Mitt: Polygamy "bizarre" & other gems

[_Jason Bourne]

Most likely, Mitt's just your regular run of the mill chapel Mormon, who thinks polygamy was just something done for a brief period of time in the early church, because of the lack of priesthood holding males to take care of all the valiant women. He may not even know the church still practices polygamy (in some form).

I'm quite certain he knows -- he has served as a stake president and bishop, and has long had access to the CHI. He's just being coy with the press.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, and have been arguing for some time that Gov. Romney's behavior vis-a-vis the press suggests that he is in some way embarrassed about Mormonism. TBMs have trotted out all sorts of far-flung explanations to try and defuse this argument---Mitt doesn't want to "cast his pearls before swine"; Mitt "isn't qualified to discuss doctrine"; religion has nothing to do with politics, etc.---none of which have been very convincing, in my opinion.

I cannot say I blame Mitt with the EV fundies not wanting him bacause he is Mormon, and with all the types here frothing at the mouth about how bad being a Mormon will be for him. Damn, just let the guy run on what he stands for in politics.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Oh get off it. Both you and Rollo. he can put country first and still be a good temple Mormon.

I disagree, in theory ... if he takes his temple oaths seriously.

I can see Mitt's biggest enemies will not be evangelicals but bitter angry ex Mormons.

I'm neither bitter/angry nor ex. I simply believe that Mitt's statement in the article was misleading. If he truly believes what he said, then he ought to disclose to the electorate the loyalty oaths he took and let them decide; if he can't disclose them, then he ought to withdraw from the race (or at least cease making absurd statements like he did to the NY Times reporter). Just my $.02.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

I cannot say I blame Mitt with the EV fundies not wanting him bacause he is Mormon, and with all the types here frothing at the mouth about how bad being a Mormon will be for him. Damn, just let the guy run on what he stands for in politics.

Here's the problem with this: if he wins, he has to take a solemn oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, but he's already made a different oath to another. In theory, the two could conflict; ergo, my belief his statement was misleading.

[_christopher]

Here's a poem written by Harold B. Lee which was a tribute to his deceased wife Fern and his second, living wife Joan, expressing the hope of their eternal relationship together.


"For Fern, the great love of my life
Whose selfless devotion and humility
Inspire me to live from 'dawn of day to
dark of night'
A better man.
I worship at your shrine.

As life moved on with rapid pace
My lovely Joan was sent to me;
So Joan joins Fern
That three might be, more fitted for
eternity.
'O Heavenly Father, my thanks to thee.' "




Ye olde celestial three-way.

[Dr. Sunstoned]

That's not polygamy, in the way you insinuated (else, you would have made a careful clarification in your original post), but plural marriage, and as a theological principle, has no bearing on politics, social issues, or anything else of present worldly concern. That'a a theological issue, not a political one, as would be the case if Mormons were still actually practicing polygamy, as you, in your usual sneaky little lingusitic way, insinuated by using the term polygamy and referencing it to what appeared to be a present Mormon practice, when what you meant was a theologicl principle regarding life in another, post mortal sphere of existence. A nice way to create an innuendo and then cover your ass later.

Typical Liberal, typical anti-Mormon, typcal little demagoge.


Loran

[_guy sajer]

That's not polygamy, in the way you insinuated (else, you would have made a careful clarification in your original post), but plural marriage, and as a theological principle, has no bearing on politics, social issues, or anything else of present worldly concern. That'a a theological issue, not a political one, as would be the case if Mormons were still actually practicing polygamy, as you, in your usual sneaky little lingusitic way, using the term polygamy and referencing it to what appeared to be a present Mormon practice, when what you meant was a theologicl principle regarding life in another, post mortal sphere of existence. I nice way to create an innuendo and then cover your ass later.

Typical Liberal, typical anti-Mormon, typcal little demagoge.


Loran

Anyone else get the feeling that Coggins/Plutarch/Enter the Dragon/Bishop Lee/etc. has a burr up his backside where it comes to liberals?

Did one scare you when you were a kid or something?

[_Jason Bourne]

I cannot say I blame Mitt with the EV fundies not wanting him bacause he is Mormon, and with all the types here frothing at the mouth about how bad being a Mormon will be for him. Damn, just let the guy run on what he stands for in politics.

Here's the problem with this: if he wins, he has to take a solemn oath of loyalty to the U.S. Constitution, but he's already made a different oath to another. In theory, the two could conflict; ergo, my belief his statement was misleading.

Sorry Rollo, we will have to disagree on this one.

by the way, he made a similar oath to the state of Mass. Do you think he sould have disclosed then as well?

[_Rollo Tomasi]

That's not polygamy, in the way you insinuated (else, you would have made a careful clarification in your original post), but plural marriage, and as a theological principle, has no bearing on politics, social issues, or anything else of present worldly concern.

Sure it does. Here, on the one hand, we have a doctrine that remains in the canon as well as being recognized in the express and official policy that allows for a man to practice the doctrine under certain circumstances, and, on the other hand, you have a former SP and bishop and descendant of polygamists, now running for president, declaring that said doctrine and official policy is "bizarre."

That'a a theological issue, not a political one, as would be the case if Mormons were still actually practicing polygamy, as you, in your usual sneaky little lingusitic way, using the term polygamy and referencing it to what appeared to be a present Mormon practice, when what you meant was a theologicl principle regarding life in another, post mortal sphere of existence.

Last time I looked temple marriage is for "time and eternity." Elders Oaks and Nelson consider themselves to have two current wives (one dead, one alive). As you well know, there is no "til death do we part" contingency in the temple wedding ceremony. Such men may be having sexual relations with only one of those wives, but they are indeed married (under LDS doctrine) to both women, now and forever.

[_christopher]

Anyone else get the feeling that Coggins/Plutarch/Enter the Dragon/Bishop Lee/etc. has a burr up his backside where it comes to liberals?

Perhaps he's compensating for his man-crush on Barack Obama.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

by the way, he made a similar oath to the state of Mass. Do you think he sould have disclosed then as well?

No. Under the Supremacy Clause, it would have been trumped by the U.S. Constitution.