Skip to comments.MSNBC's O'Donnell on Romney's "Mormon Problem": How Moronism Was "Invented"
Posted on 04/07/2012 2:48:46 PM PDT by NorthernCrunchyCon
And so begins the MSM turn on the Republican nominee. And as much as I hate to credit the MSM, and particularly O'Donnell, I cannot find anything in his rant that is inaccurate, other than the number of wives Joseph Smith claimed. O'Donnell says 48, but I believe the most consistent number put forward by historians is 27. On the other hand, Brigham Young claimed 56 wives, so O'Donnell is certainly within range.
Sarah Palin said it...any GOP candidate is “infinitely” better than O. Of course I’m going to vote GOP!
Nice coherent post. Good to see some of those on FR on occasion.
Oh, and I’m a middle-aged guy from Missouri to. McKaskill has to go!
I just had something of an epiphany:
Rather than continue to simply try to bash Romney on this site, a completely understandable and valid tactic I’ll enthusiastically admit.
How about at some point, all the anti-Romney sentiment is harnessed into what could conceivably be a powerful, persuasive “draft Palin VP” movement as a way of rapprochement with the RINOS in the GOP-e.
They seem to have outmaneuvered us once again, but we’re still influential.
I say, we start actively promoting Palin as a compromise. It would be the best of what worlds are left.
The Tea Party would advance. Palin would advance. And Obama would be CLOBBERED in November.
Because Palin would never take the job in the first place. She is not going to ever take a #2 spot again. And if there was even the slightest chance she'd consider a VP nod again, I think it is fair to say it would never be on the ticket with another RINO.
No Republican Presidential candidate would ever nominate her again anyway. She'd simply overshadow them too much because she is now a celebrity.
If Palin goes back into politics, she will run for the top spot and nothing else. It's certainly possible she will run in 2016 or 2020, but I rather suspect she likes her job as opinion shaper and political analyst/commentator far better than being an actual politician.
I too don’t think Palin would sign on to be Romney’s VP, especially not after everything Romney’s people did during the last election and after to discredit and take down Palin (for which McCain was wrongly blamed, in my opinion). However, even if Palin signed on, I still could not bring myself to support Romney.
I could probably support a repeat of McCain/Palin, as well as Huntsman/Palin, but in my opinion Romney has proven himself to be a much more dangerous breed of RINO/GOPe. His record as governor of Massachusetts which has proven to be the inspiration for Obama’s presidency, his behind-the-scenes takedown of Palin and other Christian conservatives, his scorched earth campaign during the primaries, the Utah GOP’s shielding of Warren Jeffs, and his Mormon surrogates narrowcasting “White Horse Prophecy” language to Mormon voters - I find unsettling.
So Romney who is a liberal, who has sworn to work with democrats, who has for years worked against conservatism, until the last few months did not refer to himself as such, who’s governance was liberal, who life is liberal will somehow be different as president?
This is the religion forum.
This is the religion forum and a discussion of Romney’s mormonism, which makes him who he is.
Solely for historical purposes and with no desire to get caught up in the rest of this article, the most consistent number put forth currently by historians is probably 34 'documented' plural wives. LDS Historian Todd Compton, in his award-winning book In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph Smith, counts only 33, working from LDS Temple and other original marriage records.
Those who count Smith's plural marriages in the 40's name women by name and cite documentary evidence suggesting plural marriage, but they haven't produced evidence of marriage yet. That doesn't mean Smith was married to those additional women, but it doesn't mean he wasn't. Nobody had turned up credible evidence that Smith had been married to Fanny Alger until Compton produced some evidence to that effect when writing In Sacred Loneliness, although LDS and non-LDS historians had searched for any evidence of such a marriage for decades and decades.
Incidentally, there were not many more women than men. That rationale for polygamy in Nauvoo, in Utah, or elsewhere has been disproven - by LDS historians, census records, and other sources.
Can you source that? Or is that just what you've been told?
If you think there is any way you can save your own soul, YOU are the one with the big, big problem. Hint: there isn't enough time in the universe.
Not wanting to hijack the thread, I didn’t respond to the McKaskill statement while the thread was running hot and heavy. Now that the thread has died down I want to say that I’ll be stunned if McKaskill can win. I’m really hoping for Steelman to get the nomination. She’s not only a solid conservative but she’s not a slave to the elitist Missouri GOP.
How coincidental! I feel exackly the same way about Islam!
Agreed on Steelman. This will be a classic “how late are the polls going to be open in St. Louis/Kansas City to let as many Dems votes as possible” election. I believe Romney,who draws an unenthusiastic crowd, still has sufficient ABO appeal to make sure enough Republicans come out to put Steelman and Romney over the top. I’m seeing 52-48 on the Presidential side.
“There where many many more women than men and they sure were not going to run a Singles Club. Something had to be done.”
Do you have some information on it that I could look at?
George W. Bush was FAR more conservative than Romney is. Do you know anything at all about Romney?
And, you left out the other judge Bush 41 gave us, the first one because conservatives became engaged -- David Souter.
Appointing Souter and breaking his no new taxes pledge were the biggest betrayals any President I have voted for has inflicted upon conservatives.
And, I think Romney is even more liberal and less trustworthy than Bush 41.
Dewey, while there was a shortage of men in parts of the 19th century U.S. due to the Civil War, that was NOT the issue for Utah Territory in the 1860s and beyond because of the reality of lots of Mormon converts coming to the U.S. from Europe.
I think a lot of contemporary Mormons plus their allies assume that there was some glut of widowed women and that therefore, men just had to step up and marry them as a plural wife.
According to the Changing World of Mormonism, pp. 224-225: [LDS} "Apostle John A. Widtsoe, who was born during the polygamy years (early 1870s) stated:
We do not understand why the Lord commanded the practice of plural marriage. (Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, p.393). One of the most popular explanations is that the church practiced polygamy because there was a surplus of women. The truth is, however, that there were less women than men. Apostle Widtsoe admitted that there was no surplus of women: 'The implied assumption in this theory, that there have been more female than male members in the Church, is not supported by existing evidence. On the contrary, there seems always to have been more males than females in the Church... The United States census records from 1850 to 1940, and all available Church records, uniformly show a preponderance of males in Utah, and in the Church. Indeed, the excess in Utah has usually been larger than for the whole United States, ... there was no surplus of women' (Widtsoe, Evidences and Reconciliations, 1960, pp.390-92," as cited in Changing World, pp. 224-225).
You don't claim to have greater authority than a past Lds "apostle" on this subject, do you???
So...why don't you just be consistent in your badly-done social revisionism by going to both the US Census Records, Lds church records, and books written by Lds apostles and alter them...just so that you can be right in your half-brain-cocked theories you're trying to superimpose upon 19th century Utah!