DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.mittromney.com/News/In-The-N ... pports_FMA

It is interesting to see Mitt Romney to be the only major contender (according to him) that believes this way.

I think that is mind-boggling if you think about it. Mitt Romney, a Mormon, actually supports the ultimate death-knell for the dreams of Mormonisms founder, Joseph Smith. A federal-level all-encompassing ban on any form of marriage other than 1 man 1 woman.

If you read the Manifesto ending polygamy, you will see that it is as much pragmatic concession as it can be seen as "revelation." It is a submission to what was then seen as a wholly-unjust law, squelching religious freedom. It was a submittal to the anti-polygamists in America at the time when Utah needed the support of the federal government and the U.S. states. It was a willingness to submit to the prevailing political opinion, no matter how much it violated core LDS beliefs.

Fast forward 100 or so years. An LDS candidate is the one championing the ultimate legal codification of the anti-polygamists views. An amendment to the U.S. constitution, the supreme Law of the land. Mitt wants to pound the last nail in to Joseph's dream or the Will of the Lord, depending on how you want to view it. The ultimate effect is the same. And he goes further than any of polygamy's opponents ever dared or tried. And not only this, he isn't even in the political majority on that issue, apparently.

And why does he do it? To deny rights to people who want to define their relationships differently.

The dichotomy (not to mention religious hypocrisy) of it all blows my mind.

Thoughts, comments?

Despite the amendment being anti-polygamy, endorsing it will only strengthen Romney's position when he runs for the vacant Utah Senate seat.

Once again, Romney is just blatantly pandering to the religious right in an attempt to get the nomination. It's the rampant and blatant pandering, and his utter reversal on gay issues and abortion and other issues of great importance to the religious right that have got me really down on Romney right now. Is there any issue of principle he was not flip-flop on in his quest for the nomination? Apparently, the answer is no.

Sethbag wrote:Is there any issue of principle he was not flip-flop on in his quest for the nomination? Apparently, the answer is no.

Honesty? Wait, I guess he is a politician.

I'll bet he still opposes murder though. Maybe. I guess it depends on your definition of wrongful killing.

It's not just the flip-flopping, Sethbag. It's that fact that he is flip-flopping away from morally defensible stances (pro-choice, supportive of sex-sex unions) to, in this case, the opposing stance that violates what was once a central tenet of the man's very own religious faith, and least in theological terms, would violate his religious "beliefs" here and now. It also opposes what his ancestors (and many, many of his financial supporters ancestors) lived and died to defend the right to live in practice, for their own religious conscience.

If Mitt really is LDS, in the TBM sense, he should understand better than most the importance of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution, and its implications. To try to force a definition of what "marriage" can be and only be in to the ultimate law of a society of religious pluralists. It is against his (and my) sense of shared history, beliefs and culture. Believing or not, we are of the same stripe, Mitt and I. We're Mormons in a cultural and existential sense.

This is makes it a flip-flop of a far greater kind. It's a belly-flop of epic proportions. This sort of rhetorical base-pandering is, in my opinion, deeply un- American.

Like George Bush 41's enlightened opinion that Atheists don't deserve the right to U.S. citizenship, Mitt Romney lacks the true vision of American society and government, where the interests of religion, belief and freedom of speech and thought are forever separated from meddling by the State.

The flip flopping is obviously an issue. :-)

But I do not have a problem with Mitt disagreeing with his ancestors or the founders of his religion.

I'm sure there are many folks who disagree with their parents, grandparents, or religious leaders on numerous issues... I just don't see this as a problem.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:The flip flopping is obviously an issue. :-)

But I do not have a problem with Mitt disagreeing with his ancestors or the founders of his religion.

I'm sure there are many folks who disagree with their parents, grandparents, or religious leaders on numerous issues... I just don't see this as a problem.

Disagreeing isn't the problem. All of American Politics is built on the idea that we all get to disagree on whatever we want. The problem is a flip-flop to a position to disagree with something you sort of used to agree with. But the worst part is that instead of actually sticking to his guns, he threw his hat in with extreme right wingers and other religious zealot types, votes that a serious contender shouldn't feel the need to court. Why flip-flop to the less-popular and extreme opinion?

Why is it flip flopping if a politician changes or modifies a view.

I am reading a bio about Abe Lincoln currently. Talk about a politician that bowed to political expediency.

You people would crucify him based on how you dog pile on Romney for his slight modifications.

Also, the OP noted that Romney supports the death knell for the dreams of Joseph Smith. Well I am not sure plural marriage sums up all Smith's dreams. We should also note that the LDS Church recently supported a vote that went through the US senate for a marriage amendment. So hey why not beat Romney for being a toady of the LDS Church. I am amazed that one has not been brought up on this thread.

Sethbag wrote:Once again, Romney is just blatantly pandering to the religious right in an attempt to get the nomination. It's the rampant and blatant pandering, and his utter reversal on gay issues and abortion and other issues of great importance to the religious right that have got me really down on Romney right now. Is there any issue of principle he was not flip-flop on in his quest for the nomination? Apparently, the answer is no.

I think he is being fairly consistent with his view on this issue he held as governor of the state that made such marriages legal.

Disagreeing isn't the problem. All of American Politics is built on the idea that we all get to disagree on whatever we want. The problem is a flip-flop to a position to disagree with something you sort of used to agree with. But the worst part is that instead of actually sticking to his guns, he threw his hat in with extreme right wingers and other religious zealot types, votes that a serious contender shouldn't feel the need to court. Why flip-flop to the less-popular and extreme opinion?

Yes the flip-flopping is a problem!

Maybe Mitt is bonding with the "extreme right wingers and religious zealot types," to help promote the idea that the LDS church has "nothing to do with polygamy?" ;-)

Sounds like a move good for his campaign and good for the church!

~dancer~