Romney claims to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman in this video.
However, the founder of his Church had multiple wives. Do you think he’ll disavow Joseph Smith in public in order to satisfy those that believe in “traditional” marriage?
No, he’s not going to denounce the founder of his own religion. Do you seriously think he might do that?
I think if he does address that question he will avoid commenting on Joseph Smith and just speak on the current view that the Mormon Church no longer holds this tradition or doctrine. I’m not much for any political thing but I sure would enjoy hearing that answered.
Is Obama going to condemn Abraham or David?
BTW, Romney’s great-grandpa was a polygamist, so it’s a lot closer to home than Joseph Smith. And Obama’s granddad was a polygamist. It’s all in the family!!
Or the Prophet Mohammed? 
If Romney denounced Joseph Smith, he’d be excommunicated from the church and he’d have bought himself a one-way ticket to Mormon hell. In LDS belief, the only way to be cast into “outer darkness” (as Mormons don’t believe in a fire and brimstone hell per se) is to deny one’s testimony, which one could do by denouncing the founder of the church. So if Romney did this he’d turn every single Mormon supporter into an enemy instantly.
Romney wouldn’t see any contradiction anyhow. That was then and this is now. I would imagine he’d have more trouble explaining the very communist ideals that are dear to the heart of the LDS church- the part where the church eventually gets everyone’s property and belongings and then redistributes this bounty according to need. But the same answer applies to both- these things will happen when God wills it to be so. He willed it back then but humans couldn’t handle it so He’s going to sit tight until they’re ready again.
I think Obama and Romney are both equally silly for espousing traditional marriage when neither of their ancestors practiced those traditions.
I’m sure both men have plenty of monogamous ancestors, along with their polygamous sides. (plus, I don’t think I’ve ever heard Obama use the “traditional marraige” formulation.)
True that, I just watched his video where he said he struggled with it and he didn’t mention the definition of marriage at all (because it’s not relevant).
However, I’d like to rescind my previous comment about equal silliness: I think it’s much more silly to adhere to a religion where the central figure practiced a marriage one personally can’t abide. One doesn’t get to choose ancestors (my ancestors have done stuff I’ve disagreed with, almost axiomatically), but one can choose religion and one can choose how one defines marriage.
Shhhh. Don’t let the secret out!
I am part Italian and German. I hereby repudiate Mussolini and think Hitler is a very naughty boy.
There, now I won’t get called out for that any time soon.
I am also Irish so I disavow James Joyce. And Bono. :dubious:
I recall a bit from a George Carlin album:
INTERVIEWER: Do you think your religion will be a problem?
CANDIDATE: Yes, I do. I believe there’s a lot of prejudice and bigotry in our future.
INTERVIEWER: So what are you going to do about it?
CANDIDATE: Well, the only thing I can do, Bob. I’ve renounced my religion.
INTERVIEWER: Really?!
CANDIDATE: Yeah, let’s face it, the Rosicrucians ain’t gonna miss me . . . I never went to the meetings . . . I never ordered the candles . . . I just answered the ad from a dirty magazine . . .
Presumably neither Hitler nor Bono founded the religion you adhere to, so I don’t see the analogy.
Will Romney condemn Joseph Smith?
No. The official LDS Church position is that it was right for the early LDS Church to practice polygamy until 1890 and also right to oppose polygamy currently. Likewise it was right for them to ban blacks from the priesthood until 1978, and right to allow blacks into the priesthood now. Likewise they have changed their position on many topics, while still insisting that they were doing it right all along.
Romney has made it clear that when anybody asks him about these things, he’ll only say that he agrees with what the LDS Church teaches now. When anyone attempts to press him on how he feels about LDS doctrines from earlier in church history, he refuses to answer, and tends to get angry and suggest it’s not a valid question.
(It’s worth noting that Romney was an adult, dues-paying member during the days of the priesthood ban, so his money went to an organization with racist policies, that was active in opposing the Civil Rights movement.)
Isn’t this a pretty good summation of Romney’s amorphous political positions as well? He doesn’t flip-flop. His position was right in the past and it’s right now. QED
No, he generally lies flat out and denies he ever said or did the things he was recorded on video saying or doing.
George Romney strongly and visibly supported the civil rights movement, against the LDS Church’s wishes at the time. Mitt probably gets a pass due to that.
If one thinks that’s a dealbreaker of an issue, then yes, you might be right. A better question here is “Who is even going to raise this issue?” Between the people who won’t ask because they don’t care about the issue, those who won’t ask because they think it would make them look like bigots, and those who won’t ask because they’ll be voting for Romney regardless, you don’t have a lot of people.
Mitt Romney’s father George opposed the church’s policy and was active in the Civil Rights movement. As far as I can tell, Mitt Romney and the rest of his family shared those convictions. Mitt Romney has talked about his reaction to the reversal of the ban, and as far as I know, nobody has ever come up with evidence to show he supported the racist LDS view. You can argue about how the Romney family handled that policy (they didn’t quite Mormonism and they did not publicly criticize the church), but they opposed it, so you probably won’t get very far in arguing that as an adult, Mitt Romney supported a racist organization.
Except the Republican Party. boo-doom-chunk
But… are the Native Americans re-classified as Jews under a Romney Administration? Or would it be a case of, ‘our religion says this, but in reality the Natives are Natives’? The latter seems like a denial.
How does he allow Native Americans to retain their identity without denying his own religion?