Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Sa...

Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Same-Sex Attraction'

There are 432 comments on the GPB.org story from Dec 6, 2012, titled Mormon Church Launches Website On 'Same-Sex Attraction'. In it, GPB.org reports that:

The Mormon Church has a new website to clarify its position on "same-sex attraction" and to reach out to all of its members, including gays and lesbians, "with love and understanding." The launching of mormonsandgays.org follows persistent criticism of Mormon involvement in California's ballot measure banning gay marriage, NPR's Howard Berkes ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at GPB.org.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#405 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Remember this one you pasted in the past?
"It appears that the Prophet's involvement with plural marriage in Kirtland, Ohio in 1835-1836 drove a wedge between him and Oliver. In her exposé, Wife No. 19, Ann Eliza Webb Young wrote:
Mrs. Smith had an adopted daughter, a very pretty, pleasing young girl, about seventeen years old. She was extremely fond of her; no own mother could be more devoted, and their affection for each other was a constant object of remark, so absorbing and genuine did it seem. Consequently it was with a shocked surprise that the people heard that sister Emma had turned Fanny out of the house in the night…By degrees it became whispered about that Joseph’s love for his adopted daughter was by no means a paternal affection, and his wife discovering the fact, at once took measures to place the girl beyond his reach…the storm became so furious, that Joseph was obliged to send, at midnight, for Oliver Cowdery, his scribe, to come and endeavor to settle matters between them... Emma refused decidedly to allow her to remain in her house; but after some consultation, my mother offered to take her until she could be sent to her relatives. Although her parents were living, they considered it the highest honor to have their daughter adopted into the Prophet’s family, and her mother [Clarissa Hancock Alger] has always claimed that she was sealed to Joseph at that time."
........
Speaking of polygamy, did you know this of the author of that statement? Fanny left the Smith's in 1836. She was born in 1844. She didn't write this till more than 20 years later. And you believe that statement to be as true and accurate as God's own words. And you wonder why I call you your own fool at times? Eh?
"The accuracy of this account is unknown. The author, Ann Eliza, was born in 1844 so should could not be reporting the events from a firsthand knowledge."
So?, no doubt she got this story from her mother. Luke never met Jesus either, yet his gospel is considered the most accurate of all the gospels. And it was certainly written more than 20 years after the resurrection. You didn't think people can remember events? You don't think these stories about Smith didn't get repeated, told again, and again? Pathetic.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#406 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...you haven't read the minutes of the temple lot case you liar. But if you'll supply the link you went to to read that case I'd like to go there and read where you claim he didn't believe them.
But you lied. So you won't supply me a link to the minutes of the temple lot case.
The Utah LDS side was basing ownership rights through the polygamous marriages they claimed Smith had, with two exclusive women that would have received land owner ship rights with his death.
Thus it was up to them to prove polygamous marriages had been fully consummated with those women to show legal land ownership rights. The judge didn't find the evidence was sufficient to prove Joseph Smith had polygamous marriages with either woman. The judge ruled in the RLDS favour.
The judge had found no evidence to support Smith had been in polygamous marriages with those two women. Do you understand that? The Utah LDS side had presented what they thought was overwhelming evidence to prove Smith had these two women as polygamous wives. The most evidence they had to show Smith had been in polygamous marriages was with these two women. It is why the church used them for evidence.
BUT THE JUDGE, A NON-MORMON JUDGE FOUND NO EVIDENCE OF ALL THAT WAS BROUGHT TO HIM, TO SHOW BEYOND A DOUBT THAT SMITH HAD BEEN IN A POLYGAMOUS MARRIAGE WITH EITHER WOMAN.
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE. A NON-MORMON JUDGE DIDN'T BELIEVE WHAT YOU DO AND HE SAW MORE POSSIBLE EVIDENCE FOR THE SUPPOSED POLYGAMOUS THAN YOU KNOW EXISTS.
In the judges response, he said:

It is charged by the Respondents, as an echo of the Utah Church,that Joseph Smith, "the Martyr," secretly taught and practiced polygamy; and the
Utah contingent furnishes the evidence, and two of the women, to prove this fact. It perhaps would be uncharitable to say of these women that they have
borne false testimony as to their connection with Joseph Smith; but, in view of all the evidence and circumstances surrounding the alleged intercourse, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that at most they were but sports in "nest hiding." In view of the contention of the Salt Lake party, that polygamy obtained at Nauvoo as early as 1841, it must be a little embarrassing to President Woodruff of that organization when he is confronted, as he was in the evidence in this case, with a published card in
the church organ at Nauvoo in October, 1843, certifying that he knew of no other rule or system of marriage than the one published in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and that the "secret wife system," charged against the church, was a creature of invention by one Dr. Bennett, and that they knew of no such society. That certificate was signed by the leading members of the church, including John Taylor, the former President of the Utah Church.(He didn't believe the leaders of the LDS church because they got caught in their own lies published earlier by the church. There is no one who doubts that it was Joseph Smith who brought polygamy to Mormonism today. They shot themselves in the foot with their own lies-Dana)

And a similar certificate was published by the Ladies' Relief Society of the same place, signed by Emma Smith, wife of Joseph Smith, and Phoebe
Woodruff, wife of the present President Woodruff. No such marriage ever occurred under the rules of the church, and no offspring came from the imputed illicit intercourse, although Joseph Smith was in the full vigor of young manhood, and his wife, Emma, was giving birth to healthy children in regular order, and was enciente at the time of Joseph's death.(More evidence that wasn't presented to the judge is that there were woman who said their children were the children of Joseph Smith. The church lawyers failed again.-Dana)

To be continued...

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#407 Jan 10, 2013
But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young.(Again, we know that was lie, and the records show it-Dana)

I lied? You could find this yourself? Poor baby: restorationbookstore.org/blog/TLCtestimonies....

It took me almost 30 seconds to find it.LOL!!!

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#408 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, him and Smith were keeping it secret, lying to everyone. That is what criminals do.
If lying is what criminals do, you have defined yourself a criminal in some of your statements concerning Mormons, Smith, me and others in these very threads. Now what?

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#409 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That is because if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. The Mormon church when to great efforts to prove the marriages were real marriages, even being consummated. I believe what the LDS church said. Especially the people who where there.
<quoted text>
Good for them. Some people believe in Santa Claus. There are people who claimed that the Nazi's didn't exterminate Jews either. Truth isn't an opinion poll.
Here's a duck fact for you. As of to date, there is not a single solitary factual piece of evidence that proves Smith had sexual relations with anyone but Emma.
Here's a duck fact for you. As of to date, there are multiple sources of "he said she said" that state and insinuate Smith had sexual relations with females other than Emma.
Here's a duck fact for you. Of all the "supposed" wives Smith married, not a single one has been proven to have had a child by him.
Here's a duck fact for you. Of the thirty plus "supposed" wives Smith was supposedly having sex with in a three year period, not a single one has been proven to of had a child by him.
Here's a duck fact for you. Of the thirty "supposed" wives he had, many remarried and more than a year later in most cases, began to have one or more children with their second marriages.
Here's a duck fact for you. You hate/detest duck facts that lean against how you want things to be for how you want to think.
Here's a duck fact for you. You rely mostly on rumours and second hand information to make a claim that can't be validated of Smith.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#410 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
So?, no doubt she got this story from her mother. Luke never met Jesus either, yet his gospel is considered the most accurate of all the gospels. And it was certainly written more than 20 years after the resurrection. You didn't think people can remember events? You don't think these stories about Smith didn't get repeated, told again, and again? Pathetic.
Talk about pathetic...lol. You run and grab the first piece of anti-Mormon what ever and claim not only is it true and factual, but you than insinuate it's as true as if God said it himself! That's fricking pathetic! And worse than pathetic, is the pathetic fact you never ever research the back ground of the information you grab onto to use to prove Smith is this and that!
Read the following of your girl Fanny you claimed made such true and factual statements...
"Ann Eliza Webb Young as an Accuser

In 1876, Ann Eliza Webb Young published Wife No. 19: Or, The Story of a Life in Bondage (Hartford Conn.: Dustin, Gilman and Co.), which contains several allegations against Joseph Smith.
Born in 1844, Ann Eliza had no personal knowledge of Nauvoo plural marriage. Her qualifications as a polygamy insider are derived from two sources. First, her parents were devout Church members in Kirtland, Ohio and later in Nauvoo. Reportedly, Fanny Alger went to live with the Webb family after being cast out of the Smith home in 1836.[1#fn01] Second, Ann Eliza Webb became a plural wife of Brigham Young and would have had some association with his other plural wives who had also been married to the Prophet. However, she lived in her own home, so such interactions would have been significantly less than had she had lived at the Lion House.
Evaluation of Ann Eliza's claims concerning Joseph Smith supports that she sensationalized many aspects of plural marriage in her exposé. Many of her claims contain implausible accusations.
In 1887 Zina Huntington, plural wife of both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, referred to Ann Eliza’s claims stating flatly:“She was not truthful… she has convicted herself out of her own mouth… Ann Eliza knew she was misrepresenting the facts…[2]
In 1881, Ann Eliza manifested deep anti-Mormon sentiments. As she toured the East speaking against plural marriage, an article in the July 1881 Anti-Polygamy Standard wrote:“Mrs. Young is a power against polygamy… She has aroused this city [Polo, Illinois] to a unit against polygamy.”[3]
Whatever claims she made, they would be at least secondhand, late, and antagonistic."
Try the following link. They supply both pro and con information for one to read and consider before making a judgement.
http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/index.htm...

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#411 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
But if it were conceded that Joseph Smith, and Hyrum, his brother, did secretly practice concubinage, is the church to be charged with those liaisons, and the doctrine of polygamy to be predicated thereon of the church? If so, I suspect the doctrine of polygamy might be imputed to many of the Gentile churches. Certainly it was never promulgated, taught, nor recognized, as a doctrine of the church prior to the assumption of Brigham Young.(Again, we know that was lie, and the records show it-Dana)
I lied? You could find this yourself? Poor baby: restorationbookstore.org/blog/TLCtestimonies....
It took me almost 30 seconds to find it.LOL!!!
Yes you did lie. you were pasting statements without viewing the source. You pasted the judge's statement AFTER I called you a liar. I was asking you for the judge's words a few times way before that.
Pat

Pekin, IL

#412 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If lying is what criminals do, you have defined yourself a criminal in some of your statements concerning Mormons, Smith, me and others in these very threads. Now what?
You're obviously dealing with someone who is mentally ill. It's a person deeply guilty attacking others to try to heal that. It's a sickness that you can't heal.

Maybe drop it?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#413 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes you did lie. you were pasting statements without viewing the source. You pasted the judge's statement AFTER I called you a liar. I was asking you for the judge's words a few times way before that.
I don't recall that request. But I ask you why you couldn't find it yourself when I was able to do so after just one search. Your inability to find the source isn't a lie on my part.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#414 Jan 10, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>You're obviously dealing with someone who is mentally ill. It's a person deeply guilty attacking others to try to heal that. It's a sickness that you can't heal.
Maybe drop it?
Someone who can't figure out his true name and thinks he is multiple personalities is mentally ill, eh, CALEB, MAX, REED, PAT, DAVID MOORE?

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#415 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about pathetic...lol. You run and grab the first piece of anti-Mormon what ever and claim not only is it true and factual, but you than insinuate it's as true as if God said it himself! That's fricking pathetic! And worse than pathetic, is the pathetic fact you never ever research the back ground of the information you grab onto to use to prove Smith is this and that!
Read the following of your girl Fanny you claimed made such true and factual statements...
Try the following link. They supply both pro and con information for one to read and consider before making a judgement.
http://www.josephsmithspolygamy.com/index.htm...
I deleted some of your original post to make room to respond.

None of what that statement says proves her claims wrong, but actually show her connection to the sources. You proven nothing. However here are some other statements from the same link you have given I found interesting:

"That sexual relations were uncommon is also reflected by the observation that only two or three pregnancies have been mentioned and only one or two that have been documented with any degree of reliability."

That isn't something you would say to prove that Smith didn't have sex with his wives. That is proof he did. The author of this site is admitting he did have sex with some of his wives, something you claim he didn't.

Ebenezer [Robinson]’s wife,[Angeline], had some time before this had watched Brother Joseph the prophet and had seen him go into some house and that she had reported to Sister Emma, the wife of the prophet. It was at a time when she was very suspicious and jealous of him for fear he would get another wife, for she knew the prophet had a revelation on that subject. She (Emma) was determined he should not get another, if he did she was determined to leave and when she heard this, she, Emma, became very angry and said she would leave...(Oliver Preston Robinson ed., History of Joseph Lee Robinson, History Comes Home, 2007, 54.)

That isn't the actions of a woman who's husband isn't cheating. She knew her husband well, and she knew what he was doing with those women. Proof he was a sexual predator. Take that statement along with what happened when Emma was presented with D&C 132. Those are the actions of a woman who is being cheated on and isn't buying his BS about them being revelations from God.

"It appears that reliable firsthand accounts in four cases and credible secondhand accounts in another five relationships are available. Thus, evidence for probable sexual relations is identified in nine plural marriages."

Another admission he did have sex with his other wives, despite your claims.

Thanks for the link!

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#416 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a duck fact for you. As of to date, there is not a single solitary factual piece of evidence that proves Smith had sexual relations with anyone but Emma.
Here's a duck fact for you. As of to date, there are multiple sources of "he said she said" that state and insinuate Smith had sexual relations with females other than Emma.
Here's a duck fact for you. Of all the "supposed" wives Smith married, not a single one has been proven to have had a child by him.
Here's a duck fact for you. Of the thirty plus "supposed" wives Smith was supposedly having sex with in a three year period, not a single one has been proven to of had a child by him.
Here's a duck fact for you. Of the thirty "supposed" wives he had, many remarried and more than a year later in most cases, began to have one or more children with their second marriages.
Here's a duck fact for you. You hate/detest duck facts that lean against how you want things to be for how you want to think.
Here's a duck fact for you. You rely mostly on rumours and second hand information to make a claim that can't be validated of Smith.
And another duck fact for you is that you just refuse to see the facts. That is your problem, not mine. Common sense about this topic is fact, your refusal to accept it is not.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#417 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
If lying is what criminals do, you have defined yourself a criminal in some of your statements concerning Mormons, Smith, me and others in these very threads. Now what?
Then have me arrested. But, my statements have been on the money, and I have cheated no one. I haven't make a penny. I haven't started a church. I have only been a messenger of truth. You are defending a belief system that doesn't want you, and kicked you out after only a few months by your admission. So your life is hardly a reflection of honest living. I, on the other hand, was an honest member of that faith until I lost faith in it's teachings and requested to have my name removed.

Since: Oct 08

Location hidden

#418 Jan 10, 2013
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>You're obviously dealing with someone who is mentally ill. It's a person deeply guilty attacking others to try to heal that. It's a sickness that you can't heal.

Maybe drop it?
Aww, I knew u two would hit it off..

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#419 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
I deleted some of your original post to make room to respond.
None of what that statement says proves her claims wrong, but actually show her connection to the sources. You proven nothing. However here are some other statements from the same link you have given I found interesting:
Another admission he did have sex with his other wives, despite your claims.
Thanks for the link!
Umm not. Smith made no admission to having sex with other wives. Here's some of that first hand information...lol...

Q. Do you know whether Joseph Smith ever lived any with Louisa Beaman as his wife?...
A. I know it for I saw him in bed with her…
Q. What made you say the other day that Joseph Smith and that woman you sealed to him slept together that night?
A. Because they did sleep together.
Q. If you were not there that night, how do you know they slept together?
A. Well, they slept together I know. If it was not that night it was two or three nights after that.
...
First she states she saw Smith in bed with Beaman.
Than she reveals she lied seeing them in bed by stating she wasn't there to see them in bed. She discredits herself by lying.
...
Q. Now you say that he did sleep with her?
A. I do.
Q. How do you know he did?
A. Well I was there.
Q. And you saw them go to bed together?
A. I gave him counsel.
Q. What counsel did you give him?
A. I said “blow out the light and get into bed, and you will be safer there,” and he took my advice or counsel…
Q. Well did you stay there until the lights were blown out?
A. No sir I did not stay until they blowed out the lights then.
Q. Well you did not see him get into bed with her that time?
A. No sir.
Q. And so you don’t know whether he followed your advice from your own knowledge?
A. No sir, I did not see him, but he told me he did.
Q. Well, you know from your own knowledge that he did?
A. Well, I am confident he did.
Q. But you don’t know it of your own knowledge from seeing him do it?
A. No sir, for I was not there.
....
That is the kind of conflicting testimony that takes place when a mind tries to remember things that happened over 50 years to the past.
She was there and saw them in bed. She than said she wasn't there admitting she lied and for what reason?
She said she was there to see them going into the room to get into bed. She then admitted she lied and wasn't there to see either thing happen.
And you want me to believe her like you do, that in spite of her out right lies and contradictory statements, that what she said of seeing Smith in bed with Beaman is true? Even though she admitted she lied?
lol...and this is one of your FIRST HAND EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS you claim is true? What ever... lol.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#420 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
And another duck fact for you is that you just refuse to see the facts. That is your problem, not mine. Common sense about this topic is fact, your refusal to accept it is not.
Umm not. I accept the theories from both sides. You don't.
I believe there is no actual evidence to prove Smith had sexual relations because there is no actual evidence beyond "hearsay".
I believe it is possible that Smith may have had sexual relations with one or more wives. But I know there are no facts to prove it.
I believe one or more wives could be telling the truth but without Smith corroborating what they claim, what they say remains hearsay and unproven.
You believe Smith had sex with all his wives and you base your opinion on the hearsay opinions of others memories that have issues.
You believe Smith had all sorts of kids but none exist.
You believe hearsay as factual evidence and it's not.
First hand accounts have issues and it matters not to you.
You grasp at hearsay and claim it's fact. That is your well established fact.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#421 Jan 10, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
Then have me arrested. But, my statements have been on the money, and I have cheated no one. I haven't make a penny. I haven't started a church. I have only been a messenger of truth. You are defending a belief system that doesn't want you, and kicked you out after only a few months by your admission. So your life is hardly a reflection of honest living. I, on the other hand, was an honest member of that faith until I lost faith in it's teachings and requested to have my name removed.
You stated the criminal aspect by mentioning lying. So go have yourself arrested if you feel the need.
You didn't start a church, that's correct. At least that was an honest truth.
And a proven liar represents no actual truth. Neither does a person of truth blemish their lips scarlet with filthy, nasty, degrading words for others. Neither does a person of truth judge someone else and then goes out to convince others what they say of that person is God's own truth.
You are a messenger of your own opinions. Nothing more.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#422 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm not. I accept the theories from both sides. You don't.
I believe there is no actual evidence to prove Smith had sexual relations because there is no actual evidence beyond "hearsay".
I believe it is possible that Smith may have had sexual relations with one or more wives. But I know there are no facts to prove it.
I believe one or more wives could be telling the truth but without Smith corroborating what they claim, what they say remains hearsay and unproven.
You believe Smith had sex with all his wives and you base your opinion on the hearsay opinions of others memories that have issues.
You believe Smith had all sorts of kids but none exist.
You believe hearsay as factual evidence and it's not.
First hand accounts have issues and it matters not to you.
You grasp at hearsay and claim it's fact. That is your well established fact.
And I use my common sense. Emma wasn't worried about him shaking their hands. Her actions alone, prove what he was up to. Take into account he didn't have to "revelation" to marry any of them until their husbands where hundreds of mile away, and the pathetic excuse of an angel threatening him with flaming swords if he didn't marry them(Just how ignorant is that?) and you have the portrait of a sexual pervert, and a pig.

And "People don't marry to not have sex." Still waiting for what holy principle allows one man to marry another man's wife, even though it is clearly against even the Ten Commandments.

He screwed them, plain and simple.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#423 Jan 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You stated the criminal aspect by mentioning lying. So go have yourself arrested if you feel the need.
I will when I have lied. You inability to accept facts isn't a lie on my part.
You didn't start a church, that's correct. At least that was an honest truth. And a proven liar represents no actual truth. Neither does a person of truth blemish their lips scarlet with filthy, nasty, degrading words for others.
Do you consider Jesus not to be a person of truth? Read Matt 23 starting around verse 13 and see what Jesus calls the Pharisees. Calling evil, evil is not a sin, or wrong. You just don't like it. Again, that is your problem, not mine, and it isn't a sin.
Neither does a person of truth judge someone else and then goes out to convince others what they say of that person is God's own truth.
You are a messenger of your own opinions. Nothing more.
Then you have just called every mission in the Mormon church a liar. Because they have judged Joseph Smith to be a prophet and are spending their time and money is to tell other that him being a prophet is "God's own truth".

Don't be a hypocrite. You sure have a passion for a church that says you are not even worthy enough to pay them your tithe. When the Mormon church thinks so little of you that it won't even take your money, that's low. Hell, they take money off porn, and gambling.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#424 Jan 13, 2013
Dana Robertson wrote:
He screwed them, plain and simple.
You have no proof. You have weak circumstantial evidence and a whole lot of hearsay. You have no proof. You're not even Christian enough to admit your evidence is what it is weak and rumours. You have no eye witnesses. You have no children. You have nothing that a court would establish as evidence.
One of your "eye witnesses" is an out right liar. And you claim what she says is God's honest truth. Yet court recordings show she out right lied. A liar. Your liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mitt Romney Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GOP establishment plans Trump takedown (Aug '15) Sat Trump is a joke 756
News Romney kicks off Senate bid in Utah Fri SirPrize 8
News Santorum, Gingrich tote Etch A Sketch toys (Mar '12) Feb 16 Dementia poppers 40
News Romney announces US Senate run Feb 16 anonymous 1
News Former Republican presidential candidate Mitt R... Feb 16 anonymous 9
News GOP at war with itself (Mar '16) Feb 15 SafeEd 4,282
News The Latest: Romney delays announcement after sc... Feb 14 YouDidntBuildThat 1
More from around the web