And Don't Get Me Started on Our Wacko Teetotalism

Trying to make voters more comfortable with his Mormonism, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney calls polygamy "bizarre" in an interview with The New York Times. Romney's religion (as opposed to his social conservatism) doesn't bother me, but this blithe dismissal of what used to be an important feature of his faith does. Like European Jews, mainstream Mormons renounced polygamy under pressure from gentiles. It was the price they paid for official tolerance and Utah statehood in the late 19th century. But until then they considered the practice not only divinely permitted (the Bible is pretty clear on that score) but divinely favored, a ticket to the highest level of heaven. It was the norm among church leaders, and many of today's Mormons are descended from polygamists (not to mention the non-LDS Mormons who continue to openly practice plural marriage and who claim that some LDS members do so discreetly). The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints may have decided that the importance of obeying secular law outweighs the teachings of the church's founders, but to dismiss those teachings as "bizarre" seems either impious or disingenuous.

Comments

[plunge]

As they pointed out at NRO, one of the best goofy ironies of this political season is that the Mormon is the only Republican front-runner that has only one wife.

[Warren]

I agree. Polygamy is about the least bizarre aspects of the Mormons.

Romney's religion (as opposed to his social conservatism) doesn't bother me...

I'm becoming increasingly Dawkian in my attitude on religion. People who take their religion seriously bother me.

[jb]

Joseph Smith was called a prophet
dum dum dum dum dum...

[joe]

I find the attitudes of earlier generations of Americans about black people to be bizarre, and I don't think that saying so makes me any less patriotic.

[Duh.]

"I find the attitudes of earlier generations of Americans about black people to be bizarre, and I don't think that saying so makes me any less patriotic."

Fair enough, but you don't worship George Washington, and the Constitution is not the word of your God.

[Duh]

...At least, I hope it isn't.

[Mark Borok]

Counting down until someone finds an old clip of Romney publicly stating his full support for polygamy.

[-]

Having grown up in a very Mormon town, it was not unusual to have the local Bishop very kindly "adopt" a family that had recently moved into town, almost always featuring a poor widowed mother with several children that bore striking resemblance to the Bishop's own. That generous man would often arrange for that poor widowed woman to move into a house near his, and would spend almost as much time with them as he did his own family! I don't know why I bring that up here. It has no bearing.

[TrickyVic]

"""Counting down until someone finds an old clip of Romney publicly stating his full support for polygamy."""

I doubt you will. Polygamy has been banned by LDS for a long time.

"""Joseph Smith was called a prophet"""

For the record the LDS church always has a prophet, they have one today.

[whizler]

He calls "bizarre" a doctrine still officially within his religion's canonized scriptures.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132

[Madpad]

Romney's religion doesn't bother me, but this blithe dismissal of what used to be an important feature of his faith does.

I'd be more behind you, Jacob, if it weren't for the fact that polygamy has been officially abandoned for over 100 years.

I'm sure there are folks who turn a blind eye or deny the practice with a wink. But as I understand it, most of the enclaves supportive of the practice are in and arounf Utah.

Except for his stint on the Olymic committee, Romney's spent hardly any time in Utah as he was born in Michigan and spent most of his education and career in the northeast.

So whileI find many other aspect ofRomney bizarre and distasteful, his rejection of polygamy is not one of them.

[Troy]

Here in northwest Arizona, the FLDS has openly practiced their polygamy since a botched 1950's raid. They didn't start getting into trouble until Warren Jeffs and others started treating 13 year old girls as chattels to be bartered and dispensed as God,...er... Jeffs saw fit.
On a cool aside, I got to sit in on a deposition of Warren Jeffs. He is as creepy as he looks.
I think they should get to practice their polygamy assuming everyone is a consenting adult. But they still have to obey all the other laws. Those child support obligations for 13 children would be a bitch.

[mediageek]

What if he did support polygamy?

Would they all be First Ladies? Or would they have to draw straws to see who gets to be the First Lady, Second Lady, etc?

[dagny]

It seems to me that the main problem here is that we are such a heavily Protestant nation that we assume that the most correct views of a faith are its oldest ones, whereas the LDS church seems to me to be more like the Catholics in that newer teachings overrule older ones, i.e. God continues to make revelations to this day.

[Rhywun]

I think they should get to practice their polygamy assuming everyone is a consenting adult.

If you've been brainwashed your whole life into believing your future role will be to share your husband with three or four other wives, is that still "consent"?

[tarran]

"If you've been brainwashed your whole life into believing your future role will be to share your husband with three or four other wives, is that still "consent"?"

Yes.

Does that mean that we can morally use force to override the decision of the brainwashed individual?

No.

[Soda]

If you've been brainwashed your whole life into believing your future role will be to share your husband with three or four other wives, is that still "consent"?

Well, considering we can't read the minds of your theoretical brainwashed female adults, I'll go with YES, it's still consent.

[Son of a!]

As an atheist, I feel compelled to point out that almost anyone brought up in a religion from childhood could be considered "brainwashed" by Rhywun's definition.

So... I think that means belief in monogamy is a form of brainwashing. Now what do we do?

[dhex]

"I think they should get to practice their polygamy assuming everyone is a consenting adult. But they still have to obey all the other laws. Those child support obligations for 13 children would be a bitch."

dude, the breakaway orthodox types are all up into welfare. it's a way of bleeding the beast, as it were.

if they weren't fucking child raping pieces of shit, i'd buy them a beer.

[Troy]

""""If you've been brainwashed your whole life into believing your future role will be to share your husband with three or four other wives, is that still "consent"?""""

Yes. Because polygamy (Mormon) bullshit is no different than any other religious bullshit. I think that practically all religion is a pathology. The idea that there is an omnibenevolent being that allows American Idol, alzheimers, and cancer to exist is a big steaming pile of bullshit. This species of bullshit is no different, qualitatively speaking, than catholic bullshit, islamic bullshit, or wiccan bullshit. And since no one would think twice whether a catholic, a baptist, or a snake handler has the capacity for consent, why not these polygamist?

[Rhywun]

So... I think that means belief in monogamy is a form of brainwashing.

I arrive at my "belief" in monogamy by means of reason: widespread monogamy doesn't result in a lot of surplus males hanging around with nothing to do. Widespread polygamy does. Of course this presumes belief in some sort of permanent contractual relationship system. Without that, well, anything goes 🙂

[Shannon Chamberlain]

Polygamy doesn't bother me nearly as much as the fact that Mormons believe--still believe--that their holy scripture is derived from golden tablets buried by the member of a white tribe warring against its evil red brethren, and that Jesus visited North America after his resurrection.

Now, some of you might point out that Southern Baptist beliefs make just about as much sense, and you'd be right. It's just that Mormonism is an important middle step between "mainstream once-a-year-church-attendance-it's-all-figurative anyway Christianity" and "Scientology."

[Old Jack]

Actually, it must be kind of tough after eighty years or so of telling its members that polygamy is a central tenet of the faith and was only abandoned as a compromise to avoid further persecution for the LDS church to find itself in a position where with a little political agitation it could return to the old days.

Only trouble is the members have become comfortable with monogamy and the respectability it brings. And so in fact has the church leadership.

I'm willing to bet there are no discussions in priesthood meeting about how we'd gladly take on a few more wives if only the law would allow it they way there were in the sixties. Nobody knew then how much social attitudes would change within a few years.

As Troy pointed out, Warren Jeffs and his gang are being prosecuted because they're raping thirteen year old and commiting welfare fraud.

A respectable legal challenge by consenting adults would get anti-polygamy laws overturned in a heartbeat. That's what the church leadership wanted a hundred and twenty years ago and what they insisted they wanted after the "Great Compromise".

[Scott]

In the next interview, I hope they ask for his views on the magic underwear Mormons are required to wear. That is much more bizarre than polygamy and still a part of their practices.

[edna]

we used to call them "jesus jammies."

[Rhywun]

A respectable legal challenge by consenting adults would get anti-polygamy laws overturned in a heartbeat.

Suppose that came true. What happens to all the surplus males?

[MP]

Suppose that came true. What happens to all the surplus males?

Watch China. They'll provide an answer to that question soon enough.

[Soda]

Suppose that came true. What happens to all the surplus males?

Well, there's also polyandry...

and porn

and World of Warcraft

But seriously, do you really think the equilibrium point would be one alpha male with all the females and a bunch of surplus males angry by the sidelines? You think there will be an epidemic of females clamoring to be part of a polygamous marriage?

[Ryo]

Suppose that came true. What happens to all the surplus males?

Well, if polygamy is legal, they can all enter into polyandrous arrangements.

[matt]

As far as I can tell, no one's asked Rep. KEvin Ellison about his views on polygamy yet.

It's double standard time!!!

[tomWright]

Setting aside the very American version of mohammedism that mormonism is, I was struck by this sentence:

"Like European Jews, mainstream Mormons renounced polygamy under pressure from gentiles"

I find the idea that jews practiced polygamy in the relativly recent past far more interesting than rehashing old arguments about mormonic child rape and molestations mixed with sly allusions to the not-so-discrete activities of lds leaders.

Other than in the ancient days of the old testament, when did jews practice polygamy and when did they stop it under pressure from gentiles?

[Fenevad]

In the next interview, I hope they ask for his views on the magic underwear Mormons are required to wear. That is much more bizarre than polygamy and still a part of their practices.

Come on, if you're going to make fun of something, at least have half an idea what the hell you're talking about. I don't think you'd find any Mormons who consider them "magic" (whatever that means anyway) Most Mormons think that they remind them of promises they made. If that's magic, then so is using your computer's calendar program to remember a wedding anniversary anniversary, in which case magic means nothing...

[matt]

Sure, If my computer is a magic underwear computer.

You've gotta admit, it just sounds funny.

[Rhywun]

But seriously, do you really think the equilibrium point would be one alpha male with all the females and a bunch of surplus males angry by the sidelines? You think there will be an epidemic of females clamoring to be part of a polygamous marriage?

In Utah, yes. If the church is free to institute polygamy, you bet your ass they will. And they'll raise their daughters to accept it as "normal".

Well, there's also polyandry...

Sure, I thought of that, but come ON. Let's try to keep this within the realm of possiblity.

[Your No Teologian]

"But until then they considered the practice not only divinely permitted (the Bible is pretty clear on that score)"

What a crock of shit. The OLD Testament said it was okay, but the NEW Testament overturned it.

[jimmy smith]

The biggest problem with multiple wives is that it comes with multiple mothers-in-law. Every married man can understand the difficulties that might ensue.

[edna]

the jews didn't overturn it until that spoilsport gershom. but that was only for the ashkenazis, we sephards can still do the polygamy thing.

[green mamba]

Other than in the ancient days of the old testament, when did jews practice polygamy and when did they stop it under pressure from gentiles?

I'd also like to see some evidence that European Jews practiced polygamy and stopped because of external pressure. It sounds unlikely to me.

[Eric the .5b]

And they'll raise their daughters to accept it as "normal".

Just as most American Christians raise their daughters to accept monogamy with a man as "normal".

[Rodney]

You know what the penalty for polygamy is in this country? Two wives.

[John Smith]

I was a gamma male, but just like Muhammad, I came up with a great scam to get assets and pussy. People are so gullible!

[mantooth]

Teologian,

Where was that "overturned", in the blooper reel? Was it in the chapter labeled "Corrections: Shit God Got Wrong The First Time"?

[Larry A]

A respectable legal challenge by consenting adults would get anti-polygamy laws overturned in a heartbeat.

Right after gay marriage passes.

Where was (polygamy) "overturned", in the blooper reel? Was it in the chapter labeled "Corrections: Shit God Got Wrong The First Time"?

It's in the verse about, "No man can serve two masters."

Just as most American Christians raise their daughters to accept monogamy with a man as "normal".

And the fundamentalists teach that wives should be subservient and everybody should stay a virgin until marriage.

I don't think you'd find any Mormons who consider them "magic" (whatever that means anyway) Most Mormons think that they remind them of promises they made.

Not unlike wearing a cross, crucifix, or star of David.

"Magic" is like using a cross to chase off a vampire. Or when a statue cries.

[Seamus]

If you've been brainwashed your whole life into believing your future role will be to share your husband with three or four other wives, is that still "consent"?

Holy crap, not another argument about how "false consciousness" justifies overriding people's freedom.

[Scott]

I can only go by what I have been told by the few Mormons willing to even admit the special underwear exist. They have all told me that they are a form of protection against evil, therefore "magic" seems appropriate.

BTW, why are Mormons so secretive about their religion?

[joshua corning]

did HBO cancel that show "Big Love"...it was pretty good.

Plus it has that Chleo actress from the movie "Kids" who is hot.

[joshua corning]

I find the attitudes of earlier generations of Americans about black people to be bizarre, and I don't think that saying so makes me any less patriotic.

The policies democrats have about blacks are bizarre and i am often called a racist by joe and other socialist simply because I point out how bizarre these policies are.

[Shawn Smith]

Scott,

I only wish they were so secretive. Maybe then they wouldn't be riding their bicycles on the gorram sidewalk, knocking on my door telling me that I need to turn to Mormonism to be saved. Oh--and that I need to tithe 10% of my income to the church.

[joshua corning]

What is the most bizarre though is that having more then one wife at one time is bad, but having multiple wives over time through divorce and remarriage is OK.

[Old Jack]

Rhywun | February 8, 2007, 4:47pm | #

A respectable legal challenge by consenting adults would get anti-polygamy laws overturned in a heartbeat.

Suppose that came true. What happens to all the surplus males?

I'm not trying to defend the practice. I'm just pointing out that since 1890, and even 1965, the pendulum in a direction of accepting divergent lifestyles. Though Larry A might have a point with the gay marriage bit that the pendulum might be swinging back the other way.

The fact of the matter is that Mormons don't want plural marriage any more. Monogamy is respectable, and stable. And, yes, does not lead to a "surplus male" problem. The "surplus male" issue was already a problem in Utah by the 1870s or thereabouts. It led to a thriving business for brothels though, so from a whore's point of view it might not have been a bad thing.

So, do not, expect to see a LDS backed movement to legalize polygamy. Indeed expect to see the church continue to back the state in prosecuting polygamy cases, especially when they involve child-raping, welfare abusing Warren Jeffs types. Do not however expect them to pursue cases against sympathetic middle-class types who could credibly challenge the law.

Look, I grew up with these people. And the small Mormon towns of Utah, Idaho and Southern Alberta where I spent my time are picturesque places inhabited by the most decent and hospitable people you would ever want to know. I may have rejected the religion but I will never condemn those people for the values they hold.

And, by the way, I have never personally met a "polyg" but I heard lots of rumors.

The father of a friend of mine told of one of the last "official" polygamists. He was a small town banker with three wives, still alive in the late 1940s. He was In his 70s or 80s by then but was still walked or drove to work at the local bank, depending on which wife had him for the month. He maintained three separate residences for his wives, one in town and two on farms outside town (the Church was rather strict about taking a plural wife. You had to have the means to keep her in a separate residence).

[joshua corning]

Suppose that came true. What happens to all the surplus males?

Hopefully Lucy Lui sexbots....but I will get a Chloe Sylvan sexbot...what can I say, I prefer white chicks...

Of course then the question will not be" What happens to all the surplus males?" but "What happens to all the surplus women?"

[Fenevad]

I can only go by what I have been told by the few Mormons willing to even admit the special underwear exist.

I have yet to meet one who would deny the existence. It's not some big secret...

They have all told me that they are a form of protection against evil, therefore "magic" seems appropriate.

Protection against evil? I suppose that's accurate, but only in the sense that wearing them reminds them of the moral standards that they have agreed to live by, so when they are in a situation that would compromise those standards, they have the protection of that reminder. Absolutely nothing magical about that by any definition of magic I know.

For what it's worth, how are you defining magic? When you look at what people call magic, it's usually because they don't believe it: magic is not something out there in the world. People call things magic to ridicule them, not because they simply are magic. Otherwise, how would you distinguish a flak jacket from something magical? It certainly protects you against an evil (bullet). If you didn't believe that the flak jacket would protect you, then you might call it magic, but that wouldn't tell you anything about the thing itself, only about your belief about it...

BTW, why are Mormons so secretive about their religion?

They've only got 60,000 people out there full time who would be more than happy to tell you about it. Hardly seems secretive. But to the extent that they are secretive, your earlier post should provide all the answer you need: how often would you want to tell somebody about something if they are going to mock it as "magic" and call the belief "bizarre" without knowing anything about it? That doesn't exactly encourage you to shout out your deepest beliefs from the rooftops...

[Old Jack]

Frankly, the only thing I think Mormons have to live down is the ghastly "Son of Cain" doctrine towards blacks. It took a huge amount of revisionism to go from Joseph Smith's abolitionist politics to Brigham Young's racism.

Joe Smith may have been a crackpot, but he was a super-intelligent one. He must have read extensively and somehow managed to steal ideas from the Anabaptists, the Baptists, the Quakers , the Wesleyans and the Shakers which to a large extent the Saints absorbed (or at least th Ohio ones).

In the process he inspired a movement that has provided stability, a good life and a sense of purpose for a goodly number of people.

It was Smith's abolitionist beliefs as much as anything that led to the "extermination order" by the governor of Missouri.

He also ordained a number of blacks to the priesthood and may have even taken a black woman as a wife (a woman who in some accounts spent her life in Salt Lake City in a position of high regard, including going to the Temple for the most sacred of ordinances). This in spite of Brigham Young's proclamation in 1852 that Negroes were barred from the priesthood.

[Old Jack]

And Don't Get Me Started on Our Wacko Teetotalism

Oh, and by the way, it is not "Teetotalism", it is "TEA-totalism. That is people who drink only TEA.

This is further in error since "The Word of Wisdom" prohibits all "HOT DRINKS" which the authorities have determined to mean tea and coffee. Hence Mormons could not possibly be TEA-totallers although I suppose since there is no revelation prohibiting the playing of golf there may be some Mormon Teetotalers. But there is no revelation requiring it.

[Adam]

I'm a former member of the LDS Church. Romeny is right in line with the Church's attitude towards polygamy for the past few decades. The rare LDS Mormon who practices polygamy or teaches others to do so is excommunicated.

[erik]

How about a compromise platform that allows gay marriage and polygamy?

Mitt's not just an LDS member, he's great=great-grandson of Parley Parker Pratt one of the original "Quorum of the Twelve Apostles"

[Old Jack]

Adam, You're absolutely right about the church excommunicating "polygs" but that did not stop them from spending 80 years or so preaching that "plural marriage" is the Heavenly Father's plan.

That is until it looked like courts might actually overturn anti-polygamy laws. Then they realized how comfortable the status quo really was.

So much for our status as a "peculiar people", eh?

[Old Jack]

...preaching that "plural marriage" is the Heavenly Father's plan...that would be restored as soon as the evil gentiles in Washington were struck down and would permit its restoration.

[jtuf]

The Jewish ban was in the 10th century, because allowing polygamy made G-d look bad in the eyes of non-Jewish Europeans. Even though it was legal for thousands of years, polygamy was never common. Maintaining one household is expensive enough. Mainting many is near impossible in a preindustrial society.

[jtuf]

Polygamy normally arrises to adjust the fertility rate, since women are the limiting factor in reproduction. If parents want 0.5 to 15 kids, they can do just fine with monogamy. If fewer kids are adaptive, they practice polyandry. If more kids are adaptive, they practice polygamy. Watching college tuition costs, I can see polyandry developing in the near future.

[JGoldenRockwell]

Several point, then you may return to your absurdities.

First, polygamy was Church doctrine from the mid-1830s to 1891, about 55 years. When it began, there were no Federal laws against it. It ended after the US Supreme Court denied appeals, deciding that -- though it was a religious doctrine -- it didn't deserve the protection of the First Amendment. BTW, nowhere in the Bible is polygamy banned for anyone except bishops -- it is telling that there IS such a ban mentioned, though. If it wasn't common, why would they have to be told not to do it?

Second, the ban on polygamy replaced a surplus of marriageable males with a surplus of marriageable females. This is better?

Third, the concept of "no-fault divorce" has given us "serial polygamy" (marriage, divorce, marriage,). I look forward to the explanations how this is better for children or society.

Fourth, the "Temple garments" are not the same to us as crucifixes. We do not worship them. We do not claim any protection from them except spiritual. They are not considered to be "magic" -- it's anti-Mormons who tossed that lie into the mix. How do you know when you've been cut off in traffic by a Protestant? Because after you honk at them, you can see their "WWJD" bracelet when they stick their arm out the window to give you the finger. Is the WWJD bracelet "magic"?

Fifth, as far as being "secretive" about the garments, well . . .what sort of pervert is so worried about what complete strangers are wearing under their clothes?

Sixth, if you want to talk "crackpot ideas," I nominate the Nicene Doctrine -- no, wait, even better, how about Protestants who "prove" that the Roman Catholic Church is a "cult" -- by misquoting the Bible that they inherited from the Roman Catholic Church! That one's high on the list of Stupid Gracer Tricks.

You may now return to your maunderings.

[Jennifer]

I'll marry ten of the surplus males, Rhywun. Jeff will be my Alpha, of course, but I'll also have Laundry Husband, Bathroom-Cleaning Husband, Refurnishing-Antique-Furniture Husband, and Sexy-But-Dumb-Yet-Fun-To-Fuck-So-Long-As-I-Put-A-Bag-Over-His-I.Q. Husband.

The other six will have full-time jobs outside the home.

[Madpad]

how about Protestants who "prove" that the Roman Catholic Church is a "cult" -- by misquoting the Bible that they inherited from the Roman Catholic Church!

Stick to your own denomination, there JGolden. You don't know or understand squat about either Catholics or Protestants.

The issue for (some) Protestants has nothing to do with misquoting. The issue has to do with Catholic practices that are clearly not in the bible. This reflects a difference of opinion about the bible's place in expressing and understanding one's faith.

Many Protestant subscribe to the notion of Sola Scriptura or 'Scripture Only'. As such, the bible is seen as the ONLY source of instruction regarding understanding the Christian faith. Simply put, if it ain't in the bible, it ain't Christian.

Catholics assert that they trace their lineage back to Peter and as such, the Catholic Church is THE living institution of Christ's Church. As such, they feel tradition has its place in religious teaching alongside scripture.

This has given rise to all sorts of things in Catholic practice that drive some Protestants nuts. Among them:

1. Transubstantiation (does it really turn into flesh and blood?),
2. The persistant virginity of Mary (Where did Jesus's brothers and sisters come from anyway?)
3. Papal Infallibility,
4. Intercessory Prayer (praying to saints and Mary)
5. The concept of Purgatory
6. Infant Baptism
7. Celibacy
8. Confession

I could go on...but hopefully you get the idea.

f you want to talk "crackpot ideas," I nominate the Nicene Doctrine...

As for the Nicene Doctrine (first time I ever heard it called that), again, as LDS rejects the Nicene Creed, it's no wonder you don't understand what's going on.

The Creed is part of the Catholic mass, but also part of the mass for Anglican, Episcopal and many other denominations (though some evangelicals reject it mainly because it's not in the bible). The creed is a cornerstone of the common ancestry of most Christian denominations and most importantly, lays out the concept of the Holy Trinity (without actually calling it that).

Even many denominations that do not recite it as part of worship, if they are accepting of the concept of the trinity, recognize its value in a historical context.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you find "crackpot' about the creed or the council of Nicea...for my money, it's one of the more practical and down to earth parts of Christian History. The real crackpot stuff doesn't get rolling for another 1,000 years.

Maybe you're just thin-skinned enough that you need to attack other Christians for their 'weird beliefs'...which would strike most of us a little silly...especially considering how this thread got started.

[kevrob]

Old Jack is wrong about both the spelling and folk etymology of Teetotal. "Tee" is actually the correct first syllable.

I'm leery about electing another non-drinking President. We are told that Bush gave up alcohol. I don't know if it would be possible for his perfomance to degrade further under the influence of strong drink. Jimmy Carter had the pin up, too, and he drove many of his countryman to hit the bottle. I don't expect Churchillian levels of imbibing from a President, but a fellow who could safely toast foreign dignitaries with something stronger than Welch's in his glass would be nice.

Kevin

[Sister Sin]

umm... it's a lie actually. If it's that bizarre why is the LDS still doing it? They still practice celestial polygamy, meaning they are sealed to more than one person (the men not women) so they can populate the planet they get after death. So he is lying through his teeth.

[Madpad]

We are told that Bush gave up alcohol.

Being that Bush is probably one of the most dishonest people to ever serve as president (he'll lie about what color the sky is) I don't buy that Bush doesn't booze. Most of his policies suggest they were formed under the influence.

[Madpad]

That said, I agree with kevrob...non-drinking presidents (recent ones, anyway - Taft wasn't too bad) have been a pain.

[cliff]

You know, I never see advertisements for these "magic Mormon undergarments". Do Mormons hand make them, or do they go to a special store, or can they just buy a box of undergarments and bless them somehow? I heard that they never remove them, even for bathing!?

As an aside, according to the South Park universe, the Mormons are the only religion going to heaven, take that all you other religious fundimentalists.

[ellipsis]

Third, the concept of "no-fault divorce" has given us "serial polygamy" (marriage, divorce, marriage,). I look forward to the explanations how this is better for children or society.

This is a canard that keeps getting repeated to the Nth degree by traditionalists. No-fault divorce became common because of the rise in divorces at a time when you had to have fault to proceed. Creating a fault usually involved adultry or some such, and led to messy asset issues. The people of most states put pressure on their politicians to make things a little more tolerable for all involved, and they did.

No-fault divorce wasn't forced on the people; it was a response to the changing social climate.

[Fenevad]

I heard that they never remove them, even for bathing!?

You heard wrong. End of story.

[Old Jack]

kevrob has shown me up. I was sure I was right.

Now you know where the expression "he don't know jackshit" came from.

[Old Jack]

I heard that they never remove them, even for bathing!?

You heard wrong. End of story.

Uh-huh.

Goddammit people get over it. Mormons really are perfectly normal people.

There is a huge history of "the Saints" in public service and government.

Think Frank Church, Stu and Mo Udall, not to mention Brent Skowcroft.

The Latter Day Saints are an important part of American history and society.

On election day Romney's Mormonism will no more be an issue for me than Obama's blackness.

I am however disturbed by Romney's rejection of polygamy especially in view of the fact that his grandparents were refugees in Mexico escaping from the narrow views of their government.

There is absolutely nothing abnormal about polygamy. It might be icky but then for a lot of folks so is homosexuality.