quote:SALT LAKE CITY (AP) - 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-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.
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.
Romney's great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.
Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued ``The Manifesto'' banning polygamy.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
No, it shouldn't be a news story at all. Polygamy is a prominent feature in many Mormons' family trees. I don't see how it has any bearing on the current generations, though.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I think it is news worthy as a boxed article under the headline of "interesting facts." I don't think you should judge his potential presidency on it.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Who on earth cares what someone's great grandparents got up to?
My family have always been coal miners. I get claustrophobic in elevators. This stuff is not genetic.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Meh. No doubt some of Bush's ancestors (and Clinton's, for that matter ) were slave owners. That's rather worse than a spot of polygamy, in my book. Who cares?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I fail to see what polygamy in his GREAT GRAND RELATIVES has to do with him. Unless they are running for office and didn't tell anyone.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
I probably have Charlemagne as an ancestor; and I certainly wouldn't want to be judged for the acts of that genocidal maniac.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Normally I would suppose I knew the answer, but since you asked the question I'm not certain, Kasie-do you think it should be an issue?
As for me, I do not.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think it's interesting and worth noting, but completely irrelevant to his candidacy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Newsflash: my family tree has coal miners, Confederate soldiers, pirates and Vikings in it.
Breaking news: we have also discovered that my great-great-grandfather briefly apprenticed as a haberdasher.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
And have you inherited any haberdasherific tendencies you want to tell us about, Tom?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Besides a few "marriage should be between a woman and a haberdasher" jokes, not really.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I think it's an attempt to besmirch Romney's image, and it's a stretch, and it won't work.
Posted by Liz B (Member # 8238) on :
My reaction: So?
Posted by Verily the Younger (Member # 6705) on :
I'd say that if the worst bit of dirt they could find on this guy is what his ancestors were doing in the 19th century, then he must be about the cleanest presidential candidate we've ever had.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It's an attempt to associate Romney's name with the perception of a lunatic fringe.
I wouldn't be surprised at all if it works.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I don't think it matters, at all. I would imagine if we went back far enough, virtually all of us have polygamists in our family tree somewhere.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
It's a non-story for me. The larger, and more compelling issue, for me, is when is it appropriate to repudiate your family's beliefs?
When does taking your father to task for being a polygamist clash with the commandment that we should honor our father? I think that's a sticky issue, especially for people and parents who have a strong sense of, and respect for, authority.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:When does taking your father to task for being a polygamist clash with the commandment that we should honor our father? I think that's a sticky issue, especially for people and parents who have a strong sense of, and respect for, authority.
This is an interesting question, but unless we had some real evidence that hinted that he, for example, supported legalizing polygamy or something, not a question we have any right to be asking a presidential contender.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Newsflash: my family tree has coal miners, Confederate soldiers, pirates and Vikings in it.
If Christy's family tree involves ninjas, cave men, and astronauts then the two of you have given Sophie the coolest family tree ever. And she'll be able to win fights with everyone.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, but what happens when the sibling comes? The same lineage! Epic duels!
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
My family tree includes both polygamists and slave owners. And yet somehow, I can't find myself thinking it has any bearing at all on who I am or what I believe about polygamy or slavery.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:When does taking your father to task for being a polygamist clash with the commandment that we should honor our father? I think that's a sticky issue, especially for people and parents who have a strong sense of, and respect for, authority. -------------------------
This is an interesting question, but unless we had some real evidence that hinted that he, for example, supported legalizing polygamy or something, not a question we have any right to be asking a presidential contender. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If I think it's a live issue, I'm going ask. I don't need evidence to ask whatever I want. All I need is a voter registration card and an intuition. With Romney, I don't think it's a live issue.
The question is when is it okay to publically repudiate your family's views in the name of being a good example. 22 years old? 18? 14? 8? Let's take an issue like homophobia. Your dad is a Principal at a high school that disallows same sex dates for prom. You are straight, but sympathetic, and you know that if you say something, it's news because of the family dynamic. What do you do and why?
There is a flip side to this, where Jeb Bush's son got arrested for public drunkness and resisting arrest. The governor came out with a statement of support for his son. If your son is getting trashed in public and hassling cops, supporting him may be an example of good family values, but it doesn't do much for the public trust. _________________________
This is a complicated situation, especially in public education, where it's often the case where we'd like to cultivate a stronger sense of character in the student than what is being displayed by the parent. I don't have the answer-- and there may not be one-- but this is thorny business.
This isn't so much an issue from my childhood, because I've always been a bit of a anarchist, and my parents gave me a long leash, but for students who do what they are told because they are told, and for parents or employers who expect to be obeyed because they are parents or employers, this becomes a relevant issue, especially in a free democracy that, to a large extent, depends for it's viability on people, "Choosing the Right."
[ February 26, 2007, 04:10 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Isn't there a way to be respectful and honor your parents while disagreeing with them?
I disagree with my parents about some things, and there are times I do it disrespectfully, but most times I can respectfully disagree.
Could someone not say, "I love and respect my father, and I know him to be doing what he thinks is right. However I have a differing view on same sex dates for prom," or whatever the subject is? I don't see how just disagreeing is being disrespectful. Especially if you show by your actions that you still love and respect your parents.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I think St. Paul said something in Ephesians about how children should honor their parents, but parents have a responsibility not to do idiotic things.
With the polygamy thing, the church banned it and everyone was cool for a while. Then some people started back tracking, getting married outside the territories of the United states to get around the legal aspect, saying that once the prophet who banned it was dead they could go back. My great grandfather was an apostle and was basically sneaking around telling people that they were still under covenant to continue polygamy and performing the marriages. He was forced to resign and a "second manifesto" was issued stating that the polygamy ban was not just a Wilford Woodruff thing. My great grandfather actually got married once more (if you look at the records, he tended to take on another wife when his older wives stopped bearing). At that point he was excommunicated and was only forgiven posthumously by the son of the prophet who excommunicated him. (Joseph Fielding Smith and Joseph F. smith respectively.)
I suppose what's interesting about this was how John W. Taylor (my great grandfather) would not repudiate polygamy because of the dedication to "the principle" that drove his father, John Taylor, to a premature grave. So the question is, do you honor your father or the prophet? If you believe the prophet speaks for the Lord, there should be no question. "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me."
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Newsflash: my family tree has coal miners, Confederate soldiers, pirates and Vikings in it.
If Christy's family tree involves ninjas, cave men, and astronauts then the two of you have given Sophie the coolest family tree ever. And she'll be able to win fights with everyone.
Well, except for Chuck Norris' kids.
And Mr. Rogers.
-Bok
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
---
Re: the OP, my personal take is one of supreme disinterest.
As for other people -- man, it is coming home to me more and more frequently that people will believe almost anything about "the Mormons." I can see how this could be misused in a soundbite world. Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Mormon has polygamists in his family tree! Long falls may be lethal. Also, wood found to be flammable. Are your children safe? Next up on channel duh news.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
This is someone's idea of dirt? He MUST be the cleanest candidate ever if the only that sounds weird is something from four generations ago.
The anti-Mormon bigotry being exposed in this race is breath-taking.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
quote: He MUST be the cleanest candidate ever if the only that sounds weird is something from four generations ago.
I think that pretty much sums it up!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Incidentally, Matt's family is from Mexico for the same reason - they fled there when the US Army was sent to Utah to jail fathers and seize property. Matt was the first Bowman from that line born on U.S. soil in several generations.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I found out only a year ago that I had polygamists from as near as my great great grandfather. An almost identical news article ran when Reed Smoot (the first Mormon senator) ran for office as his father was a polygamist and his mother was not his father's first wife. The fear was,
"How can he oppose something that had it never happened would mean he wouldn't be alive!?"
As far as I know Smoot was not notable for anything extraordinarily good much less bad.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:"How can he oppose something that had it never happened would mean he wouldn't be alive!?"
Odds are, if we knew everybody's family tree back far enough, that none of us would be alive if it weren't for rape.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I think, however, we are missing something even though I also think this is a non-story. Mormons should be proud of their polygamist past if they believe it was a commandment from God. There are some that don't to be sure, but I for one do not see it as a "hidden in the closet" issue for my faith. For me the Mormon polygamists of past were not deviants or anything close to slave owners. I have not and will not repudiate the polygamist past. Those who legally fought for it and were jailed for it and were persecuted for it are among my heros.
It sickens me that this story is a serious news story. It equally sickens me for the reasons given (even by Mormons) why it isn't a serious news story.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
This story is just page filler. It should not matter or affect the opinion of Mitt Romney by any decent American. At most it is a historical curiosity.
-Bok
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MPH:
quote:Odds are, if we knew everybody's family tree back far enough, that none of us would be alive if it weren't for rape.
That is the most depressing idea I have heard in years.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mormons should be proud of their polygamist past if they believe it was a commandment from God. I have not and will not repudiate the polygamist past. Those who legally fought for it and were jailed for it and were persecuted for it are among my heros.
lol... are you serious? I hope this was a tongue-in-cheek response!
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:That is the most depressing idea I have heard in years.
I have no response to that.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi:
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: Mormons should be proud of their polygamist past if they believe it was a commandment from God. I have not and will not repudiate the polygamist past. Those who legally fought for it and were jailed for it and were persecuted for it are among my heros.
lol... are you serious? I hope this was a tongue-in-cheek response!
I assume it was serious. Why would you think it's not?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I thought it was serious, and agree with it (well, they're not personally my heroes, but I agree with the "should be proud of it if you believe it was a commandment from God" part.)
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Of course I am serious. It is still on record as a revelation from God. When a wife dies a man can still be married to other women and be counted as eternally married. They just can't do it in this life at this time while both are living on Earth under the decree of God and the World's Law.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote: "The biggest difference between Mitt Romney and the other candidates," she said, is that Mitt has "only had one wife."
That was Ann Romney - Mitt Romney's wife - speaking. She was apparently speaking in Missouri at some event. She's highlighting the fact that McCain has been married twice and Rudy has been married three times. If Gingrich gets serious, it still holds - I forget what number marriage he's on at the moment.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by sndrake: Don't think this has been shared.
quote: "The biggest difference between Mitt Romney and the other candidates," she said, is that Mitt has "only had one wife."
That was Ann Romney - Mitt Romney's wife - speaking. She was apparently speaking in Missouri at some event. She's highlighting the fact that McCain has been married twice and Rudy has been married three times. If Gingrich gets serious, it still holds - I forget what number marriage he's on at the moment.
I heard that quote about a week ago and it made me snicker. As far as I can tell its entirely true.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:It is still on record as a revelation from God
What record? I didn't see it on wikipedia.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi:
quote:It is still on record as a revelation from God
cool. gotta inform the wife.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
quote:Originally posted by Magson: My family tree includes both polygamists and slave owners. And yet somehow, I can't find myself thinking it has any bearing at all on who I am or what I believe about polygamy or slavery.
Mine contains polygamist slave owners, so there.
Seriously, as a non-Mormon, this is so far off the radar that it must be a stealth bomber.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:It is still on record as a revelation from God
What record? I didn't see it on wikipedia.
If this forum had signatures, this would be mine. I laughed out loud in real life at that one.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
ketchup, you may find this helpful
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
What are you trying to do, Abhi? 'Cuz if it ain't trolling, I don't know what it is.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:In Internet terminology, a troll is a person who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum and intentionally tries to cause disruption, often in the form of posting messages that are inflammatory, insulting, incorrect, inaccurate, absurd, or off-topic, with the intent of provoking a reaction from others.
I have not done this. I joined hatrack long before I became a moderately "active" poster [so intent is moot].
It's not trolling, mr_porteiro_head, so apparently you don't know what it is. What I am doing, is expressing strong disagreement with the content of some posts. And that, I believe is the point of discussion.
I will not stand by, and tolerate racist, chauvinist or anti-social remarks. If the "rules of the board" do not allow fair and open discussion, then it [the board] does not serve its purpose.
However, since none of my posts have censured by the moderators, so I must presume that I have not violated the terms of use.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I will not stand by, and tolerate racist, chauvinist or anti-social remarks.
It seems to me that the sarcastic, condescending comments you make are pretty darn anti-social and inhibiting of open discussion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: ketchup, you may find this helpful
Huh?
You asked a question. You were provided with an answer, and a link to more information on the topic. Your response is to be rude and snarky?
Yeah, I'm with mph. I wouldn't say that you ARE a troll, but that was trolling.
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
quote:However, since none of my posts have censured by the moderators, so I must presume that I have not violated the terms of use.
That's not exactly a safe presumption. The moderator can't be here at all times or read all threads, so the forum is to a degree self-moderating.
I found your post at the top of this page to be classless, though classlessness isn't against the TOS specifically. Your other posts in this thread have been inconsiderate at best, but you're far from the worst offender in that arena, too. Your posts run afoul of the "or disparage others for their beliefs," I think, but again you're far from the worst. There's a gray area between expressing disbelief or even distaste for another's beliefs and mocking them. You're leaning toward the latter, so perhaps you could pull it back a bit.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
so let's say that I were to state that Cannibalism is morally okay, people cannot disparage me for my statement?
Where is the accountability then?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Aren't you capable of holding someone accountable without disparaging them?
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
The accountability is according to the moderater. You aren't the first to not like that, but there it is.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Abhi: so let's say that I were to state that Cannibalism is morally okay, people cannot disparage me for my statement?
So you believe cannibalism and polygamy are of approximate moral equivalence?
I'm reminded of Slash's famous line . . .
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
Sorry, I shorthanded it -- "You also agree that you will not use this forum to try to convert people to your own religious beliefs, or to disparage others for their own religious beliefs." As to your question, I'd ask that you try to find some middle-ground between disparaging and unaccountability.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So you believe cannibalism and polygamy are of approximate moral equivalence?
I have not expressed my opinion of polygamy yet, or that of cannibalism.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm reminded of Slash's famous line . . .
What famous line is that?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Abhi, then what WERE you expressing your opinion of in this thread? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm reminded of Slash's famous line . . .
What famous line is that?
I forget exactly. (I was reminded, but my memory is such that . . . uh . . . what was I saying?)
Something about cannibalism and insanity.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I'm reminded of Slash's famous line . . .
What famous line is that?
I forget exactly. (I was reminded, but my memory is such that . . . uh . . . what was I saying?)
Something about cannibalism and insanity.
I'm not familiar with that line.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Paraphrased -- If wanting someone to cut your penis off and feed it to you is not insanity, then there is no meaningful definition for the word.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
(To the best of my recollection. I could be conflating two different posts, but I don't think I am.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I don't think you are, either.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:If the desire to be castrated, then eat your own severed penis, then be stabbed to death and eaten is not insane, then there is no meaningful definition of that word.
I had the gist.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
aah the irony :)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
I have never heard that word used that way.
---
Abhi, what was the purpose of your earlier comments, if not to express your opinion about polygamy?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
No, it's not.
But I don't think you're necessarily deliberately trolling. You're expressing your disgust with a practice in very strong terms, but not -- IMO -- to get a deliberate rise out of people. I don't think you fully realize how offensive your approaches have been.
Lots of people on this site think polygamy is generally (or always) a bad thing. Most of them are able to express this more constructively. Perhaps you should take the advice of the mod and tone it down a bit.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:actually what just happened here [referring to a post that was made a considerable time ago, and is only likely to be remembered by "veterans"] is also called trolling.
I have never heard that word used that way.
---
Abhi, what was the purpose of your earlier comments, if not to express your opinion about polygamy?
Google "trolling"
The purpose of my comment was to question taking something at face value, and idolizing at without questioning the source of the information, and investigating the truth of the matter.
The poster had stated that his "heroes" were the people who were persecuted because they followed what "is still recorded as God's revelations"
These recordings, while one may believe in them, cannot be considered common knowledge, or even "fact" given that the only source relies on faith. While there is nothing wrong with faith inherently, you should be able to rationalize why you believe in something... which doesnt seem to be the case here, unless we want to desert the scientific method and return to the middle ages.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Google "trolling"
Dude. Some of us have been on the Internet since before both Google and Wikipedia.
-------
I think you're skipping an important step. Occasional believes that the Mormon church is "true," and therefore that its account of God's revelations is true. Your assumption here is that he has come to the conclusion that the Mormon church is true for irrational reasons.
But he may well have concluded that the Mormon church is true for a variety of reasons, both rational and irrational. While he puts his faith in the church and thus accepts their doctrines, it's enormously disrespectful to assume that he has faith in the church for reasons he cannot rationalize.
After all, you generally trust what your science professors told you; you didn't go out and test each statement for truth individually. Once you had a reason to believe those professors, you generally bought into the assumption that what they told you was broadly correct.
It's not possible to test every statement from every source for truth. Occasional has chosen to trust the LDS church as a source for truth, probably for very good reasons. Who are you to say otherwise?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
In addition to what Tom said so well, let me also point out that your oblique criticisms of Occasional didn't even come close to communicating what you were trying to say.
It wasn't a turn of phrase when I said that I couldn't tell what you were doing if it wasn't trolling. I honestly couldn't parse any coherent message out of your posts, but I also wasn't confident that you were trolling for a reaction.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Google "trolling"
Dude. Some of us have been on the Internet since before both Google and Wikipedia. :)
i'm not sure what your point is here... is this trivia?
Posted by Magson (Member # 2300) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi:
quote:Originally posted by Magson: My family tree includes both polygamists and slave owners. And yet somehow, I can't find myself thinking it has any bearing at all on who I am or what I believe about polygamy or slavery.
Mine contains polygamist slave owners, so there.
Seriously, as a non-Mormon, this is so far off the radar that it must be a stealth bomber.
Yeah, I should have mentioned the polygamist slave-owners too -- and in Utah, no less (yes, Utah was a "slave territory" before the Civil War. . )
A lot more polygamists than slave-owners, though. So far as I can tell, the slave-owners were all polygamists, though. Admittedly I've not searched very hard. Family history actually bores me to tears.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
To be honest I really didn't care what Abhi said about what I said. His reaction only showed a dislike for polygamy - not an unusual position. I pretty much ignored him from the get go. My comments were more toward those who come from the same faith background as myself.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Which is why I agreed-- if you believe that polygamy was revelation from God, you should be proud of those who practiced it despite adversity. That makes sense to me, and the "if" is what makes it make sense. Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
I wonder why there is no thread about Bigamy being a prominent feature of Obamma's family tree.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
First, is there proof of that? I have heard it more as rumors than anything. Second, because if that is the case there hasn't been any major news story printed about it to make it relevant.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Which is why I agreed-- if you believe that polygamy was revelation from God, you should be proud of those who practiced it despite adversity. That makes sense to me, and the "if" is what makes it make sense. :)
if polygamy had been a revelation from God, it would make me question the credibility of my sources of God's revelations and/or God [thus the Niezche article].
I was raised by a very religious mother, and I have always been very religious myself, but not questioning what religious texts tell us to do is extremely problematic.
The last time when the world thought it was a good idea, we were in the dark ages... thankfully people like Da Vinci asked questions and brought us into the light.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was raised by a very religious mother, and I have always been very religious myself, but not questioning what religious texts tell us to do is extremely problematic.
The last time when the world thought it was a good idea, we were in the dark ages... thankfully people like Da Vinci asked questions and brought us into the light.
There's an assumption in here that if someone is questionable, and is done anyway, then it was not questioned. This assumption is unwarranted.
Still, it's nice of you to subtly label your opponents as backwards-thinking Dark Ages types...and yourself to a genius such as DaVinci. Not presumptuous at all, really.
And you know, the Dark Ages weren't some static era of religious intolerance.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't know that no one questioned it. If you think that, you are wildly, extremely, breathtakingly mistaken.
Wrap your head around the fact that thoughtful people consider concepts carefully and prayerfully and then come to a different conclusion than you do.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
It is a matter of public record that Obamma's dad was married when he mover to Hawaii, married there, and then returned home and married again. All without the inconvenience of divorce. Cool huh? It was on the G Gordan Liddy Show yesterday. He was reading it off the wire.
Well seeing as how his father was what I would call "an inactive Muslim." Obama converted to protestantism, and therefore almost certainly has no reason to champion the cause of polygamy. Since the LDS church is also an opponent of polygamy currently it stands to reason that neither Romney or Obama have any sort of pro polygamist agenda.
Posted by Counter Bean (Member # 10176) on :
Interesting who the press attacks though.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Obama's dad divorced his mother and left Obama's life when Obama was two. Even still, the press has seized upon the fact that Obama's dad was Muslim, even if inactive and that while Obama lived in Indonesia he briefly attended a Muslim school (as well as a Catholic one which they ignore). Conspiracy theories abound. I don't think the press is attacking Romney moreso than others. To most Americans, polygamy is a novelty and they have a vague knowledge that Mormons are somehow associated with it. Far from attacking, I would find it shocking if this issue didn't come up.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
G. Gordon Liddy isn't the press?
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I think it only fair to point out that polygamy played a prominent part in Jesus Christ's family tree, too. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. (See 1 Kings 11:3.)
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
I haven't heard any conspiracy theories about Obama's parentage. What are they?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
One can be simultaneously "well pleased" with being descended from polygamists who were operating under prophetic aegis and confess the wrongdoing of polygamist ancestors who defied the will of God and the law of the land.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
From the previous page mentioning Bush. If you go far enough back in his lineage, he shares a common ancestor with John Kerry.
As for Romney, this is proof that there IS no good news to tell on him, or that news agencies are being lazy, if this is the best they can come up with. It's absolutely not news. If you go back far enough in anyone's history you can find a manner of crazy stuff. I have pirates in my family, whooptie doo. Sins of the fathers should NOT be visited on the son. Ridiculous story that I hope will pass out of the collective conciousness within days.
The only reason someone writes and prints a story like that is to try and highlight the differences between Romney and his opponents. It's a very subtle attack, not meant to go after him directly, but it highlights what makes him different from the mainstream, and different is often scary, different is often unelectable. It's a cheap shot.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I haven't heard any conspiracy theories about Obama's parentage. What are they?
Lordy. Ah, well, the magic of Internet.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
Well, if we consider the torah [OT] to be the literal truth, we all eventually go back to Adam and Eve... and there must've been incest if everyone comes from there: Adam - Eve Adam-eve children
Where would the next generation come from if it were not from incest? Or did I miss something critical Genesis?
edited to add "literal" before truth as a clarification of my argument.
[ February 28, 2007, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: Abhi ]
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Things can be true without being literal, or complete in all details. For example, you can believe that the Lord was King David's shepherd (Psalm 23) without thinking David was a wooly quadruped.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)