Mitt: Polygamy "bizarre" & other gems

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Interesting article about Mitt and religion in today's New York Times (see link below). A couple of interesting quotes from the article (emphasis added):

He [Mitt] said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre” — and disputed the argument that his faith would require him to be loyal to his church before his country.

and

“There’s no church-directed view,” Mr. Romney said. “How can you have Harry Reid on one side and Orrin Hatch on the other without recognizing that the church doesn’t direct political views? I very clearly subscribe to Abraham Lincoln’s view of America’s political religion. And that is when you take the oath of office, your responsibility is to the nation, and that is first and foremost.”

It seems like Mitt will say anything to appear 'mainstream' to the electorate. First, he describes a current LDS doctrine/belief (even still practiced in some limited cases), and to which his ancestors were staunch adherents, as "bizarre." Second, he claims that as president his duty is "first and foremost" to the nation, which would seem, at least theoretically, to be inconsistent with his temple loyalty oaths (particularly in light of the long admired LDS prophecy/belief that it will be the LDS priesthood to save the nation when the Constitution "hangs by a thread"). I have no problem with Mitt running for prez; I just think he ought to be a little more honest about his religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/08/us/po ... ref=slogin

[_Bond...James Bond]

I think we just did threads on the same topic at the same time. Now that's weird.

[_bcspace]

He [Mitt] said he shared with many Americans the bafflement over obsolete Mormon practices like polygamy — he described it as “bizarre”

Yes I saw that. It shows (on the surface) that Romney is not truely LDS, especially considering his background in the Church. LDS doctrine is that God-authorized plural marriage is always perfectly acceptable. Either that or he's simply saying that to distance himself from the issue which makes him a liar (synonym for 'politician') which again makes him not really LDS.

Of course he did not say exactly what it was about plural marriage he thought bizzare, leaving open the possibility that he believes only some of the actions that happened back then (such as by apostates) were bizzare. If later on down the road, he makes that distinction, then perhaps he is truly LDS after all on that issue.

Having noted that, it is also important to note that Romney is, at this moment, the best candidate for President in the entire field. A Republican jack-mormon is going to be better than any democrat. That last being an affliction that disqualifies anyone from being truely LDS because it requires disbelief of major LDS doctrines.

[_Who Knows]

Yes I saw that. It shows (on the surface) that Romney is not truely LDS, especially considering his background in the Church. LDS doctrine is that God-authorized plural marriage is always perfectly acceptable. Either that or he's simply saying that to distance himself from the issue which makes him a liar (synonym for 'politician') which again makes him not really LDS.

It's the same doubletalk that hinkley feeds the media as well. I guess it's probably something to do with 'milk before meat'.

[_Yoda]

A Republican jack-mormon is going to be better than any democrat. That last being an affliction that disqualifies anyone from being truely LDS because it requires disbelief of major LDS doctrines.

How can you make a statement like that and be serious, BC? Although there is an overwhelmeing majority of Church members who are Republicans, I do know some Church members who are Democrats, and they are certainly "truly LDS". What kind of a comment is that?

Yes there are elements of the Demoratic platform that fall out of line with the conservative values of the Church such as abortion.....but there are also many aspects of the Democratic platform which reflect caring, Christian values, such as helping the poor, the sick, and the needy. You may not agree with the Democrat approaches of proposed solutions, but that doesn't mean that the goal of the original party platform is non-LDS, or non-Christian, for that matter.

[_silentkid]

A Republican jack-mormon is going to be better than any democrat. That last being an affliction that disqualifies anyone from being truely LDS because it requires disbelief of major LDS doctrines.

I wonder if Mitt would agree with your labeling him a "jack-mormon". From what I've heard, he's an active, temple recommend holding member. A lot of active members that I deal with (my parents and family) find the practice of polygamy "bizarre". I guess they're all "jack-mormons" too.

[_Who Knows]

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).

Maybe we can't blame the guy, I was that way a couple years ago. Someone should probably turn him onto FARMS, before he starts feeding the media more BS.

[_bcspace]

I guess it's probably something to do with 'milk before meat'.

Considering the scriptures, I'd say plural marriage is quite milky....

A Republican jack-mormon is going to be better than any democrat. That last being an affliction that disqualifies anyone from being truely LDS because it requires disbelief of major LDS doctrines.

How can you make a statement like that and be serious, BC? Although there is an overwhelmeing majority of Church members who are Republicans, I do know some Church members who are Democrats, and they are certainly "truly LDS". What kind of a comment is that?

I'm dead serious. The party platform supports things like abortion, gay marriage, and socialism. Therefore, even if there is a democrat who does not support one or more of those things, simply by being a democrat is organizational support for those things. And hence they fall under the Romans 1:32 condemnation etc.

With 'good' defined' as supporting the organization, it is not possible for a good democrat to be a good Mormon.

You may not agree with the Democrat approaches of proposed solutions, but that doesn't mean that the goal of the original party platform is non-LDS, or non-Christian, for that matter.

The 'original party platform' is antiChristian and antiLDS. The means defines the end.

I wonder if Mitt would agree with your labeling him a "jack-mormon".

You need to re-read my post. I did not call Romney a 'jack-Mormon'.

From what I've heard, he's an active, temple recommend holding member.

Holding a temple recommend does not show that one believes the doctrines of the LDS Church or has faith in the organization.

A lot of active members that I deal with (my parents and family) find the practice of polygamy "bizarre". I guess they're all "jack-mormons" too.

If they don't believe LDS doctrine, then I'd say yes, they are.

Most likely, Mitt's just your regular run of the mill chapel Mormon

No such thing.

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.

Not the reason for plural marriage stated in Jacob 2:30.

Someone should probably turn him onto FARMS, before he starts feeding the media more BS.

Why? He has his agency.

[_Rollo Tomasi]

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.

[_Yoda]

I'm dead serious. The party platform supports things like abortion, gay marriage, and socialism. Therefore, even if there is a democrat who does not support one or more of those things, simply by being a democrat is organizational support for those things. And hence they fall under the Romans 1:32 condemnation etc.

With 'good' defined' as supporting the organization, it is not possible for a good democrat to be a good Mormon.

Back in the early days of the Church, members were asked to serve in both the Democrat and the Republican parties so that there was equal representation from the Church in both parties. Many of these LDS Democrats are Democrats because their ancestors were Democrats. Were the Bretheren of the Church wrong in asking that members do this?

Also....to be honest, in my opinion, I don't think it matters whether you are a card carrying Republican or Democrat as long as you understand the issues and vote morally.

Take a look at the Democratic Party website at http://www.democrats.org/a/party/stand.html

Again, I'm a Republican. I don't agree with the Democratic Party's methodology, but I am in support of their vision. Their vision doesn't stray far from what the Republican Party wants for the country as well:

The Democratic Vision
The Democratic Party is committed to keeping our nation safe and expanding opportunity for every American. That commitment is reflected in an agenda that emphasizes the security of our nation, strong economic growth, affordable health care for all Americans, retirement security, honest government, and civil rights.