How much time and money did Mitt Romney save?

[_moksha]

Joseph Smith's sexual escapades weren't socially acceptable back in his days either.

Now you are engaging in pastism. We are more forgiving nowadays.

[_Mercury]

Presentism at best and an error in correlation.

Presentism in what sense?

In the sense that the rape comparison is ostensibly based on the modern sensibility of statutory.

Having dumbass cult followers of Joseph Smith for parents does not make the rape of a child OK.

[_ajax18]

Even if Romney had utterly cleaned house on McCain and had been riding as high as McCain is now, this whole FLDS PR disaster would've utterly and irrevocably torpedoed his campaign many times over, beyond doubt. (Does anyone disagree?)

I don't disagree with this. I think being Mormon torpedoed his campaign in the primary. Otherwise he would be the nominee.

An FLDS/Romney thing would've made the whole Reverend Wright/Obama thing pale in comparison. Indeed, nobody would've even heard of Reverend Wright had this alternate scenario come to pass.

I'm sure it would have been used against Romney, but arent' the democrats still fighting it out amongst themselves. Who exactly came up with the Rev. Wright thing. Was it the Clinton campaign or the Republicans?

So, any guesses on how much time and money Romney saved by backing out when he did?

Good grief, didn't he already spend $35 million of his own money. These guys live in a different world.

ALSO: If Romney were still running, what % of the MA&Dites would be claiming that the whole FLDS raid was merely a political ploy to get Mitt out of the race?

Honestly I haven't heard many apologist defending polygamy in the present day. At least I seriously doubt they would want to go out on a limb defending an apostate group when they have their hands full defending their own history. Just like when an interviewer asked Pres. Hinckley about the mark of Cain and a BY quote. All he said was, "That's behind us. Don't worry about those little fits of history." MAD obviously takes on the question more than Church leadership will touch it, but I seriously doubt they would want to touch the FLDS faith other than to demand they not be called Mormons.

[_Bond...James Bond]

He probably is very relieved. No matter how the LDS try to distance themselves from the FLDS, you still can't spell "F-L-D-S" without "L-D-S".

[_ajax18]

It is true that in the back of many minds is the association of Mormons with plural marriage. However, the media, by and large is separating out the FLDS from the LDS and most people listen when the difference is explained. I'd be more worried if there weren't any incidences like this from time to time.

I've seen quite a few articles where they claim something like "the mainstream LDS church abandoned polygamy in 1890 and now excommunicates polygamists" when differentiating the FLDS from the LDS. The problem for you and the rest of the LDS is that what this means to a lot of readers, I think, is "the Mormon church used to do this too but stopped in 1890". The "this" being thus referred to is abhorrent to a lot of people, and so there is still an association between the Mormons and this abhorrent practice. I don't think this really helps. It's sort of like a guy who moves into the neighborhood and everyone learns that 40 years ago he raped some children and did time in the big house for it. Come on, it was 40 years ago, and he paid his debt to society, didn't he? Um, well, yeah, but... People still won't want to live next door to him.

I don't see how this makes things any worse for the Church. Would be converts/active Mormons will have to deal with the polygamy issue at some point. They might hide it from them long enough to get baptized, but they'll see it when they go to the temple. Some people will just ignore their dislike for it, others will say, "I'm out."

I found the law of consecration very distasteful, but since it's only in theory and a few sentences in the worship ceremony, this wasn't the issue that would decide whether I stayed or made a painful transition. My family was much more important to me than that. I rationalize it away just like women do polygamy. And just like polygamy, they really don't talk about it that much. Now if I had to actually turn the deed for my property over to the bishop, than I'd have to make a decision, and while that may seem spineless, I venture to say that's how most people deal with the issue.

[_asbestosman]

Presentism at best and an error in correlation.

Presentism in what sense?

In the sense that the rape comparison is ostensibly based on the modern sensibility of statutory.

So are you saying that the modern sensibility is incorrect and that statutory rape should be ok? How about with slavery?

[_truth dancer]

In the sense that the rape comparison is ostensibly based on the modern sensibility of statutory.

Are you suggesting Joseph Smith's sexual behavior toward girls was all A-OK because the laws were were not in place that deemed it illegal? That because it wasn't technically considered rape on the books it wasn't a big deal?

See, here is the thing...

It is not about laws, presentism, or definitions, it is about God.

Joseph Smith claimed it was GOD who commanded the behavior.

Does God really command men to act in such cruel, manipulative, disgusting ways?

Does God really want girls to be sexually used and abused by older married men?

Is God the sort of being who would send an angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to sexually use these girls?

Does God really want girls and women treated in such horrific ways?

Does God truly want to break the hearts of his daughters by having men engage in such a disgusting abomination?

In other words, is this whole degrading practice truly commanded by God?

If so, what does it say about God? It says God hates girls and women, doesn't care about their minds, spirits, and hearts, and thinks they are here for men to use and abuse them.


~dancer~

[_guy sajer]

In the sense that the rape comparison is ostensibly based on the modern sensibility of statutory.

Are you suggesting Joseph Smith's sexual behavior toward girls was all A-OK because the laws were were not in place that deemed it illegal? That because it wasn't technically considered rape on the books it wasn't a big deal?

See, here is the thing...

It is not about laws, presentism, or definitions, it is about God.

Joseph Smith claimed it was GOD who commanded the behavior.

Does God really command men to act in such cruel, manipulative, disgusting ways?

Apparently, yes.

Does God really want girls to be sexually used and abused by older married men?

Apparently, yes.

Is God the sort of being who would send an angel with a flaming sword to command Joseph Smith to sexually use these girls?

Roger.

Does God really want girls and women treated in such horrific ways?

It appears so.

Does God truly want to break the hearts of his daughters by having men engage in such a disgusting abomination?

Affirmative.

In other words, is this whole degrading practice truly commanded by God?

Looks like it.

If so, what does it say about God? It says God hates girls and women, doesn't care about their minds, spirits, and hearts, and thinks they are here for men to use and abuse them.

God's a sexist bastard.


And lest we forget, God is, it appears, bound by the traditions and cultural mores of the day (except, that is, when those cultural mores expound tolerance or frown on practices and beliefs of God's "chosen"). So, if the cultural more is slavery, God's on board. If it the cultural more violent sexism, God's all over that. If the cultural more is slaughtering innocent men, women, and children because people covet their land, hey, who's God to get in the way. If the cultural more is priests of the "true" priesthood murdering priests of opposing religions, God's happy to oblige. If the cultural more is oppressing dissidents from the one true religion, that's just hunky dory with God.

[_Inconceivable]

I've seen quite a few articles where they claim something like "the mainstream LDS church abandoned polygamy in 1890 and now excommunicates polygamists" when differentiating the FLDS from the LDS.

This statement is not true. In fact it is not accurate at all.

The Mormon church was threatened by the United States to cease and desist. The Mormon God slowly and reluctantly caved begining in 1890. A government forcing the Mormon God's puny arm (as if the US government were the mighty Mississippi).

There is no reason to believe that the Mormon God would have ever revealed the practice cease otherwise. It's like unringing a bell. How do you discontinue without condemning it's participants. There is no scriptural precedent where God ever commanded it's cessation.

If the US had not forced the Mormon God's puny hand, it would be practiced in all of it's horrific splendor to this day - and the FLDS would be LDS.

And yes, Romney has no hope of being chosen as McCain's running mate now.

No doubt, the legacy of Mormon adultery is the gift that will forever keep giving..