Young sure did have quite a few wives...
Posted on 08/08/2011 7:20:57 AM PDT by Colofornian
Young sure did have quite a few wives...
Show the numbers and convince me (somewhat scientific). Until then, this is what I have observed (unscientific- personal observation), a sudden spike in Mormon posts (all negative) which I see "EVERY TIME" I log onto the FR now, coincidentally in an election year and with Romney as a possible candidate and even among the front runners. Are you a big believer in coincidences?
It is possible you are being paranoid. The timing is more than likely related to the trial of Warren Jeffs, not the candidacy of Romney. And from what I can recall, there are frequently articles posted on FR with the theme of exposing truths about LDS.
Regardless of your parents’ circumstances, I do not think that the majority of these young girls taken in the plural marriages are “in love with” the men and hoping to be their new wives. It seems to be a situation forced upon them in most instances. It is evil.
I believe that you are overlooking a number of Romney’s “perceived weaknesses” by focusing only on his religion (paranoia again?).
He has a whole list of weaknesses, religion being only one of them.
I Don’t care for elevating Romney’s religion by proxy through these news articles not is my vote dependent upon his beliefs.
His actions, as a governor and now as a candidate disturb me.
He lobbied for and passed Mass. Health Care, the template for ObamaCare.
He openely stated his opposition to Pro-Life for many years and only recently had a revelation that he now supports “Pro-Life”. Not that he is against killing humans in a womb but, he now supposedly supports pro life.
He has been in deep undercover work for the last 3 years and we heard nary a word from him on any subject.
Now all he is does is make pronouncements about how terrible the positions are of the opposition and even then it’s only after a turn of events or he has polled it.
He has not stated his vision and plans for America. Only what he is against.
I will not vote him.
The issue here is not age per se, it is consent.
The presumption is that most girls in their early teens have not yet mentally and emotionally developed to the point where they have the ability give informed consent to decisions that will have an enormous impact on the rest of their lives and the lives of their offspring. The justification for statutory rape laws, is to protect these children from older sexual predators until the young ladies have had a chance to mature further, and hopefully gain the skills necessary to care for themselves and their children if things do not work out.
A second problem concerns the special bonds which develop between juveniles (especially) and persons with special authority and trust in their lives: e.g. teachers, pastors, psychologists, physicians, etc. The presumption is that professionals who work with emotionally vulnerable individuals can use their superior skills and position to exert undue influence on the outcome of an encounter.
IRRC, according to the LDS historian and chronicler of Joseph Smith's wives, Todd Compton, Joseph had two especially successful approaches. To older woman, he would essentially ask, "Do you want to please your prophet or spend eternity in hell?" To younger women (i.e. teens), he would essentially ask, "It has been revealed to me that your prophet will be called home if he doesn't have sexual intercourse with you. Would you like to have that on your conscience? What would your friends and parents think about you if you killed their prophet?" In this case, given Joseph's position as a self-proclaimed prophet who was widely accepted as such by his flock, there is a serious question whether any of his numerous conquests were ever capable of giving informed consent.
In other words, we need to ask if Joseph was merely a pedophile, or was really he a pedophile as well as a serial rapist?
I feel the same way. It’s getting kind of old. It used to be interesting when the LDS apologists could at least stick up for themselves & produce cogent counter arguments to what was being posted. Now that most of the good ones have been kicked off, & the remaining ones not posting for fear of meeting a same fate, it looks more like a union campaign.
And they think this is the way of convincing people that their form of Christianity is “the way”. Really? If I were a non Christian looking for the truth, & saw these folks as the standard bearers, I’d be running the other way. Is this the way to love your enemy?
IOW, you're a Romneybot, eh?
As for votesmart and on the issues, there's no way they could keep up with a snake that slithers from side to side as much as Mitt...even on abortion.
ALL: Take a look at Romney's track record re: statements/actions/$ spent on his support of abortion...a position that Red6 is at a loss of words to condemn:
| YEAR | Obvious Pro-Abortion Romney | Romney Feigning 'Pro-Life' |
| Romney, goin' back to 1970 when Romney's Mom ran for Senate | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) | "'He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as a pro-choice friendly,'" Romney adviser Michael Murphy told the conservative National Review..., says the Concord Monitor = So I guess that made him a below-the-radar "flip" acting like a "flop?" |
| 1994 (Campaign) | "I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time when my Mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a U.S. Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years that we should sustain and support it, and I sustain and support that law and the right of a woman to make that choice." (October, 1994 Senatorial debate vs. Ted Kennedy) = Mitt the flipster from what most LDS represent their faith as being...BTW, Romney uses the strongest word possible for support – “sustain” ...Note for non-Mormons: Lds use the word “sustain” for support for their own “prophet” | Romney has since invoked a "nuanced stance" about what he was in 1994: He says "Look, I was pro-choice. I am pro-life. You can go back to YouTube and look at what I said in 1994. I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice. (Source: Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate Aug 5, 2007) |
| 1994 (Planned Parenthood ties) → 2001 | (a) Romney's wife gives donation to Planned Parenthood... (b) On June 12, 1994, Romney himself attends private Planned Parenthood event at home of a sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood board member where the president of Planned Parenthood recalls talking to Romney: "Nicki Nichols Gamble, a former president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, said today that the photo shows Mitt and Ann Romney at a private home in Cohasset in June 1994." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941932/posts; "Gamble said the pic was snapped at an event at GOP activist Eleanor Bleakie’s house and that she “clearly” remembered speaking with Romney at the event." Source: See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941627/posts; "In fact Romney personally attended the Planned Parenthood event in question on June 12, 1994. Gamble, the President of Massachusuetts Planned Parenthood in 1994, also attended the event at the home of a Republican, Eleanor Bleakie, the sister-in-law of a Planned Parenthood Board member. Both Romney and Michael Kennedy, who appeared on behalf of nephew of Ted Kennedy, attended the event." Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1941240/posts | 2001: "I do not wish to be labeled pro-choice." (Mitt Romney, Letter to the Editor, The Salt Lake Tribune, 7/12/01) = So he doesn't want to be known as a "flop" (so what is he?) |
| 2002-2004 | “I will preserve and protect a woman’s right to choose, and have devoted and am dedicated to honoring my word in that regard…(Nov. 2, 2002) = Well, now guess what? He's solidly pro-abortion AGAIN! See also: "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one … Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's." (Stephanie Ebbert, "Clarity Sought On Romney's Abortion Stance," The Boston Globe, 7/3/05) = Ah, back securely in the "flop" saddle again? | Nov. '04: Romney & his wife had simultaneous pro-life "conversions" linked to stem cell research: Romney met w/Dr. Douglas Melton from Harvard Stem Cell Institute: He recalls that it happened in a single revelatory moment, during a Nov. 9, 2004, meeting with an embryonic-stem-cell researcher who said he didn't believe therapeutic cloning presented a moral issue because the embryos were destroyed at 14 days. "It hit me very hard that we had so cheapened the value of human life in a Roe v. Wade environment that it was important to stand for the dignity of human life," Romney says. Source: Time Mag, March 9, 2007 = (So the pro-abortion-but-no-pro-choice-label-please-is-now-a-pro-life-convert?) |
| 2005 | May 27 2005: Romney affirms his commitment to being "pro-choice" at a press conference. ("I am absolutely committed to my promise to maintain the status quo with regards to laws relating to abortion and choice.") = OK, this is at least a flop from November '04! | What about his gubernatorial record '03-'06? Mitt later says his actions were ALL pro-life. I assume somewhere in '05 some 'pro-life' decisions. "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, THESE ACTIONS were not only an '02 commitment reversal, but his May 27, '05 press conference commitment as well. So "flipping" is beginning to be routine |
| 2006 | April 12, 2006--Mitt signs his "Commonwealth Care" into existence, thereby expanding abortion access/taxpayer funded abortions for women--including almost 2% of the females of his state who earn $75,000 or more. (Wait a minute, I thought he told us post-'06 that ALL of his actions were "pro-life?"). Also, not only this, but as governor, Romney could exercise veto power to portions of Commonwealth Care. Did Romney exercise this power? (Yes, he vetoed Sections 5, 27, 29, 47, 112, 113, 134 & 137). What prominent section dealing with Planned Parenthood as part of the "payment policy advisory board" did Romney choose NOT to veto? (Section 3) That section mandates that one member of MassHealth Payment Policy Board must be appointed by Planned Parenthood League of MA. (See chapter 58 of the Acts of 2006, section 3 for details). | "As governor, I’ve had several pieces of legislation reach my desk, which would have expanded abortion rights in Massachusetts. Each of those I vetoed. Every action I’ve taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life, I have stood on the side of life." = So, then THESE ACTIONS were not only a reversal of his 2002 commitment, but his May 27, 2005 press conference commitment. So "flipping" is still routine |
| Early 2007 | On January 29, 2007 during South Carolina visit, Romney stated: “Over the last multiple years, as you know, I have been effectively pro-choice." (Bruce Smith, "Romney Campaigns in SC with Sen. DeMint," The Associated Press, 1/29/07) = OK how could "every action I've taken as the governor that relates to the sanctity of human life..." AND this statement BOTH be true? | Another South Carolina campaign stop has Romney uttering "I was always for life”: "I am firmly pro-life… I was always for life." (Jim Davenport, "Romney Affirms Opposition to Abortion," The Associated Press, 2/9/2007) = Oh, of course as the above shows, he's always been pro-life! |
| Summer 2007 | "I never said I was pro-choice, but my position was effectively pro-choice." Source: 2007 GOP Iowa Straw Poll debate 8/5/2007 = OK...looking at '94 & '02 campaigns, both his public statements, his 2002 voter guide responses, & his actions (which are a major form of expression, ya know!) how could he say he "never said" he was "pro-choice?" | Then comes his 8/12/07 interview with Chris Wallace of Fox: "I never called myself pro-choice. I never allowed myself to use the word pro-choice because I didn't FEEL I was pro-choice. I would protect the law, I said, as it was, but I wasn't pro-choice, and so..." = Whatever he was from '70 when his mom ran as pro-abortion senator & he sided w/ her, to 5/27/05, w/whatever interruption he had due to a pro-life altar call in Nov of '04, whatever that was...well, he assures us it wasn't a pro-abortion 'inlook' or outlook 'cause he didn't feel "pro-choice..." = So does that make him a life-long pro-lifer? |
| December 2007 (Anything 'different' from embryos' perspective than June 2002?) | 5.5 years before – June 13, 2002: Romney: ...spoke at a bioethics forum at Brandeis University. In a Boston Globe story filed the next day, he was quoted as saying that he endorsed embryonic stem cell research, hoping it would one day cure his wife's multiple sclerosis. And he went on to say: "I am in favor of stem cell research. I will work and fight for stem cell research," before adding, "I'd be happy to talk to [President Bush] about this, though I don't know if I could budge him an inch." When pressed, however, Romney and his aides declined to offer an opinion on "therapeutic" or embryonic cloning. Source: Weekly Standard | December 5, 2007: Romney: ...surplus embryos...Those embryos, I hope, could be available for adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against the law." Any "inquiring minds" want to try wrapping their minds around how a politician in one sentence mentions "adopting" embryos out (yes, a great thing to mention!) -- but then in the very NEXT breath says if a "PARENT" wants to be "pro-choice" (Mitt used the word "decides" which is what "pro-choicers" say they want) "to donate one of those embryos for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable." Say what???? How about 8-month gestationally-aged infants in the womb, Mitt? Or already-born infants, too, Mitt? If a "parent decides they would want to donate one of those...for purposes of research, in my view, that's acceptable..." No??? What's the 'pro-life' difference, Mitt? Here you call an embryo's mom&dad "parents" -- but "parents" w/ "research" give-away rights? How bizarre we have such schizophrenic "candidate!" |
I suppose your next "workshop" will be questioning Jesus giving the legalist-Pharisees the "seven woes" in Matthew 23...or calling them "whitewashed sepulcres" (tombstones)...or "vipers"...etc. as a lack of evidence that He loved His enemies, eh?
The Mormons aren't our enemies. Ephesians 6:12 makes it clear that our battle isn't against flesh & blood. Mormons are our fellow recipients of God's grace and mercy.
The issue is one where we're all spiritually unhealthy and depraved [depraved doesn't mean being as bad as we can be; it's just no part of our being is untouched by sin] -- and legalists tend to treat sin as if that's somebody else's issue.
Jesus levels the playing field before the cross by undercutting any spiritual pride that presumes we don't need Him as our great physician ("It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick...For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."--Mt 9:12)
Jesus is for the person who understands the cancerous diagnosis of sin. Jesus is for the person who will openly confess their sin, their faults, their flaws openly -- instead of trying to suppress others who highlight their leaders' religious duplicity.
The bottom line here again, though, is that the cross is for sinners...and sinners are simply...
...never worthy of Christ's blood...
....never worthy of Jesus' righteousness extended on our behalf...
...never worthy of God's mercy or grace or lovingkindness.
We're sinners; not lds "gods-in-embryo" (how Lds "prophets" describe Mormons). We're in need of the Great Physician; and for those who think they're a "god-in-embryo" or a future "god," I'd say they're in a different category than either me, the thief on the cross, or Zaccheus the tax collector, wouldn't you? (No wonder they emphasize worthiness...they've got gods to create in their gods factory)
Hence, until Mormons see their sin and repent of trying to earn their way into a presence with Heavenly Father by trying to become gods, I'll continue to afflict the comfortable (legalists) just like Jesus our standard-bearer.
For those who already see their need for grace and mercy, I'll continue to comfort the afflicted...just like Jesus our standard-bearer!
Smith also used the approach of assuring the girl's family members -- at least the parents -- a place in the highest degree of glory. It was essentially a form of "indulgences-prostitution" -- with Smith as the active sex partner-pimp. The crass offer, broken down, was essentially "sell your body & soul to me and it will go well with thy parents for eternity." He would simply further "spiritualize" it by asking them to pray about his propositions.
To this day, Mormon leaders of all stripes have shown they have learned those immoral lessons well. The fundamentalist MORMONS do that by continuing to rape girls and force teens into polygamy. The mainstream MORMONS do that by encouraging their sheep to "pray about" abortions before deciding if they should be subjected to one.
Both were part of Joseph Smith's curricula he taught.
Mormons of all stripes have yet to learn that you don't "pray about" moral issues God has already covered in His Word...lest you make them into ongoing quicksand issues that never become solid ground that you can stand upon.
Hmm...
This sounds vaguely familiar.
Where have I heard something like this lately...
Hecky durn NO!
Why would we WANT to??
We can't command a band of 50,000+ zombies to give up a year of their lives to spead falsehoods around the world; for we are a mere hand full on FR.
Please; if our method of bringing MORMON history and teachings to light offends you; how would you suggest we do it differently?
We can't afford a STATUE
in the middle of a large western city, and we don't even have matching t-shirts
to wear when we are doing our good works before men.
POLITICS?>?
In the RELIGION area???
HMMmm...
One just has to ask WHY?
JESUS: Hey Smith! Remember that boast you made about doing more than even I had done to hold the 'church' together?
JOSEPH SMITH: Where am I?
JESUS: Don't you remember? A few seconds ago you were in that jail.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah; but where am I NOW?
JESUS: Don't you remember? Does bang - bang ring a bell?
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh; yeah - that crummy gun I had was about USELESS!
JESUS: I hope you left instructions on how to hold your church together.
JOSEPH SMITH: Dang! I knew there was SOMETHING I was forgetting!
JESUS: Looks like there's a power struggle going on down there.
JOSEPH SMITH: Yeah; there was always SOMEone who wanted the power that I held - especially over the LADIES - wink wink.
JESUS: No need to worry about that now; remember what my friend Matthew wrote down?
JOSEPH SMITH: This? “At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven” (Matthew 22:30)
JESUS: That's it.
JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.
JESUS: Nah - it was right.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh well; it was fun while it lasted. My buds will still get it on with the girls.
JESUS: Uh; I'm sorry; in just a few more years; your followers will cavein to the United States government and abandon the 'Eternal Covenant' that you came up with.
JOSEPH SMITH: ME!? YOU are the one that told me to do that!
JESUS: Sorry; but you must have mistranslated what I told you. What part of Do NOT commit ADULTERY did you not understand?
JOSEPH SMITH: mumble....
JESUS: What did you say?
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, nothing.
JESUS: Well; it was interesting talking to you; but now I must get back to perparing a place for those who believe in Me.
JOSEPH SMITH: Oh, yeah; the Celestial Kingdom.
JESUS: No...
JOSEPH SMITH: The Telestial one?
JESUS: Nope.
JOSEPH SMITH: SUREly not the TERRESTRIAL one!!
JESUS: Nope. Didn't you read that the mind of man had NOT conceived of it? Paul wrote it down in 1 Corinthians 2:9.
JOSEPH SMITH: I thought that was mistranslated.
JESUS: No; it wasn't.
JOSEPH SMITH: You SURE?
JESUS: Yes. Now I must be going: what did you say your name was again?
JOSEPH SMITH: Joseph Smith.
JESUS: Hmmmm. According to my Heavenly FAITHbook, you didn't sign in as one of my friends - sorry, I never knew you.
JOSEPH SMITH: But....
It IS??
Who knew!!
The ole “I’m just following what Jesus did” meme. I have friends & associates in Britain & Ireland who recount the same meme over that “Christian” feud. What makes you different? Who’s wrong, you or them? Maybe neither?
I’ll not go any further w/ you now as I’ve seen what the banning repercussions can be. I’ve got lot’s to do before tomorrow’s Wisconsin vote
Ah!!
We can see that you've read our literature!
...Ping myself for later...
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.