons will vote for him just because he’s a Mormon. To me, that’s as silly as people NOT voting for him just because he is a Mormon.
Since you are a not a Mitt person you might not heard he cut back on fund raising this quater, to do a lot of one on one with the grassroots across America with the heartland you know the real people.
BTW those of us voting for Mitt it is not becasue he is LDS, it is because he is a good man, who is also a faithful to his Lord.
PS
...and who would never think of self polishing his halo!
Why would one be agitated to comment on what his church stands for? It's part of the deal running for POTUS.
That because the things they do in their Temples have NO basis that can be found in their scriptures.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.