Skip to comments.Montana's Governor Schweitzer(D): "Romney’s father from ‘polygamy commune’ in Mexico"
Posted on 04/21/2012 4:44:33 PM PDT by tuckrdout
.Gov. Brian Schweitzer, talking Friday to a national news website, said Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney might shy from talking about his familys Mexican roots because they came from a polygamy commune in Mexico.
Schweitzer made the remark in an interview with The Daily Beast, a news and opinion website, after being asked whether Montana might be a swing state during this years 2012 election.
According to The Daily Beast, Schweitzer said Montana likely would vote for Romney, but that Romney, a Mormon, might have trouble nationally because his father, George Romney, was born on a polygamy commune in Mexico.
Schweitzer, a Democrat, said later that he wasnt misquoted, and that his comments had nothing to do with Romneys faith or his church, which does not condone polygamy.
Schweitzer said he was describing the dilemma facing Romney, who is in trouble with Hispanic voters because he took an ultra-right-wing position on immigration during the (Republican) primary.
(Excerpt) Read more at helenair.com ...
I am a part of the faction that is ABO or R. How about them apples!
Great, that was very deep and meaningful, thanks.
We have said that for five years, and we are correct, as your strange effort shows.
Didn’t see this one coming /s
Thanks Jim, I needed that, this thread is a downer.
Many surviving Roma refer to themselves as “the Romney” Probably meaning the people. Many of them adopted the term Romney as a surname. So yes the Romneys are all related, in some cases going back more than a thousand years. That would be what 50th cousins, not exactly close.
lol. You tell him.
Tell whom? Where is my ping? GOP Poet.
That is tacky. What do you want to tell us about Romney?
It would not be a problem at all; if more Repubs would challenge with same answer.
Bets off, of course; that they will; much less Mitt. Imagine the stuttering if any Journolister was in fact.
Because Mormon polygamy is not simply a yesteryear concept for Mormons, no matter how much people convey it is.
What do Lds leaders still teach? From the source below:
* Marriage is celestial -- and eternal (D&C 132)
* That includes Past tense Lds polygamists -- like the g-g grandfather of Mitt Romney, Parley Pratt, who had a dozen wives...
* That includes present-tense serial polygamists ... Lds men (like Lds apostles Dallin Oaks, Tom Perry, and Russell Nelson...all men who have been "sealed" to a second woman "for eternity" as widowers...they believe both wives will be theirs in the afterlife)
* And Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie's teaching that polygamy would return to earth when the Mormon Jesus returned... (Note: McConkie's book was re-published into the late 1970s)
I just posted an entire thread which highlights the info below: What is "Celestial Polygamy"? [Mainstream Mormons say polygamy still occurring near Kolobian colony]:
Excerpts from that...which I placed @ post #1 of that thread:
From the article: In a January 28, 1999 City Weekly article titled Only for Eternity, author Andrea Moore Emmett quoted LDS Church spokesman Dale Bills who said, We have to see sealing ordinances as a promise pending faithfulness and yes, some will live polygamy.
So...here, an Lds spokesperson -- forced to concede that Lds believes it is practicing polygamy on another planet/colony...
And not just another planet...as Lds "apostle" Bruce McConkie taught polygamy would return when Jesus returned:
From the article: According to an article in the April 20, 2008 edition of the Salt Lake Tribune: Though the LDS Church had disavowed polygamy, it is still enshrined in Mormon scripture (Doctrine & Covenants 132) and some believe it will one day be re-established, if not on Earth, at least in heaven. In his quasi-official 1966 book Mormon Doctrine, which remains in print, the late LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie wrote that the holy practice will commence again after the Second Coming and the ushering in of the millennium. And by policy, men can be sealed for eternity in LDS temple rites to more than one wife, though women are permitted only a single sealing. Three of the church's current apostles, for example, were widowed and remarried. Each will have two wives in the eternities (Modern-day Mormons disavow polygamy)...The three Mormon Apostles referred to in this article are Dallin Oaks, L. Tom Perry, and Russell M. Nelson. All three men are widowers, and all three men have been sealed to a second wife.
And so even three current Lds "apostles" (Oaks, Perry, Nelson) have been sealed "for eternity" in the Mormon temple...and anticipate sleeping with both wives in their "new life" beyond death...
From the article: Question: Is polygamy gone forever from the Church? We only know what the Lord has revealed through His prophets, that plural marriage has been stopped in the Church. Anything else is speculative and unwarranted. If it is really speculative and unwarranted, what is the point of Mormon widowers being sealed in Mormon temples? If temple sealings of this nature have significance in the hereafter, how can the LDS Church honestly say plural marriage has been stopped?
Here, the Mormon church again speaking out of both sides of its mouth...telling members one thing about so-called "eternal polygamy"...yet conveying a "Oh, it's all speculative" PR press release to the public!
Well, the reference from the original article by the Montana gov is hypocritical because of the bigamy by Obama's father.
(But of course, conservative FREEPERS like you never seem to be able to go on the threads where other posters are pointing that out -- and then labeling those posters as being guilty of some "low blow" for mentioning Obama's ancestry.)
IoW, I think Obama's and Romney's ancestry is up for fair comment. The hypocritical bunch in FREEPERland...and we have quite a few...point to some apparent "low blow" standard whenever Romney's religion or family is mentioned...but don't ever seem to point to the same standard as applying to Obama & his religious ties & family.
You do so much, thank you.
(No, it wasn't...you've haven't dug very deep into Lds history, have you? Well I have...because my Lds ancestors included a 19th century polygamist)
Polygamy wasn't banned in numerous ways; allow me to spell those out...some of which I already have in post #162...
Back in December, I posted this excellent Web site's historical look @ Mormon polygamy: Polygamy [Everything you might want to possibly know about historical Mormon polygamy]
Did you know, for example, that the first Lds president who wasn't a polygamist didn't come on the scene until 1945? (Even the Lds president who cracked down on new polygamist arrangements in the 1930s/early 1940s was a polygamist!)
Beyond that, let's take a look @ this chronologically:
LDS leaders solemnized at least 260+ known plural marriages in the post-manifesto years when the church was pretending to be 100% against polygamy (source: Hardy, A Solemn Covenant, 1992)-- most of whom by either apostles like Taylor & Cowley (later ex-communicated) or by Ivins in Mexico, who was rewarded for this & made a general authority in the early 1900s, or by others who became general authorities after solemnizing such plural marriage vows. [So that gets it down under your 122-year-ago claim to the 102-121 year range...lots of living Mormons' grandparents & great grandparents]
Mormon leaders did not break up most of the polygamous arrangements that were already intact in 1890 & thereafter. B. Carmon Hardy shows in his book's appendix that some of those polygamous unions lasted into the early 1960s...some of those who were secretly solemnized in the early 1900s. [So, this covers the period of LOTS of Mormons' parents & grandparents]
(a) Polygamy still psychologically accepted by Lds: Hardy cites a poll taken of mainstream Mormons: 40% say they would engage in polygamy if told to by their "prophet."
(b) Then, LDS apostle Bruce McConkies book, Mormon Doctrine (pp. 577-579 of 1966 edition, which was approved by the LDS First Presidency unlike the initial late 1950s version which was not) says that polygamy will return to the Saints before Jesus returns. [Now we're down to under 50 years...lots of Mormons' parents & grandparents]
2012: Since I already covered this in post #162, I'll simply refer you there...Mormons believe there are Lds men alive now will become eternal polygamists.[Now we come to CURRENT Mormon practice, doctrine, and policy]
When the Mormon Jesus returns: As mentioned Lds "apostle" McConkie taught no polygamy "ban" would be in place. [Wow! Eternal lordship under Christ is a rather long time for Mormon polygamy, is it not?]
Oh, look! A Bible thumper (one who literally thumps the Bible), unholy fist who has a disdain for Christians!
Tell us, 'Fist, why do you express such apparent seeming "hate" for Christians & Christianity so much?
And also that 19th century Lds polygamy resulted in about one child less per woman/Mormon mom than had she married a monogamist. (Liberals have been about less children to be born into the world, whether they npg them, zpg them, abort them, infanticide them, etc.)
Source: Indiana University Bloomington...see Polygamy = less children, not more [ignore their evolutionist clap-trap conclusions & just look @ the bare stats from their comparative study]
The commies can own the collapse.
FUMR and FURNC.
You have no moral compass or BACKBONE, and would vote for Charles Manson if he lasered the swastika from his forehead and started telling outrageous lies about how conservative he was.
Brown Deer is a powerful expert.
Let her explain all this.
What are you, some Noobie to both the news and FR?
If what you say is true, Then why was Romney quoted about five years ago as saying: "Look, the polygamy, which was outlawed in our church in the 1800s, that's troubling to me," he said. "I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert. And so he took additional wives as he was told to do. And I must admit, I can't imagine anything more awful than polygamy."???
Source: May 13, 2007, as posted on FR: Romney Slams Mormon Church's Past Practice (Note the headline)
Even three months before that -- late February 2007 -- info on Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, was making the rounds:
Horrors! Mitt Romney's Great-Grandfather Was a Polygamist!
The media does love bashing on religions they don't like. Especially when they see an opportunity to alienate Christian voters from a social conservative's campaign.
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. Hmmm... maybe a reason to vote against Romney? Well, perhaps. And yet the media doesn't seem as interested in another candidate's closer proximity to a polygamist ancestor. We have discovered that his father was not just a deeply flawed individual but an abusive bigamist and an egomaniac, whose life was ruined not by racism or corruption but his own weaknesses. And, devastatingly, the testimony has come from Mr Obama's own relatives and family friends. By the way, Obama's dad was already married when he married Obama's mom, then left them to marry a third woman, making him not a bigamist but a polygamist.(Or, at least, a trigamist.)
Source: February 28, 2007, Ace of Spades HQ: Defend Liberty, Support the GOP
This is what I call a balanced Republican view...someone who is wary of the MSM coverage...especially its hypocrisy re: not applying these same "standards" to Obama...yet still concludes "Hmmm... maybe a reason to vote against Romney? Well, perhaps. And yet the media doesn't seem as interested in another candidate's closer proximity to a polygamist ancestor."
Why can't we get more balanced posters like this on FR?
Ones, who indeed show they are wary of the MSM, yet won't also automatically be converted into becoming shills & apologists for Mormonism and polygamy...or become hypocrites for condemning FREEPERS for focusing on Romney's family history & religious ties...yet won't condemn FREEPERs for focusing on Obama's family history & religious ties...
Me? I say it's all fair commentary...vs. those here who have the spirit of Nauvoo on them...seeming wanting to go & destroy the Nauvoo Expositor as the Joseph Smith-led Mormons of old did...'Twas that act that got Smith's final jail cell landing...
Unlike Mitt Romney's 2007 contention that: "Look, polygamy...that's troubling to me," he said. "I have a great-great grandfather. They were trying to build a generation out there in the desert."
Source: May 13, 2007, as posted on FR: Romney Slams Mormon Church's Past Practice (Note the headline)...
...The above link shows that Mormon polygamy resulted in one child less per Mormon mom/wife (vs. had monogamy been practiced fully)...which hardly was "building a generation."
If Romney can't do simple math...like that Brigham Young had about 55 wives & 57 children to average about ONE child-per-Mom/wife...then he certainly doesn't belong handling some of our nation's economic details!!!
Oh-oh, you have mentioned it, not good. You've been detected. For you see, the "zot radar"...is always circling, always tracking, always watching over your shoulder. Because if you mention it, if you're afraid of the "zot", then your fear must be an indication that you harbor feelings contrary to the philosophy herein espoused. You see, those who think correctly, have no fear of the "zot". So if you are not thinking correctly, ipso facto, you are by definition thinking of ideologies that are "against the collective". This cannot be tolerated. You must be eliminated. Everyone duck...before we're hit by the back-splatter! Q.E.D., I think.
But, on the other hand, I've just called attention to CNN's calling attention to it....which means....oh, my Lord, what have I done?
I was just asking because this thing about a polygomous cult in Mexico being linked to Romney is unfamiliar to me
Big deal, tell us about your self.
So this is fresh to you? You had never heard of such a thing?
Anything in particular you’d like to know?
What a fine person you are.
Thanks, you help me so much.
Sure, anything other than zero?
And let me continue by saying a word about all this Mormon talk. The most serious issue in this election is the economic state of the union...all the rest, I'm afraid, including religion and social issues, is chaff in the wheat. Since 1980 there has not been one three-month period in which GDP expanded faster than new debt did, except during the brief  collapse itself. It's been flat. If you understand grade-school math and the law of exponents, you know we are heading towards a cliff. The whole system of government spending and progressive ideals is totally unsustainable.
We need someone smart enough, and brave enough, to cut government in half. Some say even that may not be enough to save us. Newt is the only one [of the 'three'] who understands the intricacies of Congress and how to reduce spending; he has already proven he can do it, because he's already done it once. America needs Newt again; we need him badly.
The worst thing about Newt winning, however, would be our having to listen to Romney campaign for another 4 years.
By the way, you asked me to "tell us about yourself". I am a townie, with a skill-set that demanded I made my living over the years in the big city. So, retired now, and unable to afford a farm with horses and a plow to go with them.....you can understand why my catastrophe planning kit for the coming disaster, presently includes a cyanide tablet and a stack of Beatle albums.
Is that enough for you to go on?
Frankly, I’m not interested in ancestry of either Romney or Obama further back than the household they grew up in and the extended family that formed their character.
If Romney’s great-grandfather was a polygamist, so what. Ancient history. He didn’t live in that setting. If Obama’s absent father was a polygamist, so what. He didn’t grow up in that household.
I’m pretty sure Congress would have something to say about any legislation making polygamy legal. Romney can’t single handedly make it so.
Do you see Congress advancing such a thing? Is there such a strong polygamy lobby that they’ll feel compelled to cave to them?
So, Mitt’s father was a U.S. citizen born abroad in Mexico to U.S. citizen parents. Meaning Mitt’s father was a foreign born American citizen.
Oh yeah that is right, Obama’s Daddy practiced polygamy didn’t he. How many wife’s did Barry Sr. have? Probably the reason, Annie hopped the plane back to the U.S. with infant Barry.
Oh for goodness sake, I’d take Mormonism over Islamism any day. When was the last time Mormon’s beheaded someone not being Mormon? When was the last time Mormon’s murdered their daughter or sister because she fell in love with a non-Mormon? When was the last time that Mormon’s declared War on the World and let it be known they were determined to enslave the rest of the population and create a world wide caliphate? Mormonism is not the enemy, it’s not something to promote either, yet Mormon’s are not the enemy no more then Catholics are the enemy. The enemy is socialism, communism and Islamism, which are ideologies that are determined to enslave the majority for the benefit of the few who hold the power.
There is no way in hell Axelrot would even give this Montana hick the cut-out slot on what figures to be a dicey media meme venture anyway.
You can have it, then. It denies the word of God and blasphemes Him. I don't want any part of it.
Well, if Romney had the same view as this, then there'd be some "fusion" there...re: your seeming perspective that the beliefs, actions, worldviews, doctrines, practices, social constructions, etc...doesn't impact further generations in much of a significant way.
Given that you live in Washington -- which even trumps Oregon & CA in unchurched attendance rates...
...which means Seattle is probably THE most unchurched (or one of them) urban area(s) in the country...
...you may not even be fully aware how living where you do has impacted your own beliefs, actions, worldviews, doctrines, practices, social constructions, etc...including the statement you just made.
But the reality is that Romney doesn't even share your worldview: Romney did an interview in the previous election cycle with Tim Russert:
...Tim Russert noted that Romney was 31 when the priesthood ban was lifted in 1978. Didnt you think, What am I doing part of an organization that is viewed by many as a racist organization? Russert asked. Im very proud of my faith, and its the faith of my fathers, Romney answered. And Im not going to distance myself from my faith in ANY way.
Source: Will Mormons racial history be a problem for Mitt Romney?
(1) Romney is proud of his forefathers and what they did...both religiously and family/socially.
(2) Romney embraces a worldview opposite what SandyinSeattle claims: Romney apparently thinks his forefathers left him a legacy worth touting...which means that legacy is worth investigating for its eventual impact upon Romney.
And (3) And Romney says he won't "distance myself from my faith in ANY way."
#3 -- in light of the several attackers of Ansel12 on this site -- is what's hilarious...Why? They come on this thread and keep trying to "distance" Romney from his faith!!! If it wasn't so sad, it would be roaringly funny!!!
And Romney's last election-cycle comment with Russert shows Romney himself will have none of this nonsensical apologetics' attempts on his behalf.
Interesting...I'd never thought I'd see the day when such a diverse religious background of people become shills, catalysts and apologists for whacky Mormonism.
But it's happening...
And the Mormon church knew it would happen all along...all they needed to do was to get what they thought was their "Jackie Robinson" pioneer willing to "tough it out"...and they would then COMMAND respect. They would get their primer curricula out there for the world so that every kid in America would be taught, "Mom, when I grown up, I want to be a god from Kolob just like Willard."
Well, as people, Mormons are already worthy of respect. Every person is.
But are MormonISM's beliefs, actions, worldviews, doctrines, practices, social constructions, etc -- are these to be automatically respected per today's multi-cultural post-modernism's "all gods & all beliefs are equal?"
Not on my life. Not on my culture-watch.
But that does not translate into failing to oppose Mormonism...just like Islam is to be opposed.
Btw, I am consistent with Eph. 6:12 ("we do not fight against flesh and blood")...meaning Muslims from a Biblical perspective are not our enemy, either. But we are to oppose both radical political Islam and the tenets of Islam itself. Oh for goodness sake, Id take Mormonism over Islamism any day. When was the last time Mormons beheaded someone not being Mormon? When was the last time Mormons murdered their daughter or sister because she fell in love with a non-Mormon? When was the last time that Mormons declared War on the World and let it be known they were determined to enslave the rest of the population and create a world wide caliphate? ... The enemy is socialism, communism and Islamism, which are ideologies that are determined to enslave the majority for the benefit of the few who hold the power.
This I Wonder 32460, only a fool thinks the "brush fire" here on earth is the three-alarm, city-wide meltdown that hell represents.
We Christians happen to take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ. Right? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or This I Wonder?
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the beheaders?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the Islamic terrorists?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the socialists/communists?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As for "uniting" behind an anti-Islamic, anti-Marxist cause, I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-you're playing? (No)
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, This I Wonder: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
Besides, we know how to multi-task...
Sorry honey George Romney’s parents were polygamists. Which makes Romney’s grandparents polygamists.
I care what Romney does as well and he is a stnk’ n left wing liberal.
Yes, sweetie they were.
You really know nothing about mormonism and its very foundation do you?
You honey are in serious denial of Romney’s family history.
I posted to the wrong peerson...sorry
Interesting but Mitt says different
Which great grandfather? I don’t believe that he ever knew any of them because they were all dead long before he was born.