Well, Mitt has about come full circle, as I see it. He has been interviewed by the venerable Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes, which will be broadcast this Sunday. During that interview he commented on polygamy, calling the practice awful:
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said his Mormon religious faith’s history of polygamy could trouble American voters but that he too is bothered by it.
The former Massachusetts governor, whose great-grandfather had five wives and whose great-great-grandfather had a dozen, said in an interview to be broadcast on Sunday that the practice banned by the Mormon church in 1890 was “awful.”
“That’s part of the history of the church’s past that I understand is troubling to people,” he said, according to comments to be aired on the CBS network’s “60 Minutes” television program. Excerpts were released on Thursday.
“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,” he said.
Nothing more awful than polygamy Mitt? The polygamy practiced by your own ancestors and at one time in your own Church? Apparently those early Mormon prophets, Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and John Taylor didn’t exactly share your viewpoint of polygamy. Neither did some of the ancient prophets of the Old Testament. Of course they weren’t running for President (other than Joseph, who never sold his soul to the media for votes).
I can imagine a great many things more awful than polygamy. How about the support of an odious and wasteful war, killing untold thousands of innocent Iraqis and sacraficing the precious blood of America’s finest Mitt? You really think polygamy was more awful than that? Your priorities Mitt are bass ackwards here.
Frankly I can’t think of anything more awful than a modern Mormon politician saying and doing anything in a media dance for political expediency. It’s a cheap shot at what once was considered a very sacred principle in early Mormon history Mitt. And, I just don’t recall awful as an adjective associated with that practice at the time.
Messenger and Advocate 
May 11, 2007 at 12:54 pm
I don’t know, Guy. The idea of having to please more than one woman sounds “awful” to me. 🙂
May 11, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Don’t forget that Mitt Romney supports torture. So in his eyes, polygamy is more awful than torture.
May 11, 2007 at 1:09 pm
1) Obviously, “I can’t imagine anything more awful than . . .” is a figure of speech.
2) Since we live in an age where monogamous marriage is the only ideal we have experience with, a lot of people, Mormon and non-Mormon, have a strong negative visceral reaction to the idea of polygamy. If Romney is one of those people, who cares? To admit to being disgusted by the idea of practicing polygamy is not the same thing as slandering our forebears, nor is it necessarily “caving” to media pressure just to get votes. It could be honesty and candor.
Is it really disloyal to think that polygamy would be awful?
May 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Thank you, Guy, for posting this. Even as a former member of the LDS church, I have great respect for these good people who were trying to live their religion in the face of public opposition. I find Romney’s comment above FAR MORE offensive than Al Sharpton’s silly off-the-cuff remark about whether Romney “really” believes in deity.
The more I see of Romney, the more convinced I am that he believes in exactly two things: money and power.
May 11, 2007 at 1:38 pm
It will be interesting to see the reaction after the upcoming CBS 60-minutes interview this Sunday. I found this preview of the interview: http://www.thenewsroom.com/details/291968/Local
May 11, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Yet another example of Romney pandering to his voting bloc. Surely if he said that he saw nothing wrong with the practice, he would go down in the polls. Political expediency is his MO.
May 11, 2007 at 1:55 pm
You’re being silly. The comment was in relation to marital relations, not what are the most awful things in the world.
In addition, many of the early Mormon leaders and members expressed dislike or outrage at first being taught about polygamy. In fact, these worts of common reactions seem to have encouraged in telling the conversion to polygamy stories in the early Utah years. John Taylor, who you sight above, certainly had that experience.
In light of that, is it wrong for a Mormon now to feel that way about a lifestyle that we are all commanded not to do? I think not. In fact, I think his honesty is striking and knowing how he feels about his wife, I think it is a sincerely held feeling and not pandering at all.
May 11, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Having read through the personal histories of some of my family, they would probably agree with Romney’s statement. From what I can gather, the polygamists in my family saw it as a hardship that had to be endured, not a blessing to seek after.
May 11, 2007 at 2:03 pm
I will say that I wouldn’t put pandering past Romney or any other politician. I just don’t think we have enough evidence to indict him in this instance. And I really don’t think we can accuse him of disloyalty or of slandering our beloved leaders of the past based on his negative opinion of polygamy.
May 11, 2007 at 2:38 pm
This doesn’t upset me at all. I find polygamy pretty awful too. Lots of Mormons I know do as well. And as others have mentioned, many of our ancestors, the ones that Mitt is supposedly insulting, were horrified by the thought of it too, at least initially.
What did the PBS documentary say about how Brigham Young reacted to being asked to live the “principle?” Oh yes, that “he preferred the grave.” I’d have to say that wanting to die sounds like he found the idea “awful.”
May 11, 2007 at 3:18 pm
The only people I see “pandering to politics” are those who are casting this as a political statement. That isn’t to say he isn’t thinking how this will play, as he is a politician. What it is saying is that he, and he is not alone on this position among liberals and conservatives alike, most likely really means it. I am sure it is hyperbole, but one I have heard members say countless times.
And his statement, like others have pointed out, reminds me of statements by those who actually lived the practice at first. Brigham Young’s statement was the first thing that came to mind.
May 11, 2007 at 3:33 pm
I can understand why a contemporary member of the Church would resent being associated with polygamy, which I suspect was the intended meaning of Romney’s remark. By making such a statement, I’m sure he was trying to sever the association with his campaign and the Church’s controvercial history.
What I dislike about such a strategy is that it only reinforces what our Constitution forbids us to do!:
“No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Article 6 of the US Constitution
By making such a statement, Romney is doing what is expected of him to pass the test that we ALL know he’s undergoing with the public. And even though he isn’t the first to undergo such a test(remember Kennedy?), anyone who reinforces the habit really needs to take a second look at the Constitution.
And if I may be so blunt, may I remind us LDS faithful that we believe that the council of our Prophets comes straight from our Father in Heaven? As distateful as polygamy appears to us now (and as historically biased as that perspective is,) it served a purpose in the early Church. At a time when America’s social structure was patriarchal, and countless LDS women were widowed by murdered husbands, I find it “coincidental” that women were placed in marriages with men that were able to support them financially and protect them physically. I find it “coincidental” that the PBS documentary also raised the point that, under polygamy, a social order was created where prostitution and divorce were, for the most part eliminated. And considering how fragile the Church was at times, I believe that Heavenly Father did what He knew was necessary to protect His Church. We cannot forget that fact, because to do so would be to neglect our history as Latter-day Saints, and deny us the witness of our Father’s influence in this Church.
Can we condemn Romney for his opinion? I don’t intend to, even though I obviously don’t agree with him. Can we condemn him for speaking his opinion in a way that wasn’t exactly tactful? Sure. And those who want to will, and those who don’t will do as they will.
But I ask you; is this incident really a reflection of his ability to be a good leader? I’ll leave you to answer that question for yourselves as well.
May 11, 2007 at 4:27 pm
And don’t forget that the God of the Mormon church never retracted Doctrine and Covenants 132, so the LDS faithful will be required to practice plural celestial marriage in some post-Earthly life in order to be welcomed into the presence of their God.
We traditional Christians could never reconcile this understanding of God with our own, so perhaps Al Sharpton in his clumsy, ill-considered way posed a valid question concerning whether Mormons believe in God “the way we believe in God”.
May 11, 2007 at 4:37 pm
So, Guy,
You don’t think it would be “awful” for you and your wife to consider taking another women into the marraige at the behest of the brethren?
May 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Brian:
Ah, c’mon–I’m sure you would be up to the task.
Dan: Yep–add torture to the “more horrible than” list
Tom:
Really? Not obvious to me.
To admit to being disgusted by the idea of practicing polygamy is not the same thing as slandering our forebears, nor is it necessarily “caving” to media pressure just to get votes. It could be honesty and candor.
What is more obvious is the fact Mitt Romney is running for President. He is and has been turning hard to the right since before he began his campaign. This same hard core right wing Mitt Romney was missing in action while Governor of MA.
Mitt’s new found horror of his ancestors’ practice of polygamy and that of his Church of birth smacks of political pragmatism. Where were these same sentiments while governor of MA? Sorry, I don’t buy the theory that Mitt is just expressing his personal polygamy preferences in a candid and forth right way. I think he is pandering in the worst way.
Nick: We’ll just have to disagree on the Al Sharpton thing. And, you must realize I’m talking about the practice of polygamy of the early Mormon Church, not today’s counterfeit practiced by so-called “fundamentalists”
Fred: Thanks for the link. I’m looking forward to the 60 Minutes interview.
Connor: I’m afraid you are right.
Timotheus:
I’m not being silly. That’s not what he said; but, admittedly I haven’t seen the entire interview. Regardless, Mitt’s choice of words were quite unfortunate. He could and should have chosen his words much more carefully, particularly given the facts upon which the original practice of polygamy was based.
But, we’re not talking about early Mormon leaders. We’re talking about a modern day Mormon who happens to be a candidate for the Presidency. We’re talking about 175 years after the fact and also talking post-manifesto.
Why not point out that the practice has been abandoned by the Church for over 100 years, and that it is not at all relevant in the current presidential campaign for president? Point out Mitt has never practiced it, and doesn’t intend to practice it.
I just don’t see his comments as honest. Rather, I see them as opportunistic in the midst of a political campaign where he is in competition with 10 other white guys trying to out conservative each other. Doing it at the expense of his ancestors and early Church history is shameful.
Note: I’ve got to run but will be back to respond to the remainder of the comments. Thanks to all who have expressed opinions on this.
May 11, 2007 at 6:22 pm
Can’t a man just think it’s awful (like pretty much everyone else), and say so, and be believed? Sheesh.
May 11, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Jim:
Fortunately, you are mistaken in that Heavenly Father HAS rebuked polygamy as a practice. Look no further than our present Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley to see that. In the November 1998 Ensign, our Prophet reinforced what has been fact since the Church did away with polygamy before it entered the Union in 1896. His statement reads:
“I wish to state categorically that this Church has nothing whatever to do with those practicing polygamy. They are not members of this Church. Most of them have never been members. They are in violation of the civil law. They know they are in violation of the law. They are subject to its penalties. The Church, of course, has no jurisdiction whatever in this matter.
If any of our members are found to be practicing plural marriage, they are excommunicated, the most serious penalty the Church can impose. Not only are those so involved in direct violation of the civil law, they are in violation of the law of this Church.”
Just in case you wanted to TRY and get your facts straight.
May 11, 2007 at 7:03 pm
WASHINGTON (AP) – Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who made his fortune as a management consultant, is expected to report financial assets between $190 million and $250 million, an adviser said Friday.
I guess Mitt hopes it is true: That you can buy anything in the world with money.
May 11, 2007 at 8:40 pm
dakwegmo:
Gathering from the personal journals of your family members that they saw polygamy as a hardship rather than a blessing is miles away from stating publicly to the national media and the entire world:
I’m not suggesting the practice of polygamy was anything other than a hardship; but, that’s not what Mitt said. Again, I think his choice of words was unfortunate.
Tom:
I think anyone, including Mitt Romney can have a negative opinion about polygamy. Clearly it was not popular in or outside of the Church either then or now; but, I think my biggest gripe about Mitt here is the word choice he used, and the context in which he has made it an issue: his presidential campaign.
I think he handled it quite poorly, and it looks like he was pandering for political points while doing it. It left a sour taste in my mouth.
Katie:
That same Brigham Young went on to take some 27 women as his wives and did not cease the practice. He apparently gained a testimony the practice at that time was a revealed doctrine and sanctioned by God.
Jettboy:
I don’t see how you can read Romney’s statements as anything but political. They were made in the context of a presidential campaign. They were made on the most popular media interview program on television. They were made in the context of increased scrutiny on the Church and its beliefs. They were made at a time when Mitt Romney is going out of his way to downplay the “weirdness” factor of Mormonism. I find this particularly troubling.
Paradox:
Excellent point! I agree 100%.
Another good point. So far Romney’s campaign has avoided the religion issue rather than confront it head on as did JFK. I think Kennedy had the better strategy. Confront the religion issue, take it out of the equation and move on. Romney, on the other hand appears to be willing to suffer death from a 1000 religious cuts. Rather than acquiesce to and answer every idiotic question about his religion, he needs to tell folks once and for all religion is out of bounds during the campaign. There is no religious test. Romney is a Republican candidate for the presidency, not the Mormon candidate.
Very well said!
This is exactly where I’m coming from.
But I ask you; is this incident really a reflection of his ability to be a good leader?
I don’t know. I think it shows something about his character. He is so concerned with perception, that he appears to pander to those who he feels will help him reach the White House.
There are many things I like about Mitt Romney. But, give me the Mitt Romney who came to Salt Lake and rescued a nearly failed Olympic endeavor. There was a Mitt Romney came to town, did what was necessary to get the job done. Why doesn’t he show up in this campaign and put this absurd religious obsession out of the picture?
Jim #13
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt this one time. But, it appears to me you are nothing but a troll. If you return here and make another similar comment implying Mormons don’t believe in God or in the same God or that we are somehow less than Christian, or telling me what I believe or what my Church teaches as doctrine, you’re history around here.
L:
I think he could and should have utilized a better word choice to express the opinion, about which I have already agreed he has every right to hold.
Paradox:
Thanks for the polygamy clarification.
Phouchg:
I’m not sure Mitt believes he can buy the election. The fact he is a better fund raiser than the other leading republican front runners, I think, is actually a good sign.
May 11, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Jack # 14
Sorry, your comment somehow ended up in my spam filter.
1. It doesn’t matter what I think–though I think I’ve been pretty clear that I most certainly would have used a different word choice.
2. It’s irrelevant now to compare current day polygamy or hypothetical polygamy practice to what Mitt Romney was discussing. They aren’t the same thing.
3. I pretty much think along the lines of Paradox’s comment #12 above.
May 11, 2007 at 11:30 pm
Guy, I understand that Brigham clearly became much more comfortable with the idea when he exercised faith and tried it. (Actually, after the PBS doc gave the aforementioned quote and then said he went on to have 27+ wives I said, “Well, Brigham figured if I’m going to go for it, I’m going to go big!)
But my point is that Brigham gained a testimony because he had to do it, he had to take that step. Which is still of course what we recommend today-gaining a testimony of a principle by practicing it. But to be fair to Mitt, he is never going to practice it, thus will never gain a testimony of it, and he will quite understandably be stuck at the “wanting the grave” feeling that Brigham experienced.
May 12, 2007 at 6:37 am
dan reminds me of sean hannity. he picks a talking point (read torture–always torture) and refer all discussion back to that talking point–as if it proved something relevant.
romney finds polygamy awful. if you were to poll current active mormons and they gave an honest reaction to possibly practicing polygamy tomorrow they would give the same response.
guy: perhaps the bad taste in your mouth comes from your prior opinion of romney that is flavoring how you view any of his current statements.
May 12, 2007 at 8:01 am
Guy #15:
I was also talking about historical Mormon polygamy. I was not addressing modern practitioners. Sorry if I was confusing on that.
And yes, we can disagree on the Sharpton thing. 😉
May 12, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Jim 13:
Read D&C 132 again, my friend. It says that to enter into the celestial glory, a man must marry “a wife” in the new and everlasting covenant. Plural marriage, in this life or the next, was never an absolute prerequisite to exaltation in Mormon doctrine.
May 12, 2007 at 10:53 pm
From “The Contributor”, Volume 6, Feb. 1885 (emphasis is mine):
“In April, 1882, in view of the bill pending before Congress, which the people of Utah regard as threatening their liberties, petitions were sent to Congress for the men, women, and youth of both sexes, of our Territory, praying for a commission of honorable gentlemen to be appointed by Congress to investigate the affairs of Utah before the passage of the unfriendly legislation, as in the estimation of the petitioners such enactments as were proposed could only be passed by men ignorant of the true situation of affairs in the Territory. These petitions set forth that Congress was deceived by the malicious and libelous charges made against the Saints by their unscrupulous enemies. Besides denying the infamous charges made against the inhabitants of Utah, each petition contained a clause respecting the subject of polygamy…
This is what the young ladies said:
“The passage of such bills (then pending before Congress—Edmunds’ bill and others) would deprive our fathers, mothers and brothers (and ourselves when properly qualified) of the rights of franchise, and in fact, of all the rights of American citizens, debarring us of the free exercise of our holy religion, which is dearer to us than life itself; * * * for we have been taught, and conscientiously believe that plural marriage is as much a part of our religion as are faith, repentance, and baptism.”
May 14, 2007 at 2:43 pm
Paradox #17: I wasn’t referring to the practice of polygamy on Earth, but rather as a condition of exaltation in the afterlife. That human LDS leadership has clearly repudiated the practice for earthbound members is not in question
Onelowerlight #24: I would argue that there is nothing “new” in D&C 132 about marrying “a wife” and that the entire point of the article’s new covenant was to address the question of plural marriage. The use of the singular in this sentence when taken in context does not preclude the notion that the subject of the new covenant is multiple wives. Brigham Young and other LDS leaders have certainly not spoken about plural marriage as if it were optional or anything less than a commandment (I can provide quotes from BY and others if needed, but I’m quite sure you can find them yourself). However, if we assume for the moment that plural marriage is optional, then it is still the case that a man sealed to a woman, then widowed, who then remarries and is sealed to a 2nd wife, would remain sealed to both of them after death. Wouldn’t you agree that in this case, exaltation is only available inasmuch as the plural marriage continues into the afterlife?
Guy #19: I humbly apologize if I came across as a “troll” to you. Perhaps you are not used to discourse with someone who believes that purported scripture and other revelatory writings can speak for themselves and allows for alternative non-LDS-sanctioned perspectives. In any case, I firmly ascribe to the notion of “your blog, your rules”, so if there are specific positions that are uncomfortable for you to hear, let alone discuss, I will certainly respect your wishes. I would just respectfully suggest that while threats and name-calling might seem effective, it might be more helpful to allow thoughtful counterpoints by more gracious contributors such as that offered by Onelowerlight #24
May 14, 2007 at 6:01 pm
Let me get this straight. Not enough people in Utah, so needed polygamy to populate the place. But didn’t Joseph Smith take women that were already married? Wasn’t 27 wives, overdoing it a bit – I mean weren’t there quite a few bachelors during this time? And wasn’t the reason for stopping polygamy political as opposed to religion. And it isn’t just polygamy, too many things don’t add up: Isrealites as native americans, the whole black thing, Bible vs. book of Mormon.
May 14, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Here’s a dirty little secret: Most members do find the practice awful.
May 14, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Let me get this straight. Not enough people in Utah, so needed polygamy to populate the place. But didn’t Joseph Smith take women that were already married?
I guess you don’t have it straight. If Joseph started the practice and never made it to Utah, then I guess the “not enough people in Utah” reasoning will fly.
May 14, 2007 at 10:46 pm
Oops, make that “won’t fly”.
May 17, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Guy,
I was entertaining the idle thought that most of the “awful” comments about polygamy could be just as applicable to the marriage culture in general, within the Mormon church today. Does anyone suppose that the polygamous relationships of a hundred years ago were any worse than our ephemeral “eternal” marriages today?
After enduring 20 years of monogamy, in a failed marriage that ended in a burst of self-destructive angst, I can’t picture how polygamy could inflict any worse trauma on anyone.
May 17, 2007 at 10:24 pm
Jim,
I think the “awful” comments, were purely political by Mitt. Now, I have not seen the out takes of Mitt Romney’s 60 Minutes interview; however, there was nothing I saw in the questioning that invited such a response by Romney. To me, Mitt was trying to appease modern American culture by showing how he too is just appalled by the early LDS polygamy practice. Quite frankly I think it was better left unsaid. His word choice was “awful”
But, one thing about Mitt, is that he doesn’t miss a beat where he thinks it will help him politically. Of course, all politicians do this, not just Mitt Romney; but, this particular incident left a bad taste in my mouth.
You raise a good point though. I’m sure there were polygamous marriages that had difficulty just like every other marriage has. I don’t think Mitt was thinking along these lines though.
May 22, 2007 at 12:44 pm
What’s REALLY “awful” is to have to listen to Mitt say it’s “awful”. We wouldn’t have to, if his great-grandfather hadn’t had so many wives. Mitt descends from Miles Park Romney’s 3rd wife. So if Miles hadn’t practiced the law of plural marriage, ol’ Mitt wouldn’t be around right now to tell us how “awful” it was.
May 23, 2007 at 8:53 am
The whole issue would not have to be addressed if most Evangelical Christians would live their religion.
Mitt Romney is forced to address the past polygamy issue because Evangelical Christians can’t let it go.
They are a bunch of hypocrits as the Bible teaches that Abraham, Moses Jacob and other old testament prophets and kings were polygamists – all authorized or encouraged by God.
Even in the new testament, Jesus compares “his kingdom” to a polygamous marriage: One groom and 10 virgin brides – 5 of whom make it to the marriage.
They let go of all of that – and it’s in their own bible!
What is truly “awful” is all of you bigots in this blog.
If you disagree with Mitt Romney or any other candidate – then bring up something related to the campaign not about the guy’s religion.
May 23, 2007 at 9:18 am
For the record, Tom in #34 is different from the Tom of previous comments on this thread. The first Tom (me) blogs at Nine Moons and Kulturblog.
May 23, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Be very, very careful when you say something is God’s will. Cause if you’re wrong…
September 7, 2007 at 10:09 am
That’s the problem with this guy. He has NO loyalty to anyone — he’s only out for himself and his own power. He dumps on his Mormon faith and heritage, he dumps on his buddy Larry Craig, he uses words like “awful” and “disgusting,” and has not a shred of humanity in him. He’s all ambition, with a smiling face and absolutely no heart.
January 30, 2008 at 9:07 am
[…] fact that he is Mormon. This, of course, leads to endless questions as to whether he believes in polygamy, wears magical underwear, and is secretly plotting to Mormonize the whole […]
January 30, 2008 at 9:25 am
I found the opening paragraph humourous. To a man, toture probably is more aweful than polygamy. Well, to a woman, I can’t imagine anything worse. And it is scriptually against Christ’s teaching–He was quite clear on if :”any man even looks at another woman with lust in his eyes, he has already committed adultry.” There are other books in the New Testament the state one man, one woman. Also there is a lot of Old Testament scripture to verify God’s plan was one man, one woman.
To a selfish, lust man, the idea of having sex with a bunch of different woman and having it “santified” probably seem much better than toture. HA. It is torture–to woman–Mentally, emotionally, and physically, not to mention the rape of the spirit with this false teaching of a false prophet.