Heart-ache: Romney’s great-great-grandfather had 12 wives
posted at 7:01 pm on February 24, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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 3 Next »
12 wives!? I’d never quit mowing…..
HerrMorgenholz on February 24, 2007 at 7:06 PM
Anyone who can have twelve wives and not end up getting killed by them is quite a person. I have one wife, and there are days I think she’s plotting my death.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on February 24, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Romney is a mormon manchurian candidate. Once in the white house his true mormon colors will show and he will make polygamy legal.
crr6 on February 24, 2007 at 7:12 PM
Two words: Synchronized periods.
Aiyeeeeeeee!!!
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on February 24, 2007 at 7:18 PM
so, did I read ‘Barnett’ right? That every Repub since Ford is represented as inarticulate? Ronald Wilson Reagain was inarticulate? Did I miss something? Was I asleep for eight years?
Guliani is articulate; Romney is articulate; Mc Cain is articulate sometimes, depending on his mood on a given day.
As for Dems, I thought the reason they’re making such a fuss about B Hussein Obama because ) in addition to being clean )is that HE’S articulate. The Pantsuit is NOT articulare, even on her best days; the best you can get from her is Not Screeching At the Top of Her Shrill Voice
Gore was not articulate; Kerry was a f+cking joke at public speaking, and still is.
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 7:22 PM
Sniper’s right. Romney’s ancestors were iron men.
see-dubya on February 24, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Can you IMAGINE how interesting hte fight in hte gay community will be between polygamist and monogamist gay marriage?
Defector01 on February 24, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Good one, crr6!
But seriously, Romney must really have the libs running scared for them to indulge in this sort of tripe.
billy on February 24, 2007 at 7:25 PM
Cue NRA4Freedom’s “Mormons aren’t Christian” diatribes…
Hack Ptui on February 24, 2007 at 7:29 PM
Are you kidding me? The press in the 80’s tried to portray Reagan as too stupid to tie his own shoes without drooling.
When that didn’t work they just stopped carrying his speeches on TV, to “protect” us from his stupidity.
Every effective conservative is portrayed as either a simple-minded brute or a diabolical genius.
billy on February 24, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Reagen was excellent with prepared speeches, but he wasn’t portrayed as beng very good at speaking extemporaneously. I’m guessing thats what Barnett was referring to?
crr6 on February 24, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I think Mitt has a long way to go to convince the Republican base that he’s a real conservative. That’s the real obstacle to his campaign, not how many wives his grandfather had.
Maxx on February 24, 2007 at 7:39 PM
It says something about the personal integrity of Governor Romney that his detractors have to scour back 3 generations to literally dig up a skeleton in a closet… since his closet is pretty darn clean.
Here’s our take
rightsideredux on February 24, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Well, if his great-great-grandfather had 12 wives, there’s a good shot that he’d put judges on the bench that would overturn Roe v. Wade!!!!
As Fark would say, EVERYBODY PANIC.
Enrique on February 24, 2007 at 7:45 PM
Yeah, billy, you have a point, up to a point: They attacked Reagan so viciously because he was getting around them to communicate his message to the people. They called him ‘the Great Communicator’ as a snarky insult, but the name stuck BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IRONIC, BUT TRUE
My point, which I did not make very well, is that everyone with an IQ above plankton who was not a lib / Demo KNEW that Reagan spoke well, and understood what he was saying, despite what the MSM was peddling
that’s why they hated him so much–and hate him still…
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 7:45 PM
When was the last time the entire geneology of a candidate was an issue?
What a joke.
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 7:45 PM
That’s quite the assertion. Start with the obvious…? This was written by a Leftie, passing off Leftie perceptions as reality again. Stupid, Left-serving analysis.
And Mormans aren’t Christians. “Ye will be known by my name.” The Book of Morman teaches that Jesus Christ was created by God, not begotten of God. That’s the big divide, that separates Christians from non-Christians and identifies faithful doctrine as opposed to heresy. The Book of Morman trumps the Bible as doctrine, so they are known as Mormans, not Christians. Simple. Don’t lose a single minute of sleep over it.
That is a separate discussion from whether Romney can make a good chief executive or not. As a conservative, I have doubts that a guy from hyper liberal-land Taxachusetts has had much practice in “conservatism” as the rest of the country understands it. Don’t mean he can’t, but he has to sell himself as someone who does have solid, at least mainstream conservatives principles. What Massachusetts thinks is “conservative” isn’t what the rest of the country perceives as conservative. His Morman background one would assume would lend itself to “family friendly” governing, but he evidently didn’t fuss about the insertion of “gay-friendly” curriculum all the down into Massachusetts kindergartens. So. He’s a big question mark.
naliaka on February 24, 2007 at 7:49 PM
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 7:45 PM
And that’s the real reason the libs hate, fear really, Romney so much. He’s conservative, and yet you can’t call him stupid and you can’t make him out to be the Grinch because he’s a likable guy. So they attack him as some kind of religious kook.
Notice, of course, that they don’t attack him along the lines that he’s not conservative enough
Not being a true conservative… never, ever a problem for the MSM.
billy on February 24, 2007 at 7:53 PM
On the upside, none of the 12 wives was named Rodham.
JammieWearingFool on February 24, 2007 at 7:54 PM
Am I the only one who smells the Clinton War Room behind this?
PinkyBigglesworth on February 24, 2007 at 7:59 PM
He’s got that right. At least for those of us who actually bother to research what Mitt says and does. Too many people want to look at Mitt from their own shallow perspectives because they are too lazy to do some real research and LISTEN to what he says. That is where we are getting all this uninformed criticizim about many of his positions.
Still waiting for someone to leave me a link to a comment by Mitt that would give us a clue as to his stance on illegal immigration.
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 8:07 PM
No
and it’s a bad smell…..
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Why is it that everyone, on both sides of the isle, look at Mitt Romney with such caution and skepticism? Conservatives think he isn’t really a conservative, even though he is by far the most conservative of any leading candidate. And the media and libs, naturally, are trying to shoot him down because they perceive him as a potential threat.
Is it because people think he’s too smooth, too good to be true? That somehow he is a slick politician? Aside from the fact that his religion actually gives more credence to his morals and integrity, everyone who knows him says he’s a total upstanding guy that stands on principle. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary–and compare how clean he is to the other leading Republican candidates.
So what I’m saying is: why are so many reluctant to rally behind him? Why are you not revved up by him? He says all the right things, does all the right things, looks the part, is very electable (aside from the already media hostility and attempts to discredit him), and is probably the best balance between electability+policy we’re going to have. I don’t get it.
Patriot33 on February 24, 2007 at 8:25 PM
I’m sure that the MSM will be balanced. They will write about Obama’s grandparents as well, but only two of them.
rw on February 24, 2007 at 8:31 PM
What a non-issue. That Civil War-era chap with the 12 wives is probably the forebear of thousands of Americans. I’m told Joseph Smith is somewhere directly overhead in my family tree, but given the passage of centuries and the geneological mathematics of polygamy, that likely puts me in a huge population of descendants.
But since the AP has indicated that 4-generations-removed family affiliations are fair game, I guess that means all of Bill Clinton’s misdeeds are squarely on the table for Hillary to answer for. Not to mention both Bill and Hillary’s troublesome siblings. Obama’s father was a Muslim-cum-atheist (unconventional AND a flip-flopper!) and BOTH of his parents were divorced. None of John E’wards’ ancestors even bothered to graduate from college. He may have gotten fancy degrees in law and, um, textile-making, but will his long family tradition of limited education guide his agenda?
flip on February 24, 2007 at 8:33 PM
*Gasp*
Patriot, did you just call Mitt “clean”? Are you suggesting Mormons don’t bathe?
flip on February 24, 2007 at 8:35 PM
Really? What’s the deal with his grandparents.
There is a stark difference between the two. One has actually accomplished a lot of stuff and the other only talks about accomplishing stuff.
I’ll leave it to others to figure out which is which. ;-)
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 8:36 PM
duh!! That should have been…
“Really? What’s the deal with his grandparents.?
csdeven on February 24, 2007 at 8:37 PM
we knew it wouldn’t take the media long
currently the headline on yahoo news:
“Forebears of ‘08 hopeful Romney practiced polygamy”
Part 1 of an 80 part series until the primaries. Next week:
“Forebears of ‘08 hopeful Romney wore magic underwear, ate green jello”
brak on February 24, 2007 at 8:42 PM
A lot of us are stuck with weird great grandfathers. Just ask Murtha’s great grandchildren.
fogw on February 24, 2007 at 8:45 PM
I think George washington was the only man able to handle 12 woman at once.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pc9y5ayeeb4
lorien1973 on February 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM
thought, not think. doh!
lorien1973 on February 24, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Well then, if all his relatives vote for him, he’s a shoe-in :^)
db on February 24, 2007 at 9:17 PM
That makes you a racist. No I am not making that up. President Bush used the word articulate to describe Obama and the next night on O’Reilly he had 2 African American women, from opposing sides of the political spectrum and they both said so. You should have seen Bill trying to get a grasp on that thought process. He forgot to ask for a list of adjectives which are acceptable in describing black politicians that would be construed as positive.
LakeRuins on February 24, 2007 at 9:27 PM
oh please, how many people can even trace their family back to their great-great-grandfather? I know I’d want to stop at my drunken, wife abusing grandfather, who is NO reflection on my current family situation. Go Romney!
ctmom on February 24, 2007 at 9:29 PM
yeah, LakeRuins, I saw those two on O’Reilly, and was Duly Ashamed & Chastened.
My original point is that this
is crap: it’s not true: the only thing ‘the Press’ believes is that Democrat=Good, Republican=Bad
the whole premise of this thread is bullsh+t, hence the dearth of worthwhile discussion. I blame that Allah guy; I hear he worships pagan idols, and eats lots of cheese
Janos Hunyadi on February 24, 2007 at 9:37 PM
News flash- his father was a very effective Governor for my state, Michigan. There are very few people from either side of the aisle that will dispute that. I guess that is why we are talking about this?
Pam on February 24, 2007 at 9:40 PM
“Dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-duuuuumb!”
But seriously:
I recently read a tidbit that said Smith was murdered before the Mormons started west and also that polygamy was started by Brigham Young once they got to Utah. Was Smith a polygamist? Just wondering.
Anwyn on February 24, 2007 at 9:44 PM
good points.
This should open all doors to the clinton body count, all the crimes again, B Hussein Obama’s family tree, etc.
Let the ‘genealogy wars’ of 2007 begin.
shooter on February 24, 2007 at 9:46 PM
This is off topic, but important.
MoveOn.org has started a petition against Fox’s hosting of the Presidential primary debate.
Here’s the link to the petition, just in case anyone should want to add as many phony names to it as possible. Just for fun.
Here’s the email that a liberal friend of our family ignorantly sent to one of my family members this morning, obviously not reading the instructions very well …
Too late. Secret is out. Please spread this around.
Gregor on February 24, 2007 at 10:06 PM
Can someone identify the relevance here? I think the assumption is that, since relatives from centuries-past had multiple spouses – Mitt absolutely approves of the same, and will write it into law should he win the presidency. Is this what I’m supposed to take away here? I like to check my understanding since I’m supposed to think like the AP journalists.
thedecider on February 24, 2007 at 10:21 PM
We know the Dem candidates always got hardball questions from the likes of Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, Bernie Shaw, Jim Lehrer et al, now didn’t we?
It’s truly mind boggling how frightened the lefties are of one little cable news outlet. Spoiled children who can’t cope with not getting their own way.
Bring it on Britt!
Question #1 for Hillary ….
You say the Iraqis need to earn our support. When you turned a $1000 investment in cattle futures into a $100,000 in less than six months, DID YOU EARN IT?
fogw on February 24, 2007 at 10:23 PM
So Mitt’s great-grandfather had five wifes.
Hillary Clinton’s husband had at least that many affairs, but we probably won’t see the AP writing about that anytime soon.
wryteacher on February 24, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Don’t hate tha playa, hate tha game.
RightWinged on February 24, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Zing!
Haha, seriously there are mad Clinton jokes to be made about this… I’m predicting we’ll see some on the late shows on Monday:
“It’s been reported that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s great-great-grandfather had 12 wives. Upon hearing this former President Bill Clinton converted to Mormonism.”
(Half Hour News Hour, are you listening!?)
RightWinged on February 24, 2007 at 10:50 PM
He was elected governor my the same population that returns Ted Kennedy to the Senate every year. Right or wrong, it does cause some concern for those of us that are not too familiar with his record.
I love this quote. Has he actually had to go on record to condemn polygamy? What about pistol dueling, impressment and paying indulgences?
Coyote D. on February 24, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Please don’t tell me that every gossipy piece of trash info tidbit that is said is going to be reported here, even if it is to put it down.
VinceP1974 on February 24, 2007 at 11:58 PM
Mitt’s Great Great Grandpa was an absolute pony. Can I vote for that guy in the primary?
Squid Vicious on February 25, 2007 at 12:08 AM
Fabulous!
PinkyBigglesworth on February 25, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Hmm, 12 wives. I’ll bet there’s a LOT of people related to him.
Bill’s already married to his first, second, and third ex-wife all rolled into one.
Mojave Mark on February 25, 2007 at 12:19 AM
So this means he gets the gay vote, right?
SouthernGent on February 25, 2007 at 12:30 AM
Bill Clinton “A wonder what’s better…one wife who acts and feels like having 12, without having none, or actually having 12 wives…”
Unrelated, one wife, one mother-in-law,…5…12 wives…
Entelechy on February 25, 2007 at 12:43 AM
Sigh,
Trolls on HA? Who woulda’ thunk it?
OK I’ll bite…
Could you please quote from WHERE this doctrine of the creation of Christ, is in the Book O’ Mormon? (notice the O? morm-o-n)
I also find it odd that infidelity with all kinds of women without any commitment seems ok but signing a contract, and making a commitment where you have to juggle 12 wives is bad? yeesh think of the welfare checks the liberals could hand out if Poligamy WAS legal! YIKES!
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on February 25, 2007 at 12:48 AM
I’m liking Mitt more each day.
Buzzy on February 25, 2007 at 1:00 AM
I suppose if we went enough generations back into the Clinton and Rodham family tree, we could find slave-owners.
But that would be out of line and irresponsible journalism.
EFG on February 25, 2007 at 1:14 AM
WHy you are absolutely right: Mormon theology claims that God was once man and rose to diety, as supposedly did Jesus Christ.
SO, I’ll replace that sentence: The Book of Morman (sic) teaches that Jesus Christ was created by God, not begotten of God. With that, and change all my typos Mormans to Mormons, and all the rest stands true. Mormons are not Christians. They do not teach the Triune God, the Alpha the Omega the Beginning and the End.
You’re going to have to do better than to call me a troll and get all snarky about keystrokes in order to deny this truth. For Mormons, The Book of Mormon trumps the Bible. End of it. You aren’t biting, you are trying to create confusion.
And for the record, I could care less that Romney’s grandfather had 12 wives. What’s relevent is that Romney isn’t practicing or condoning that and most Mormons don’t anymore anyway. My concerns about Romney fall into the political. I think he’s a Massachusettes Liberal. He’s got to prove otherwise. Haven’t seen much yet to inspire confidence.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 1:40 AM
this troll-calling needs to stop. honora and JaHerer and Ouabam are the troika of current trolls; not anyone on this thread–and not me, despite what Gergor ( who apparently lusts for me ) said last night.
trolls pop up to attack and sabotage discussions; people who disagree with one person ( or who have as many typos as I do ) are not ipso facto trolls. That word needs to be limited to those who truly deserve it-=-like honora the Harpie,
Janos Hunyadi on February 25, 2007 at 2:04 AM
Clearly some kind of celebrity rehab is called for.
If this is the best that the enemedia can come up with, while corruptocrats like the Clintons are running for the other party, I think Romney comes out looking pretty good by comparison.
ReubenJCogburn on February 25, 2007 at 2:06 AM
LOL! I sure hope you’re a woman. Yes, I’m homophobic.
The fact that you’re still thinking about me 24 hours later and mention me in an unrelated thread makes me wonder who lusts for who.
This is getting scary. Please tell me you’re a woman.
Gregor on February 25, 2007 at 2:55 AM
Well heck. A whole lotta muslims have “plural wives” too, and that doesn’t seem to bother anyone on the left side of the aisle. Why should this?
Bob's Kid on February 25, 2007 at 3:18 AM
How many Muslim polygamists have they elected to office?
Mark Jaquith on February 25, 2007 at 4:23 AM
Ok, friends: some links by LDS authors on certain topics raised so far in this thread are, I think, probably a good thing right now.
Polygamy is a right hot topic this morning:
LDS doctrine about Jesus Christ can be found here.
And, also on this topic, see particularly the following articles from The Encyclopedia of Mormonism:
“Faith in Jesus Christ”
“Jesus Christ in the Scriptures”
“Jesus Christ”
“Jesus Christ, Fatherhood and Sonship of,”
Enjoy your reading!
For further research, click the link.
ccwbass on February 25, 2007 at 4:28 AM
SO much reading to do, so little time; therefore, I’ll just limit myself to two links for those who may feel a need to see what actual Mormons have to say about . . .
Polygamy
and . . .
Jesus Christ.
Enjoy!
ccwbass on February 25, 2007 at 4:47 AM
You crazy kids remind me of a young AllahPundit and Kirsten Powers. This site is clearly a digital dating service masquerading as a political blog.
RightWinged on February 25, 2007 at 6:04 AM
first Allen was Jewish
I confess, my great, great, great, great,great,great, great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great,great Grandfather was a raping and pillaging leader of a viking horde and had several wives, longships and slaves……
Now thats news thats fit to print
EricPWJohnson on February 25, 2007 at 8:40 AM
or greate greate -jeez…..
EricPWJohnson on February 25, 2007 at 8:41 AM
That can apply to me as well since I have a Norwegian heritage. We Are Your Overlords!
RedinBlueCounty on February 25, 2007 at 8:54 AM
All your base are belong to us
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 8:57 AM
You have no links to anything that you claim.
Ergo, you are dismissed from further adult conversation until such time that you can provide said links.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 9:03 AM
csdeven
you forgot the /sarc
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 10:00 AM
This is quite a fun thread here.
That quote got me thinking; Obama comes from a Muslim family. I’ll bet we could find a polygamous (HA needs a spell checker) grandpa somewhere.
(I’ll take a crack at the side thread going here too, and I’m speaking from a Christian perspective.) The Mormons believe in the bible “insofar as it is translated correctly” On a practical level that means whatever is in the bible that disagrees with Joseph Smith is wrong. Whatever’s in the bible that agrees with Joseph Smith is right. So one is left with a choice. Either believe the bible is true or believe that Joseph Smith is true. One can’t have it both ways. Joseph Smith called modern day Christianity an “abomination” so even Clinton himself would have a hard time embracing both (and/or neither) simultaneously.
Also, though the Book of Mormon is a dreadful read there is no unchristian doctrine contained in it other than God the Father having a body. The more heretical parts of Momonism are introduced in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
Mojave Mark on February 25, 2007 at 11:02 AM
That’s rather an understatement, no unchristian doctrine other than God having a body don’t you think?
Still, it’s as you said, there are Mormon documents of doctrine that are used for teaching Mormon theology, which are glaringly in opposition to Christian doctrines. The Mormon collection of writings, between the Book of Mormon and the Chruch documents taken as a unit, set the religion very plainly apart from Christianity. It’s a good exercise, comparing the two theologies – one will learn a lot about both, and it’s quite interesting.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 11:13 AM
I dunno, keeping 12 women happy under the same roof…He da man!
To put into perspective: Kennedy’s father (Joesph) was a rum runner just 80 years ago. He taught his son well.
right2bright on February 25, 2007 at 11:45 AM
Just wondering outloud…..
Did Obama Barak’s great, great grandfather belong to the Taliban or what? Will Barak ever disavow that he is NOT a Muslim or what?
What about Billary’s great, great grandfather or her ancestery?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article679114.ece
Kokonut on February 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM
Snark aside,
ALL I asked for (besides asking you to correct your ignorant spelling of the word “mormOn”.) was to ask you to give us some links to support your claim of Christ creationism. I Am curious are you a Mormon? I would doubt it since you were incapable of spelling “Mormon”.
So again, I would like to know where this “mormon” doctrine comes from, or at the very least to know where you heard it from…
If you are just going to make unsubstantiated claims then go right ahead and show yourself the ignoramus you are.
If the only other thing you can do is call me “snarky” I guess we don’t really have a debate do we?
-Wasteland Man
WastelandMan on February 25, 2007 at 12:03 PM
So What! E Pluribus Unum.
Speakup on February 25, 2007 at 12:18 PM
AP headline you won’t see:
Obama Family Tree Includes Polygamists
JammieWearingFool on February 25, 2007 at 12:25 PM
In the liberal mind, one is not responsible for his/her own actions (child abuse, drug abuse, dwi, murdering cops, etc.). But G-d forbid one of your ancestors was a polygamist, or owned a slave, that can never be forgiven!
Now how is it that you cannot be held resonsible for those things totally within your control, yet be permanently and irreversibly crucified for things in the past for which you have no causality-based (reality-based) responsibility?
To the liberal mind, it all makes perfect sense.
stonemeister on February 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM
so many horribly sexist jokes … so little time.
One Angry Christian on February 25, 2007 at 12:45 PM
STILL waiting for those links.
csdeven on February 25, 2007 at 1:13 PM
Gregor, this will not make you happy :)
John = János (in Hungarian).
Seriously, the liberals and the media have no moral authority on any moral subjects. Besides, they are supposed to be the ‘feeling/understanding/forgiving/redeeming’ party within the same day, never mind ‘great/grand’ generations…
The fact that they ‘go there’, without realizing how ridiculous and hypocritical they are, and how many possibilities this opens for the opposing side, is astonishing!
Entelechy on February 25, 2007 at 1:29 PM
12 mothers-in-law.
12 freakin’ mothers-in-law!!!
The horror. The horror.
thirteen28 on February 25, 2007 at 1:46 PM
The fact that I keep hearing about Romney’s religious beliefs from conservatives is even more astonishing and hypocritical. Who cares? Are only the right kind of Christians moral? Are they the only ones we should consider voting for? Are we voting for a minister or a President?
Romney’s obvioulsy, well obvious to anyone who’s knowledge of Romney is deeper than the latest headline, a very moral man, at least as smart as anyone in this election, an extremely successful and capable executive and one who is running on a platform that is more conservative than any other tier 1 candidate.
So we should tear him down because he’s a Mormon? Yea, ok.
JackStraw on February 25, 2007 at 1:52 PM
I’m not going to debate Mormon doctrine with close-minded, idiotic trolls. I will just remind you: “by their fruits ye shall know them.” By all accounts Mitt Romney is a good, decent man and a very competent manager and leader who would make an exemplary conservative president.
WasatchMan on February 25, 2007 at 3:09 PM
Sorry for the long quote here but you did ask. Here’s an excerpt from J&D. How a logical mind can find that Mormonism does not teach a created Christ is beyond me. Christians believe that it was God who did all the creating and God the Son (Christ) who specifically was the creative agent for the universe. In other words, He didn’t create himself.
On February 8, 1857 Brigham Young explained how God came to be God and fathered Jesus:
Sounds pretty clear to me. This is America and everyone is entitled to his beliefs, but I think we should all be transparent about what we believe.
Mojave Mark on February 25, 2007 at 3:29 PM
I think that Romney has made it clear that he doesn’t care for or ascribe to the practice of polygamy as practiced by the Mormons of yore.
I read that one of these wives (his great-great-grandmother) kept a journal in which she described her misery and tears at having to “share” her husband with the other wives-not exactly an endorsement for it.
I don’t know about you, but I have some pretty wild ancestors and great-great-grandparents and great-grandparents, one of whom was massacred at Goliad in the battle for the Republic of Texas and a great-grandfather who fought on the “wrong” side (of the South) of the Civil War.
Apparently, his wife, my great-grandmother never said the word “Yankee” without putting “damn” in front of it, although she was a godly and non-cussing woman.
I don’t think this means a thing about Romney’s unsuitability for the Oval Office and it’s too funny that the Enemedia has to go back 5 generations to get any dirt on him!
As long as the man isn’t a member of a religion that advocates the overthrow the existing government so that their believers can establish a theocracy like, oh, I don’t know….Islam?, then I’m cool with whatever faith he embraces.
Jen the Neocon on February 25, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Okay dokey. A link>
http://www.probe.org/content/view/772/65/
Now, as far as being an adult, I assumed that everyone on this thread was an adult and was perfectly capable of typing in “Mormon doctrine, Jesus” into say, Yahoo! or Google and was able to find a listing of sites that compare Mormon theology to Christianity. I would not, of course recommend a Mormon apologetics site (which were linked to above) because we want to know how Mormonism compares against the Christian viewpoint, not the Mormon interpretation of what Christianity is.
And if someone insists on belaboring that posts have typos, on blog comments sections where typos are a fact of life and most reasonable people ignore them, then it is snarking.
Mojave Mark has already posted more comparative. It’s not going to be pretty to keep this up, but maybe a lot of readers really don’t know the difference between the two theologies so perhaps it is a worthwhile endeavor to point it out. Rather than take up blog space, they can go and educate themselves – there are plenty of sites where Mormonism is contrasted with Christianity.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 4:20 PM
Believe it or not, I consider the discussion of Mormonism a separate topic than the subject of Mitt Romney, presidential candidate. What I want to know about him is how he governed in Massachusetts and from that, what does he use to demonstrate his conservatism? I’m sure he’s a nice guy, that’s not the issue. Since I don’t know how he governed, and I’m reasonably interested in knowing, in order to make an informed decision, then Mitt Romney has to figure out how to get his message out to voters like me.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Not if the wives were sisters. :-)
Details – details.
News2Use on February 25, 2007 at 5:29 PM
*cough*Harry Reid*cough*
Claire on February 25, 2007 at 5:30 PM
That was great; thank you, fogw.
It won’t take many more “news” reports like this one to make me a Romney supporter. If A(w/t)P hates him, he must be good for the country.
rmgraha on February 25, 2007 at 5:40 PM
Well, I must say that this thread has remained rather civil. No one is going around claiming that Mormons don’t know their own religion, which is an improvement.
In the end, it doesn’t really matter what Romney’s religion is. If the race comes down to Romney vs. Barack Clinton you know you’re voting for Romney… lesser of two evils, like it has been for the longest time. If I could vote for who I REALLY want to be president, it wouldn’t be Romney. I don’t think he is truly conservative enough, but he is what we are stuck with and you go to war with the army you have or something like that. Perhaps my ideal candidate doesn’t exist, so for now, I’ll vote for Romney, should he win the primaries.
Decoy256 on February 25, 2007 at 5:42 PM
Thank you! :)
There was that soooooo hard?
-Wasteland Man.
WastelandMan on February 25, 2007 at 6:44 PM
Believe it or not, I consider the discussion of Mormonism a separate topic than the subject of Mitt Romney, presidential candidate naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Then why do anti-Mormons like yourselves insist on obsessing about the theological details of Mormonism in forums like this at all?
WasatchMan on February 25, 2007 at 7:17 PM
Probably some deep-seated need to validate their own beliefs by tearing others’ down.
Hack Ptui on February 25, 2007 at 7:31 PM
Well, because I was defending Christianity against the claim that Mormonism is Christianity. It’s not. People are free to choose their religion, and when they make their choice, they should be comfortable with it. I’m much more relaxed about this than you seem to think. I’ll have tea with you, dinner, a canoe trip, a month backpacking and probably have a grand time, but I won’t worship in the Mormon Church because I don’t agree with the precepts of the religion. I’ve been to quite a few religious services of all kinds and am, if I do say so myself, a pretty nice guest in anyone’s house of worship, even if I find that don’t agree with what’s being said. I sit pleasant and relaxed and don’t embarrass my hosts, because I think they mean well. That’s my perogative. I won’t be snarky about it, what we do on Sunday morning is go in different directions, but we’ll have brunch afterward. Fair enough, isn’t it? I’ve been quite fair and open about what I think about Romney, and my concerns are political. I assume he’s pretty mainstream on a personal level. I’m not the one who brought up the silly, grandpa was a fiesty old guy, news. I’ve actually lived in polygamous societies for many long years, so I need more than that to raise my eyebrows.
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 7:39 PM
Say, did you notice that you quoted me as presidential candidate naliaka Was that an endorsement or a typo?
naliaka on February 25, 2007 at 7:41 PM
No, it is called free thought. One thought often leads to another, that is how intelligent converstations progress. And most people know that the one of the most important tenants in Mormonism is converting someone to Mormonism. (they even baptize people already dead). It is not just a statement they believe, but you can not progress through thru the various stages of Mormonism without these “converts” notch on your belt. So the question can always be, does he (Romney) take this job seriously or is it just away to achieve his “world” or “kingdom” as they state.
right2bright on February 25, 2007 at 7:42 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »