Heart-ache: Romney’s great-great-grandfather had 12 wives
posted at 7:01 pm on February 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Guess which news agency this came from.
One of our closest allies is two generations removed from Nazism, yet somehow it’s a scoop what Romney’s ancestors were doing 150 years ago vis-a-vis a practice his church no longer sanctions.
While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate’s great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.
Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.
Romney’s great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she “used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow” over her own husband’s multiple marriages.
It goes on — for thirty-four paragraphs. And the only bit of it worth reading is his wife’s one-liner about McCain and Giuliani.
Wondering why they’re making such a big deal of it? Barnett isn’t:
To start with the obvious, Mitt Romney is the most conservative candidate in the field who has, at present, a chance of winning. The press doesn’t like conservatives, or at the very least, is more hostile to conservatives than it is to liberals. The press sees everything regarding a conservative in the worst possible light; liberals are more likely to get the benefit of the doubt…
The press has come to expect Republicans to fit certain molds. They are supposed to be inarticulate and not quick on their feet. The press has stereotyped every Republican presidential nominee since Ford in this way. They are also supposed to be intellectually unimaginative or downright unintelligent. Again, every Republican presidential nominee since Ford has had to live with this label. They are further required to be creatures of politics who have accomplished nothing or next to nothing outside of the political world. Lastly, all Republicans ought to have a bit of Elmer Gantry in them. They should preach about morality and piety, but they should always be obliging enough to have at least a few skeletons jangling in their closet.
Mitt Romney fails to live up to any of these stereotypes.
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: « Previous 1 2 3
I really just meant right here and right now. I do not doubt that blood has been shed over this issue.
You could say the same about any argument that ends in blood. Human beings are beyond flawed, and unfortunately, religion can bring these flaws out in the open.
I’m sorry, but that just isn’t true.
Even if you don’t believe in the Trinity, which really would appear to make Jesus a liar if He claimed the same name as God, it still isn’t true that only Jesus called Himself “I AM”.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 5:09 PM
Fair enough.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 5:10 PM
You know what’s funny?
This thread began with a reference to Romney’s great-great grandfather having many wifes. Something not addressed (spec. forbidden) in the old testament, the new testament or the Creed.
So it seems to me the literalists (if that’s even a word..) among us really can’t condemn polygamy….
This is why your mother always told you not to discuss religion or politics in polite company!!!
honora on February 26, 2007 at 5:13 PM
You really don’t understand the definition of misquote, do you? I didn’t say you “said” any of that… I said that this was the message I was receiving. Jeez! Get your facts straight before you rip into me.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Well, not quite… taken from a popular Christianity viewpoint, Jesus and God are the same, so when God is saying it in the OT, it’s just the same as Jesus saying it. Especially when Jesus DOES say it in the NT, so either Jesus is lying in the NT (not my argument) or he is the same person that was talking in the OT.
Taken from an LDS viewpoint, we believe that it was Jesus talking in the OT, not God the Father. God the Father actually talks very little throughout the Bible according to the LDS view.
So either way, it is Jesus saying it. So my point still stands.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Joy kill! It’s no fun ata ll if they had to be factual! ;-)
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 5:33 PM
Actually, that’s not true.
There’s also a passage about how the kings weren’t supposed to take more than one wife, but I forget where it is. They disobeyed that, but that doesn’t mean they were right.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 5:34 PM
The problem gets down to this. I believe the ultimate word of God it the bible. LDS does not, they say, as long as it is translated correctly. And they want to do the translation.
The Christian body, as a whole, believes in the Creed, as a summation and statement of faith. Several beliefs do not. LDS, Muslims, Hindus, etc. All Christian faiths, for over a hundreds accept the Creed as a statement of faith. And it has been analyzed and gone over for those thousand years. However, the bible is the ultimate authority. I rely on many scholars to read and analyze the words, not just one church. The reading of Greek and Hebrew is difficult, even Smith had his problems (just with the word strait and straight, a difficult concept in Hebrew) and he was supposed to have divine intervention…and he got it wrong. Where we differ is the extent of belief within the Christian community, but all believe in the creed as a summation. LDS has the Book of Mormon that they claim is more correct than the KJV, fine I do not agree. As pointed out, I do not believe Smith or Young were prophets as measured by the KJV of the bible. Not because I don’t like them, but because they, by the KJV, were false prophets. There statements about the sun and moon or whatever, are irrefutable, and you have to live with it. And just to set the record straight, every pastor of our church reads and writes fluent Greek and Hebrew, the Sunday school texts are written by them.
Look it, you believe man can become God, I do not. You believe their are millions of Gods, I believe there is only one. You believe your prophets get a pass on some mistakes, I say they don’t. The pope was considered infallible, until Luther stood up and said baloney, and he died, insane, in prison of lead poisening…he died so we would know that the Pope was just a man (and not a nice man then). And the LDS states that when confronted with choices, use faith not fact. Luther (and othres Bonhoffer, etc.) stated in the reformation, that faith can be decieving, you must base your beliefs on fact first then build your faith. The word of God, not man. And it is only in the bible, no other book. So you lambast me because I say Smith and Young were just men and not prophets. In this great country we do not have to fear being locked up, nor would I ever like to see that. LDS are good people, on a worthy mission of rightesness (sp), I would like them to follow a real prophet and know Jesus Christ as there Lord and Saviour…The Christian way, spend several weeks attending a Christian Church and you will see. I have spent many months in your settings, talked with many ward presidents and led a few to Christ. It will be worth your time, you will learn more about the Christian faith than just the “Creed”.
God Bless.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 5:39 PM
And that would point towards the original point, which is that there is only one God.
Why? And if so, how do you differentiate between the two? When is it God and when is it Jesus? And if God the Father doesn’t talk, how do you even know He is there?
Who would of thought I’d find your definition more confusing than the explaination of the Trinity, which is admittedly extremely confusing.
Esthier on February 26, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Esthier, the argument was over me agreeing with right2bright that there is only one savior and he said:
I was defending my interpretation of his previous statement which used the term “I Am” which made me instantly think of Jesus (aka, the Savior). I was pointing out that either way you look at it “I Am” has always been spoken by Jesus.
Now, I’ll try to clarify the LDS view of the Godhead… It is actually pretty simple…
We are all spiritual children of God the Father, including Jesus. This can be seen with a literal interpretation of Romans 8:16-17 –
So, Jesus and God are separate and distinct individuals just as you and I are separate and distinct individuals. They operate together as One God. John 17:21 -
Surely, Jesus is not suggesting that we will become the same person as each other or that we will become the same person as Him or God. The “one” Jesus is referring to here is a functional “one”. The problem existing at this time and throughout the Bible was the prevalence of religion with pantheons of gods who fought and bickered with one another and if you didn’t get what you wanted from one god, you could go ask another – god shopping. The God of the Bible was very different than this version of polytheism, but Jesus could not deny that He and God were distinct individuals. So, how do you teach your followers that there is more than one God without them falling into the pit of believing in a pantheon of gods, all vying for attention and worship. No, as an object of worship, God and Jesus are united (one), but they are certainly not the same person. Just like an attack on New York is an attack on the United States, but that doesn’t mean that New York is the same as Idaho or Washington or Florida. They are distinct and separate entities, united in purpose and sharing authority.
Also, as a side note, it is from Romans 6:17 that LDS people get Biblical support for the idea that we can become like God (gods, with a little “g”). I’m actually interested to find out how other Christians look at this verse. How can you read “joint-heirs with Christ” and not think we will inherit what Christ and God have, namely, godhood?
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 6:13 PM
honora, there are plenty of references that are very clear that the Bible teaches one man one wife - which was a wildly radical concept at the time, and gave great dignity to the wife as full partner, not chattle – another radical concept.
Matthew 1`89:4-9: Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore, what God has joined together, let man not separate.
“Why,” then they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.”
confirmations of the singular:
1 Corinthians 7:2 Each man shall have his own wife
Ephesians 5:33 man must love his wife as he loves himself
1 Timothy 3:2 husband of but one wife
Deuteronomy 24:5 happiness to the wife he has married
Proverbs 5:18 may you rejoice in the wife of your youth
naliaka on February 26, 2007 at 6:15 PM
A fine way of wrapping up this discussion… you started by making unsupported claims and using nearly every logical fallacy known to man, and you finished the same way. Way to be consistent.
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 6:26 PM
In which Jesus do the LDS bashers believe in?
John 10:30 I and my Father are one.
or
John 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
csdeven on February 26, 2007 at 6:38 PM
Welcome to the thread that would not die…
Sooooo much text. Soooo much wasted text.
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on February 26, 2007 at 6:53 PM
I can hear the people from AP laughing from here. Mission accomplished.
TheBigOldDog on February 26, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Can’t let this go. “I am” or “ego eimi” is used as both a verb and a noun in Greek. The references to God is throughout the OT and the NT, because ego eimi is both God and Jesus. When Jesus said this in John, is would have been hereasy because it had only been stated by God up to that point. It is the shortest sentence in the bible, and the most profound. He set the tone, he thru down the gauntlet. Those words had only been spoken by God, and now this Jesus is saying he is God (pros ton theon). The finality of that statement cannot be overlooked. When it was used in the Godly context in the OT, it was “I am that I am”(Ex 3.14). The meaning is unmistakable to bible schlolars. There were few words in Hebrew so the context was all important. He was the one and only (monogenes theos). So when Jesus pronouced “I am” in this case he was pronouncing himself as being the God. So he either lied or he is God. They are either the same or he is a liar. You cannot find a bible scholar that would say anything different. Even the great Jewish bible scholars, though they do not believe in Jesus/God, will state the text is accurate and definitive.
I would suggest you do a google search on “I am” and “ego eimi”. You will find some great scholar discussion on this very interesting and pivotal phrase.
when you see the words come alive in a Greek and Hebrew translation, you can begin to see how powerful some of those words were.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 8:34 PM
Wow. Just checking back on this thread again and am amazed at how much sheer hatred some people have for my religion. I still think I was right; it’s fruitless to argue with idiotic, close-minded trolls. You just have to trust that Mitt’s appeal as as candidate can shine through all this bigoted crap slung at him.
WasatchMan on February 26, 2007 at 8:36 PM
Didn’t Christ say: “As I have loved you love one another.”
Hmmm I never heard him say “Cant let this go.”
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on February 26, 2007 at 8:39 PM
Both, pros ton theon. Jesus became man (flesh), he could die, God cannot die. If you want to put limitations on God, go ahead. There are other differences. Look up the Greek I just quoted.
Welcome to Christianity 101. If I answered three more questions like that, would you renounce your belief and choose Christ as your saviour? I didn’t think so.
Goodnight, you have enough to research that will keep you busy for several nights.
Blessing to you.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 8:43 PM
sorry almost broke my own rule.
heres the actual quote.
John 15:12
This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on February 26, 2007 at 8:44 PM
As a matter of fact he did say something similiar (he did not speak English). Jesus did not let untruths sit around and fester. Didn’t he go to the temple or something? He was Rabbi, he would never let untruths lay unchallenged. I will give you verses if you need them, but I think you know I am correct.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Close enough. It was Greek to me.
right2bright on February 26, 2007 at 8:50 PM
What a guy! Kumbaya! Group hug!
naliaka on February 26, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Yeah… that’s what I said… kind of… I know the Jews thought it was weird for this guy to be calling himself God, but to those of us that can look at the whole Bible from beginning to end and understand who was saying what and when, it isn’t a big shocker.
So, you are right, Jesus speaking in the NT saying “I Am” is the same person saying “I Am” in the OT… I think I actually said that.
So, my point still stands, that it has only ever been Jesus who called himself “I Am”(whether or not you view God and Jesus as separate at this point doesn’t matter, it was Jesus either way).
Decoy256 on February 26, 2007 at 9:43 PM
The lesson I’ve taken from this thread is that the enemies of Conservatives will no doubt stir up the wildest theories they can find, because intolerant evangelicals will do their darnedest to tear down Mormon’s and their faith–i.e. do their dirty work for them.
Good job, guys. Thanks for being Hillary, et. al. surrogates! Their check will be in the mail shortly, I presume.
Vanceone on February 27, 2007 at 11:29 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3