Video: Mitt on Mormonism — unplugged; Update: Mitt compares Obama to Dr. Strangelove

posted at 9:45 am on August 5, 2007 by Allahpundit

Find out what happens when social cons stop being polite and start getting real. Barnett has background; the magic begins when the headphones come off, but there’s an early detour through crackpotville when the host urges Mitt in the event that he’s elected to invite the Supreme Court to step outside.

Update: An obviously scripted line, but a great one. Mitt’s having a good week.

Incidentally, whose genius idea was it to hold a debate on Sunday morning?

Update: A commenter reminds me that Mitt also made his Hezbollah-ish comments this week, so maybe it wasn’t all that great. I have less of a problem with what he’s trying to say there than others do, but fair enough.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

sonnyspats1 on August 5, 2007 at 10:43 PM

Yeah, I like Huckabee. He takes support away from Rudy and that fake fred?.

At the beginning here is how the folks preferred the candidates…..

Romney 9
Rudy 8
fred? the fake 5
McCain 2
Huckabee and others 1

After the debate here is how it stood…..

Huckabee 14
Romney 10
Rudy 3
fred? the fake 1
Hunter 1

I have always felt a Romney/Huckabee ticket would be pretty formidable.

csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 10:58 PM

Mallard T. Drake on August 5, 2007 at 10:37 PM

Uh, it’s a little taste of his own medicine. I wonder how he likes it when others take his beliefs and skew them into all sort of different directions?

csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 10:59 PM

I have to believe from your comments that you do not believe in the trinity or triune God. I have shown verses of the Bible declaring each of the members of the trinity is God and God is one.

You can’t show the trinity from the Bible. To support your argument, you can at best, create the implication which is why you added the statements in parenthesis in one of your earlier posts, to give the quotes you put up interpretive context.

I once asked a Dr. of Theology how one proves the ‘trinity’, to which he replied – you can’t, it is a matter of belief (he used the word faith).

As illustration of my point, it was once held by some, using the same Bible, that the Jews were polytheists and the Christians were the monotheists because the word Elohim in the OT is a plural form. That’s news to the Jews, I’m sure. But does show what you offer as fact is matter of interpretation.

Thus ends my solitary comment on religion interpretation. Back to politics :)

Spirit of 1776 on August 5, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Entelechy on August 5, 2007 at 10:57 PM

There is an old joke….

Q: How do you stop your Mormon buddy from drinking all your beer on a fishing trip?

A: Take two LDS buddies.

lol

Hey, depending on the situation, I don’t mind a drink once in a while, but I prefer virgin drinks. Daiquiri’s. Strawberry. Yum.

csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Before I accept your demand that the LDS faith square itself with the bible, you must square the erroneous teaching of the trinity with the events that took place at the baptism of Christ, which CLEARLY describe a Godhead composed of three separate and distinct personages.

csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 10:50 PM

One of the myteries and marvels of Christianity is the revelation that God was able to become fully man while remaining fully God. If you find someone, anyone who understands how He was able to do that, please let me know. as it says in 1 Corinthians 13:12 – Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

At Jesus baptism, the Bible does not say that a dove descended on Jesus and that dove was the Holy Spirit. It says the Holy Spirit descended LIKE a dove. s

Mark 1:10: And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him

Matthew 3:16: And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him

Luke 3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

John 1:32: And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.

Again the Holy Spirit being God yet filling Jesus at his baptism is something to comprehend in Heaven. We know it happened and we know that God is one, yet has three distinct personalities. Call it a miracle, just like when God and Jesus allegedly appeared to Joseph Smith in his vision and told him to “fix” the Christian church.

Mallard T. Drake on August 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM

You can’t show the trinity from the Bible. To support your argument, you can at best, create the implication which is why you added the statements in parenthesis in one of your earlier posts, to give the quotes you put up interpretive context.

There is no implication there, those are the words of the Bible. I put the asides to provide context, assuming there are readers here who are not familiar with the Bible or have a limited understanding.

…the Jews were polytheists and the Christians were the monotheists because the word Elohim in the OT is a plural form. That’s news to the Jews, I’m sure. But does show what you offer as fact is matter of interpretation.

Thus ends my solitary comment on religion interpretation. Back to politics :)

Spirit of 1776 on August 5, 2007 at 11:05 PM

Yet when Moses was before the burning bush God (Elohim) spoke.Exodus 3:14: And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.

God didn’t say WE ARE THAT WE ARE. He is a plural God who is one.

Mallard T. Drake on August 5, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Mallard T. Drake on August 5, 2007 at 11:34 PM

Sure. You take what is there and make the best sense of it as you can. You are welcome to do so, in fact in their wisdom our founding fathers provided you the framework to do so freely in this country. Having reached your conclusion, you equate that belief into fact.

As do people who accept the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet is a fact. Or people who accept the belief that Mohammad was a prophet is a fact.

Spirit of 1776 on August 5, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Mallard T. Drake on August 5, 2007 at 11:26 PM

Sorry. Not good enough. Too confusing for a God who IS NOT a God of confusion. The more likely explanation would be found during the events that took place during the Council of Nicaea. The Godhead as it is described is more likely a description of the three being one in purpose and not of personality.

And you still haven’t explained what God does with his Jesus suit when he is being God or the Holy Ghost.

csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 11:55 PM

csdeven on August 5, 2007 at 10:58 PM

I havent thought of an R/H but Huckabee would compliment the ticket having been a Christian Pastor at one time. I guess anything is possible. Its up to the winner to pick his VP. I have it on good source that Rudy has tapped the Florida Governor Charlie Crist already. Rudy has surrounded himself with a great team of people but he has come out pro choice and his personal life issues are going to be quite a hurdle to jump.

sonnyspats1 on August 6, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Sure. You take what is there and make the best sense of it as you can. You are welcome to do so, in fact in their wisdom our founding fathers provided you the framework to do so freely in this country. Having reached your conclusion, you equate that belief into fact.

Spirit of 1776 on August 5, 2007 at 11:48 PM

Amen that our founding fathers were religious men who established the freedom of religion and freedom of religion from government interference that they did not have in England. A revolutionary idea.

The Bible is fact. The histories in the Bible are as much fact as any ancient documents that are accepted as “gospel” (pun intended ;-)regarding cultures and civilizations. Sure the belief in miracles requires faith. In the reliability of the other parts of the Bible, I accept them as having occurred. As you said, we have the freedom in this country to not believe that without impinging on those who do believe. What a great country!

Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 12:01 AM

sonnyspats1 on August 6, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Rudy has an air about him, that even with his liberal social stances, he is still quite likable.

Did you see the debate? I think Brownback, Tommy, Tanc, and Paul are done.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Who said God is “confusing” us? Three-in-one is a concept that we can’t understand. The Bible tells us as much, just as it tells us that God exists in that form. God doesn’t lie. If a physicist tried to explain quantum physics to me, should I say he can’t be stating the truth because it is confusing to me? No, I accept that it is beyond my comprehension and have faith that he is speaking the word.

Okay, I have responded to your requests. Now it is your turn: explain the Mormon view of the Trinity with chapter and verse(s) to support their view. By your responses I am getting the gist that they don’t believe it, but YOU are not being clear and forthright.

Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 12:08 AM

Sorry, accepting something on faith doesn’t give you the moral standing to demand that others prove their beliefs according to your faith.

The basis of the LDS belief is found in the baptism of Christ. An event when God revealed the separate nature yet singleness of purpose that is the Godhead.

You accept scripture that is parable like in nature to base your faith in the trinity on and the LDS accept a description of an actual event to base their understanding of the nature of God on.

Considering your belief is brought about through the Council of Nicaea, an event where the facts of Christs teachings took a back seat to finding commonality among the various sects, I look upon such parsing of the great teachings of Christ as a dis-service to mankind as a whole. With so many possible truths cast on the ash heap of history, it is the fallacious concept of the trinity that needs to be proven before you can expect anyone else to accept it as the standard to judge all other faiths against.

Since doctrinal teachings were the casualties of the quest for commonality and the events surrounding Christs baptism were not doctrinal, but were in fact narrative in nature, the narrative of Christs baptism holds more credibility than the so called concept of the trinity.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 12:29 AM

Sorry, accepting something on faith doesn’t give you the moral standing to demand that others prove their beliefs according to your faith.

You were the one who first poo-poo’d the concept of the Trinity. You set the context. I have just been trying to find out why Mormons discount it.

The basis of the LDS belief is found in the baptism of Christ. An event when God revealed the separate nature yet singleness of purpose that is the Godhead.

You understand that the events at the Baptism were to fill Christ with the Holy Spirit for his mission on earth and to identify Jesus as Christ. It wasn’t to reveal that God was “three separate personalities.” If the Mormon belief is based on that one event, then they are neglecting the whole rest of the Bible that says God is three-in-one.

You accept scripture that is parable like in nature to base your faith in the trinity on and the LDS accept a description of an actual event to base their understanding of the nature of God on.

I never wrote that this was a parable. I said the Bible states that the Holy Spirit descended like a dove e.g lightly and gently. Even if there was a dove that actually lit upon Jesus, it still doesn’t invalidate the triune God.

Considering your belief is brought about through the Council of Nicaea, an event where the facts of Christs teachings took a back seat to finding commonality among the various sects….it is the fallacious concept of the trinity that needs to be proven before you can expect anyone else to accept it as the standard to judge all other faiths against.

From your previous post, I have never been taught or learned that God is “three being one in purpose.” God is three personalities in one. The concept of the Trinity is all through the Bible as is the explaination that it is beyond our comprehension in this world. Christ said it. If Christ is God, then it is true. There is multiple evidence to support Jesus’ divinity and his ressurection.

and the events surrounding Christs baptism were not doctrinal, but were in fact narrative in nature, the narrative of Christs baptism holds more credibility than the so called concept of the trinity.

Jesus was filled with the Holy Spirit at his baptism and God the Father announced Jesus’ identity to those present. There is nothing there to support that there are three gods, especially in the context of the entire Bible. If Mormons believe in three gods as “revealed” at Jesus’ baptism, let them cite additional passages that also state the same thing. And then let them call Jesus a liar when he states “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” “The Father and I are one.”

Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 1:01 AM

Mormons are free to believe what they wish in America. Please, however understand that we in the Christian church do not believe that they are part of our faith. Why is it that everyone except us gets to believe what they want to? We are Christians because we are followers of Jesus Christ. We do not follow the teachings of Joseph Smith or any other man that has added another “book” to the Holy Bible. We believe that God’s Word is complete and stands on it’s own. Mitt Romney is free to practice any faith that he choses…we are free to vote for or against him partially on his choice of religion. I for one, will probably not vote for him as a mormon. I have studied their reliegious system and do not believe they are part of my church.

sabbott on August 6, 2007 at 4:06 AM

WOA. Mitt is sharp! I may have to put him back on my list.

He did a good job detailing his position, in a way that demonstrates a great ability to debate and explain complex topics.

Perhaps this is because he has had to consider this in his mind, or because he has been confronted with this before. Did he get coached on how to address this or does this show how he thinks?

Unfortunately, that this complex question is one that only he will have to answer, does not bode well for his campaign.

He needs to tear into other issues in front of the American people with this much ability, if he wants to stay in this thing.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Agrippa2k on August 6, 2007 at 7:55 AM

sabbott on August 6, 2007 at 4:06 AM

Yes, this is a free country and you free to act on your bigoted ignorant views all day long. You are even free to claim your church and those who agree with you are the arbiters of all religious truth. But please realize that you have zero proof that to back all that up and when you start judging others faiths, you come off as a hypocrite.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Perhaps this is because he has had to consider this in his mind, or because he has been confronted with this before. Did he get coached on how to address this or does this show how he thinks?
Agrippa2k on August 6, 2007 at 7:55 AM

I wonder the same thing about all politicians. All we can do is look at their history and make educated judgments based on what they have accomplished. Mitts! record is one of success. Many successes. And that many successes cannot be an accident. So, I figure he is speaking exactly the way he feels because you cannot fake your way through a life of accomplishments.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 8:24 AM

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 8:24 AM

Unless you’re Fred? Thompson, who I’ve heard has many accomplishments under his belt. I haven’t heard what they specifically are, but I’m starting to buy into the hype. After all, Fred?’s Red Truck is real, not actually owning it is a minor problem, but the truck, itself, the physical object, is real.

BKennedy on August 6, 2007 at 8:58 AM

Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 1:01 AM

You can’t defend the events that created the Nicaean Creed can you? People talk about others following the teachings of men, yet those who follow the Nicaean Creed are following the scripture that a bunch of men decided would be the teachings that all other Christians should follow. You have no clue what truths were removed by those in the council, and until you can establish the bible as the authoritative infallible word of God, you have no standing to argue fact. You should be arguing that you have FAITH that it is fact because that would be teaching the truth. The problem you have is that admitting that it is only valid as a exercise in faith prevents you from judging the religions of others and by extension, holding your church up as THE only truth.

Jesus can’t sit on the right hand of God if he is God. The narrative of Christs baptism is clear evidence that the three are separate and distinct. You cannot explain how God, who is not a God of confusion, would, THE FIRST TIME IN HISTORY WHERE HE SHOWS ALL THREE MEMBERS OF THE GODHEAD AS THREE SEPARATE DISTINCT PERSONAGES, when he REALLY wants us to believe he is one single entity. You are the one that needs to square that before you can judge any other faith as teraching false doctrine.

Usually you guys try to prove the bible with circular reasoning. IE: The bible says it is fact so therefore it is.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 9:00 AM

BKennedy on August 6, 2007 at 8:58 AM

His other accomplishments include doing what all other politicians do. IE…taking his senate funds and funneling them to his son through a PAC that did very little for the causes which it was formed to help.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 9:00 AM

Again, you have refused to respond to some of my direct questions regarding the Mormon interpretaion of the Trinity, instead spitting out the party line. You originally asked another commentator for chapter and verse. I supplied many for you, yet you refuse to address those directly. I asked you for supplemental verses to support the Mormon claim that there are three gods not one-in-three. You refused to answer that question directly. You dodge the issue by citing the Nicaean Creed, which, I guess, for you invalidates the Bible. If you want to play that game I can get into the arguement about Joseph Smith and how he reinterpreted the Bible to suit his means. Curious that you refuse to accept the marvelousness and mysteriousness of the Trinity, yet will accept that Joseph Smith had some 135 inspired visions to guide him. But, that is beyond the original debate topic: the Mormon view of the Trinity.

Yes, this is a free country and you free to act on your bigoted ignorant views all day long.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Typical, you call names and grandly dismiss opposing views, without ever supporting your position to actually show why you think, in this case, the writer is “bigoted.” With apologies, you are using liberal debate tactics: not answering direct questions, refusing to acknowledge answers that you requested, and calling names without supporting your argument.

I have to go to work, so this is then of my participation in this thread. Have a good day.

Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM

I supplied many for you, yet you refuse to address those directly.

You never produced a scripture containing the word “trinity” which is what I asked him for.

Typical, you call names and grandly dismiss opposing views, without ever supporting your position to actually show why you think, in this case, the writer is “bigoted.” With apologies, you are using liberal debate tactics: not answering direct questions, refusing to acknowledge answers that you requested, and calling names without supporting your argument.
Mallard T. Drake on August 6, 2007 at 10:25 AM

No, I am refusing to let you skew the debate off into your understanding of my original point. That point being that without context ALL beliefs are screwy and that unless you truly understand the LDS belief system, you have no context by which to judge them. You cannot do a drive by on a anti-Mormon site or read literature written by people who have an agenda and get the true context of the teachings.

I have studied the teachings of the LDS church, and although I am not an expert, I have never come across one official teaching that is motivated by anything except love of God, family, mankind, and country. I have come to the conclusion that even if they have a few teachings that are at odds with traditional Nicaean beliefs, they have a lot of biblical scripture that makes those beliefs plausible. And in the final assessment, they hold Christ of the bible as their savior and that makes them Christians. And no one except God can judge their status as Christians.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 10:42 AM

There is nothing “secret” that goes on in the Temple. I was just in one last week. The key term is SACRED. What happens in the Temple of God is between the person who is there and their Maker. If you want to know what goes on, then join the Church, live your life in harmony with its teachings, speak to a Bishop (or Branch President) and then a Stake President(or Mission President), and your in. Simple as that!!!
The purpose of the Temple is to become closer to God and Jesus Christ. That purpose is for everyone who has lived, who is living, and who will yet live on this Earth.

Troy Rasmussen on August 6, 2007 at 11:08 AM

I found this NRO article that lays out Mitts! radical roots. It’s a pretty good read.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM

Here is another nice article that seems to lay out the risks Mitt! is facing in the Ames straw poll this Saturday.

csdeven on August 6, 2007 at 12:15 PM

I don’t know if csdeven is LDS or not. However, I judge that Mallard deserves a list of scriptural citations supporting the LDS view of the Trinity.

Here’s the thing: we DO believe in the Trinity, though we define it differently. That is to say, we believe in God, the Eternal Father, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost. All are divine, and they are one. Yet they are three seperate beings. For evidence, John 14:28 has Christ saying that His father is greater than him. Mark 13:32 has God the Father knowing the time of the Second Coming, yet Christ did not know it.

How, then, are Christ and God and the Holy Ghost one, if they are so clearly seperate individuals? It’s explained in John 17, the great Intercessory prayer. Verses 11 and 20-23 have Christ praying to the Father (incidently, why pray to himself if he’s the same being?) that the disciples be made one, even as Christ and the Father are one. I highly, highly doubt that Christ is teaching we all will become part of the Triune God here….

For further information, I would recommend you take a look at this site and that will provide a much more full explanation.

Hope that helps! Even if you don’t believe us, I hope you can realize that yes, we have a biblically based foundation. Oh, and that up until about A.D. 300 or so, almost all Christians believed like us as well…. so if we have faults, we are just like those pre-Nicean Christians. That’s a position I’m perfectly comfortable with.

Vanceone on August 6, 2007 at 12:55 PM

This is a conversation that has gone down the wrong path.

Is there such thing as a logical religion?

Faith = 1. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof 2. Complete trust

So in order to have faith in any religion you must have a firm belief in something for which there is no proof. This would apply to Christians, Muslims, Mormans, Bhuddists, etc. And, yes, this also applies to atheism. Therefore, a Muslim can look at a Christian and say, your religion is illogical and rediculous, a Bhuddist can say the same to a Muslim, a Christian can say the same to an atheist, and a Morman can say the same to a Muslim and they would all be correct.

I look at all the comments on here critical of Mormanism and critical of Romney for being a Mormon and it strikes me as classless and ignorant. Why do people feel the need to pick apart a religion on this thread? Mitt Romney would never speak ill of other people’s religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs don’t cause any harm to other human beings because he has too much class and wisdom to do that.

What we should be focusing on is which candidate will be most qualified to preserve, protect and defend the Costitution of the United States of America. That is the only document that matters.

Zetterson on August 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM

Zetterson on August 6, 2007 at 1:30 PM

I agree this discussion has gotten WAY off topic here, but I s’pose given who it’s about, and some of the participants, that’s to be expected. It generally happens when The One Who Is The Holder Of All Knowledge And the Final Arbiter Of What Makes A Conservative weighs in.

As for me, I’m not too big on mitt?? as he comes off too oily and plastic. I really don’t care about his mormonism – we are free to worship and believe as we want in this country, even though I don’t agree with his theology.

This certainly isn’t the right forum for those kinds of dicussions.

jdawg on August 6, 2007 at 2:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2