Posted on 08/08/2011 7:20:57 AM PDT by Colofornian
I wonder if the new Mormon anti defamation league will come after people on Freep for posting the truth?
Oh yeah- sure, there were daily stories........
Just for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2TmUaOHnVY
I despise polygamy as much as anyone on FR, but I can’t see making age an issue in this case. My mother married my father when she was 15 years old and he was 21. They stayed together until his death a few years ago, and she misses him every day. As they used to say about pretty Mormon girls, they “mostly marry Young.”
Well, since YOU initiated the discussioin of Romney on this thread, there is at least one parallel I can readily think of that's also tied into the comments made in posts #18 & #19 by Utahns Colorcountry & Utah Binger:
What Romney failed to do to support monogamy on his watch as Bay State governor (same-sex "marriage" passed on his watch), is the same lack of moral character displayed by Mormons in law enforcement power in Utah: They, too, have failed to support monogamy by letting open polygamy go on so flagrantly @ Short Creek (& elsewhere) in Utah.
Romney never pushed hard enough to oppose same-sex "marriage" in MA -- the first state to push it through...and other Mormon leaders in Utah never have pushed hard enough to oppose polygamy in Utah...since their ancestors opened Pandora's box to begin with and leaving Lds with ambivalent feelings galore re: polygamy.
Either way, it's all resulted in open militancy vs. monogamy.
The Utah Supreme Court overturned Warren Jeffs' earlier convictions; at least Arizona and Texas went to work to prosecute him.
Leave it to polygamy law enforcement "rookies" like Texas to outdo Utah on convictions in less than a decade what Utah hasn't been able to do in about 115 years of statehood.
The "issue" is child rape.
What were the legal demands of statutory rape when your parents were married? There are a LOT of 21-year-old guys facing rape charges and in prison for sex with 15-year old children.
In the mormon area where I was raised, a nineteen-year old mormon man impregnated a thirteen-year old and they married, and there were several cases of girls under 16 marrying their older boyfriends, but that was decades ago.
If one can't listen to the Jeffs' tape and know that this was a case of rape, they have a skewed vision of the term.
The arguement here is an attempt to make the exception the norm. It is NOT normal for young teens to be married in our society, either now or in the past - such were the exceptions. It is similar to saying that just because one person survived going over Niagra Falls in a barrel, everyone can and it is normal - the fact is that it isn't.
Here. I'll make it a bit easier for you, so that you stop making a fool of yourself in stating utter-ignorant commentary re: FR realities.
2010
Look @ post #1: I listed the top 10 Lds articles posted on FR that drew between 1,000 -->over 2,200 replies.
So what? You think there wasn't "activity" on FR re: commenting upon Mormonism?
And, btw, three of the top five commented upon Lds articles in 2010 were posted by Mormons...and NONE were posted by any of us posters deemed as "Flying Inmans" or by posters noted for their "anti-Romneybot" stances.
Even from a non-Romney political vantage point, 2010 was a big newsmaking year for Mormon politicians embarrasing themselves. Just see -- for a year's recap -- Influential stories of 2010: Political upsets and shockers (Mormon OPEN)
2009
As for 2009, no fewer threads posted then, I would imagine. 'Twas also a big year for Mormonism in the news...as even this Mormon-church owned DesNews columnists noted: Mormon Media Observer: Top 10 LDS newsmakers of 2009
Well, I've had relatives marry young (under 18) and it's worked out, too. What you either ignore or dismiss is the age differential for a lot of historical Lds match-ups.
Scan, if you would, what follows, and note how big that was...for those who don't have time to read all that follows, just scroll down & when you come to a number -- the age of a girl -- stop and read that and let all that sink in:
Note how young the 19th century Mormon wives were!
The book, Changing World, p. 226: The early Mormon leaders certainly did allow their young people to marry at an early age. Mosiah Hancock was only 11 years old when he was "sealed" to a "young girl." According to his journal, he was "born in Kirtland, Ohio, on April the 9th, 1834." ("The Mosiah Hancock Journal," typed copy, p.1). On pages 20 and 21 of the same journal, he recorded: On about January 10, 1846, I was privileged to go in the temple and receive my washings and annointings. I was sealed to a lovely young girl named Mary, who was about my age, but it was with the understanding that we were not to live together as man and wife until we were 16 years of age. The reason that some were sealed so young was because we knew that we would have to go West and wait many a long time for another temple.
According to Stanley P. Hirshon, who wrote a biography of Brigham Young: "Make haste and get married," Remy heard Young preach. "Let me see no boys above sixteen and girls above fourteen unmarried." ... In 1857 The New York Times, reporting the sealings to old men of two girls aged ten and eleven, estimated that most girls married before they were fourteen.... Troskolawsski knew one bishop who was sealed to four of his nieces, the youngest thirteen years old....On August 1, 1856, he put on the stagecoach for Ohio twelve-year-old Emma Wheat, who was being forced into a marriage she detested." (The Lion of the Lord, pp.126-27).
Changing World, p. 225: The shortage of women was so great that some of the men were marrying girls who were very young. Fanny Stenhouse stated:
"That same year, a bill was brought into the Territorial Legislature, providing that boys of fifteen years of age and girls of twelve might legally contract marriage, with the consent of their parents or guardians!" (Tell It All, 1875, p.607).
According to http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm, Stenhouse was "at one time had been a firm believer in Mormonism and had even allowed her husband to take another wife. She wrote: "It would be quite impossible, with any regard to propriety, to relate all the horrible results of this disgraceful system.... Marriages have been contracted between the nearest of relatives; and old men tottering on the brink of the grave have been united to little girls scarcely in their teens; while unnatural alliances of every description, which in any other community would be regarded with disgust and abhorrence, are here entered into in the name of God...It is quite a common thing in Utah for a man to marry two or even three sisters.... I know also another man who married a widow with several children; and when one of the girls had grown into her teens he insisted on marrying her also... and to this very day the daughter bears children to her step-father, living as wife in the same house with her mother!" (Tell It All, 1874, pages 468-69)
Per researcher George D. Smith (Source: "Nauvoo Polygamists", George D. Smith, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Spring 1994, p. ix, as found at http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no91.htm) discovered that of "a list of 153 men who took plural wives in the early years of the Mormon Church. When we examined this list, we noted that two of the young girls were only thirteen years old when they were lured into polygamy. Thirteen girls were only fourteen years old. Twenty-one were fifteen years old, and fifty-three were sixteen years old when they were secretly enticed into this degrading lifestyle."
"I shall not seal the people as I have done. Old Father Alread brought three young girls 12 & 13 years old. I would not seal them to him. They would not be equally yoked together...Many get their endowments who are not worthy and this is the way that devils are made." (Source: Wilford Woodruff, Wilford Woodruff's Journal, 5:58.)
Examples of real young girls being married off in 19th century Mormon families: Judson Tolman, 19, married first wife Sarah Holbrook, 13, in 1846 before adding 4 more wives; James Francis Johnson married Rozina Richmond,13 (perhaps 14) in 1876...then J.F. Johnson took on another wife in 1894 after the so-called "manifesto" supposedly "ending" polygamy--to Clara Barber who was 16--maybe 17. J.F. Johnson was in his late 30s at that time he married Barber.
24 yo Arthur Clark married 14 yo Mary Rasmussen as the second of four wives; Charles Richardson married 14 yo first wife Sarah Adams in 1882--his third wife (Carolina Jacobson) was probably 16 & he was 30. (He had 4 wives overall)
Thomas Chamberlain II actually double-married two 17 yo on the same date in 1873!...and then added on a 15 yo (Ann Carling) in 1875 followed by her sister--also 15--three years later.
Notice how the initial LDS leaders set the terrible example for fLDS leaders by being in their 40s or late 30s (or beyond re: later LDS "prophets"):
Just look at the compulsory "wifehood" of underaged teens: Brigham Young, when he was in his 40s, wedded 15-year-old Clarissa Decker, 16-year-old Ellen Rockwood (when Young was 44); and 16-year-old Lucy Bigelow (when Young was 45).
Its initial "prophet"--Joseph Smith--promised salvation to the household of the Kimball Klan, and what do you know? 14-year-old Helen Mar Kimball, who initially hated polygamy, was part of Smith's harem. Smith also added to his long list of wives 16-year-old Presendia Huntington. Abel Hardy married a 15 yo (Maria Cooley) in 1896 and then post-manifesto, married Cynthia Porter (16) in 1901. (Hundreds of 16 yo LDS girls were married off as plural wives in the 19th century and early 20th century).
At least we're now on the “real” topic, Romney.
Next we need to discuss what logical errors and fallacies are, why inductive reasoning creates all sorts or errors and then we might eventually get to the point where we understand that guilt by association by trying to link Romney (A free human with his own decisions and mind) in 2011 to Smith's errors in 1830 isn't a good argument at all. I'm part German, I hope I'm not a NAZI? After that we can go into those heavy idea's like the constraints and context in which Romney operated as governor etc... Of course that might require something that is very difficult to many of us Americans, thinking.
Look it's very simple- The economy sucks. Romney is a business man, a statesman with a powerful resume may that be his education, experience, success record (Olympics) etc. The competitors to Romney do NOT want to battle him in exactly that topic that is on most Americans mind, the economy. His “perceived weakness” by the competition is his religion. That's the center of gravity on which they will try to take him out politically. The will try to avoid the open attack because this would besmirch one self, so through proxy as with McCain/Palin or many other elections you will have these third parties do the dirty work of dismantling Romney in the court of public opinion.
And lets remember that we’re not just talking about marriage, with or without the quotes—crimes being mentioned this weekend in court included raping a 5 year old boy and a 7 year old girl, both relatives of Jeffs’. These are two that we know about. The exact number is likely much higher.
AND, let’s also note that one of the girls he is accused of raping under the guise of “spiritual marriage,” was only 12. There are pictures on the net. She looks even younger than that. Who among you can claim there is anything “normal” let alone “decent” about THAT? Some of these people need to take off their rose colored glasses. This cult is nothing more than a big child molestation ring.
You may want to be properly warned.
Our gracious host, Jim Robinson, has said that he will not tolerate pro-Romney Romneybots touting a socialist-minded, govt healthcare, abortion-waffling candidate like him on these threads...and has threatened zots for those who do.
And frankly, for you to limit Romney's weaknesses to only his religion either shows how naive you are on social issues, or worse, you're a Romneybot itself.
Which is it?
Does the following sound like either...
(a) that a Mormon POTUS would be entirely "Free" from being told what to do by a Mormon "prophet?" [see chart below]
or (b) That "good" Mormons haven't been properly "coached/indoctrinated" on properly submitting to a dictator-"prophet?"
(a) Chart Shows Potential Intrusiveness of a Mormon 'Prophet'
| Lds Leader | Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title) | Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words) | |
| John Taylor | Lds 'Prophet' #3 | “The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862) | |
| Orson Hyde | President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875) | “What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53) | |
| Heber J. Grant | Lds 'Prophet' #7 | "Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984) | |
| Harold B. Lee | Lds 'Prophet' #11 | ...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989) | |
| Spencer Kimball | Lds 'Prophet' #12 | "President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983) | |
| What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father? | Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets') | "Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984) | |
| Ezra Taft Benson | Lds 'Prophet' #13 | Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #5 | 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney? Ya hear that Jon Huntsman?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #9 | 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt? Still listening, Jon?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #10 | 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt? What say ye Jon?) | |
| Mitt Romney as POTUS??? | Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do? | The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."] |
(b) Lds 'Forced feeding' by its leaders upon grassroots
Here, I'll even start off citing "your" side of this -- quoting Lds scholar Richard Bushman how a Mormon POTUS would supposedly "follow his own conscience" vs. "church dictates."
But, ALL, as always, read both sides of the mouths that Mormon leaders speak out of!
From the 2007 debate: Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy. (Richard Bushman, Jan. 3, 2007)
One of the criteria of a cult is thought control -- placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning. Bushman insists that a Mormon POTUS' conscience would not be overriden. Well, here's a sampling from Mormon automaton thought from 1899-->2010!
Circa October 2010:
It's Oct. 24, 2010. Just weeks earlier, the Lds faithful had gathered for one of their two key 'y'all" come meetings in Salt Lake City, which are fed via satellite around the world to Mormons who can't make the trek to SLC. You would have thought that if an earth-shaking announcement needed to be made, it would have been made there. It wasn't. Perhaps too much media glare was on the conference. Therefore, more quietly, Lds leadership sent a world-wide circular letter to all church members. Here's two sources for that:
Source 1: Quit pestering us, church leaders tell membership in letter
Source 2 -- from a Mormon columnist, Robert Kirby: Wrestling with doctrine no match for me
From the first source:
On October 24th, the LDS First Presidency (led by Prophet Thomas S. Monson) wrote several letters that were to be read in Mormon Sunday services around the world. According to examiner.com, the first letter was “likely spurred by Boyd K. Packer’s most recent General Conference talk entitled ‘Cleansing the Inner Vessel.’ Church Headquarters has been receiving an increased amount of correspondence from its members about doctrinal issues. Because of this influx of correspondence, the First Presidency reminded and encouraged LDS church members to utilize their local church authorities – bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents, etc — before resorting to contacting Church Headquarters.” In other words, the Mormon laity was told to quit bothering their church leadership on issues related to doctrine. We can only wonder why the church is apparently receiving so many inquiries.
From the second source (Kirby): With only partial tongue in cheek, Kirby said: "According to the First Presidency’s letter, members with real doctrinal concerns were to seek the counsel of our local leaders — stake president, bishop, Scoutmaster, building custodian, etc."
Why? Well, per Kirby: "The letter...told/counseled rank-and-file Mormons to stop pestering church headquarters for clarification of church doctrine. Apparently some members get so stressed about the finer points of doctrine that they’ll fire off a letter asking for the final word. Church HQ can’t handle the demand...
There ya go. Just as the Wall Street Journal writer said: "placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning" [Many an Lds historian has commented on this as well...do your own Google search with the words "faith promoting" in quotations...add the words "historian" and "Lds" to the search for better specific results]
Circa 2004:
”We discourage using sources that have not been approved by Church Correlation or the Brethren” (David B. Marsh, Church Curriculum Department, “Approved resources aid Book of Mormon study,” Church News Jan. 3 2004, p. 14)
Ah, that Lds hierarchical automaton bottleneck!
Circa 2000:
Mormon writer Orson Scott Card pens an article entitled Hey, Who are You Calling a Cult?
Ah, such irony! Card writes in the piece: What do they [cults] have in common?...AUTOMATONSs. The members are discouraged from thinking for themselves, and, insofar as possible, are turned into unquestioning "obedience machines."...Far from being robots, most of us Mormons are, by inclination and by doctrine, determined to make up our own minds about everything.
How funny! Keep reading the following comments, and then tell us if "Mormons are...by doctrine, determined to make up our minds about everything?"
Circa 1999:
”…in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed” (Lds “apostle” M. Russell Ballard, “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Ensign – Conference Ed., Nov. 1999 p 64)
[No disagreement tolerated. You cannot speak vs. a Mormon leader…you must, robot-like, be in 100% conformity!!! Elsewise you are deemed “disloyal”]
Circa 1984:
“No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom. No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.” (Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104)
Ah, such "fragile faith" -- IF EVERY single article or book content needs to go through a legalistic filter of how it's going to potentially effect the end-user -- the reader -- re: if it might be perceived as "weakening" a challenged faith!!!
Circa 1979:
"I would like to tell you something about the way the Church operates from headquarters. We often hear the Church referred to as a democracy, when in reality, instead of being a church where the body is governed by officers elected by the members, the Church is a THEOCRACY..." (First President Lds N. Eldon Tanner, "The Administration of the Church," Ensign (Conference edition) Nov. 1979 p. 42
Well, that makes ya wonder who would occasionally call ultimate shots if a Mormon was in the White House, doesn't it?
Circa 1978-1979:
“Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: ‘When the Prophet speaks…the debate is over (Ensign, Nov.1978, p. 108). I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the Prophet” {First President N. Eldon Tanner, “The Debate is Over,” Ensign, August 1979 p. 2)
For the true Christian, wherever we go, we say, “Follow the Lord Jesus Christ as a disciple of Him” -- not a mere Salt-Lake City-based man [who MUST reside in the Salt Lake City area!]. Our message is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how He came to earth as an ever-living God-man – the ONLY SON of God who bodes no pre-existent brother rivals, died for our personal sins, and was raised to the same glory He shared with the Father before all was (John 17:5).
Circa 1963:
"'The holy Priesthood is a system of laws and government that is pure and holy;...' (JD7:202) - 'a perfect law of THEOCRACY.' (Joseph Smith's Teachings, p. 322)" (As cited by William J. Critchlow, Jr. Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Reports October 1963, p. 28)
Circa 1960, citing an earlier Lds time as well:
"President Heber J. Grant once said, 'Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” (quoted by First President Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78).
Circa 1945: "He [Lucifer] wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against the leaders and do 'their own thinking.' He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery...WHEN OUR LEADERS SPEAK, THE THINKING HAS BEEN DONE. (Spoken @ a convention of Lds teachers: Ward Teachers Message, Improvement Era, June 1945 p. 354)
Circa 1900: "We sustain President Lorenzo Snow as the mouthpiece of God. Therefore, when he has anything to say to us as the mind and will of the Lord, it is just as binding upon us as if God spake personally to us” (Abraham O. Woodruff, Conference Reports, April 1899 p. 7)
[Ah, forced feeding like little children]
Indeed.
Rape -- and in Joseph Smith's case -- sexual predatorial behavior (which in some cases was same as rape) -- is not "marriage."
Colossal waste of time to discuss further.
That way I could compare it to 2011 which is only 2/3rds done.
Then we need to look at the percentage of posts that were negative posts for 2009, 2010 and 2011.
If we see a sudden rise in the number of posts in 2011, and I bet you would see this, then you might have something going on that isn't simple posting of news stories.
Your entire post was meaningless dribble for self affirmation but didn't even address the point I was making.
Red, you're embarrassing yourself. Even what I posted is more analytical of anything you can find re: an overall assessment or numbers' analysis of postings on FR.
You're going to have to trust me on this one.
The FR Lds threads in 2011 -- well at least since February or so -- have actually been lower in overall output (# of posts) than 2009 or 2010. Why? Because so many Lds posters have been zotted or have elected to no longer post on them.
Frankly, since Mormonism is increasingly difficult to defend in the public square, I don't blame them.
The thread total overall is probably close to the same as '09 or '10. I would actually say that the average # of threads per month was very slightly higher in '10 than '11.
As you said in your last post on this, enough on this topic; as you said, 'tis a waste of time.
You can actually look it up for yourself. No point in asking others to do work you can do.
The thing is, I do remember the flame wars during the fLDS raids, and some of us definitely got the short end of the stick. Most of us were NOT LDS or fLDS, just people posting the articles. I had threads removed, I got suspended, I got banned, because every time you’d post something derogatory about that raid and the practices the raid exposed, a gang of sympathizers would come along and flood the moderators with complaints. Eventually, I heard, they even threatened JimRob, and that’s when he put his foot down.
I’m back, and the atmosphere is finally cleared, and it’s ok to post the truth about the crimes still being exposed.
My sense of it is, the fLDS is just what the Mormons would be had not Utah banned polygamy. Romney and Huntsman are both LDS, and I would not more want either of them for President than I would someone from any other cult, including Islam (our current “president”).
Still can’t address the topic of the thread, eh?
No matter how you spin it, it’s blatantly obvious that the truth of the child molestation and rape of numerous children seems to have no significance to you. All you’re posting about is Mormon bashing and Romney bashing.
Take of the blinders. The level of deceit which you give evidence of operating under is staggering.
This isn’t about Romney. It’s about child rape and the real fruit of Mormonism.
Which is it? “
You have a very hard time with basic critical thinking or reasoning skills, don't you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3jt5ibfRzw
There are various semi reliable sites, the trash you copy and paste isn't part of it. Why don't you start with:
http://www.votesmart.org/bio.php?can_id=21942
http://www.ontheissues.org/mitt_romney.htm
or
http://www.ontheissues.org/MA-Gov/Mitt_Romney.htm
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.