Political Punch

Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior White House Correspondent Jake Tapper

« Previous | Main | Next »

Romney: Adam and Eve looked slutty

November 10, 2007 6:39 PM

OK, that's not quite what he said, but still...the former Massachusetts Governor (and current Iowa and New Hampshire GOP frontrunner) made an odd joke, it seemed to me, while campaigning in New Hampshire today, reports ABC News' ace cub reporter Matt Stuart (LINK).

At one young couple's house, Romney remarked at the large leaves on their tree, quipping, "Adam and Eve would not have looked as promiscuous if they had had leaves this big."

Huh?

Adam and Eve looked promiscuous?

Adam and Eve were naked. (Before eating from the Tree of Knowledge, that is, after which they became ashamed of their nakedness.)

Does naked = promiscuous?

Asked what he meant, a Romney spokesman told Stuart he meant what he said.

Interesting.

Customarily awful "Dad humor"?  Value voters humor? Is there something in the Book of Mormon that might explain this? (I ask that seriously and sincerely.)

I should point out that Romney was perhaps in a particularly jovial mood Saturday, as Stuart reported in a separate post, talking about the importance of family and referring to "my five sons and their five wives," then joking, "Wait a second. Let me clarify that. They each have one."

-- jt

November 10, 2007 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (117)

User Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Some above said that Mormons do not wear fig leaves in their wedding ceremonies, and asked when was the last time I attended one.

I last attended a Sealing in the Washington DC Temple in early 2003. (I was a Temple worker) And YES, Mormon DO wear Fig Leave Aprons in their wedding ceremonies--along with the other robes of the Priesthood. A devout LDS Mormon is also buried wearing that same fig leaf apron.

The fig leave apron is the first vestment of the Mormon Priesthood that a devout Mormon (Male or female) puts on when going through the LDS Endowment CCeremony.

I am shocked that an LDS Mormon would deny this--or is he?

My questions to him would be: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN INSIDE AN LDS TEMPLE?

Posted by: Rob Lauer | Jan 27, 2008 1:13:33 PM

Bob,

Took you all that time, and that's all you came up with? You have proved my points ENTIRELY. All you can do to answer my points, which were evidenced by scripture, is to make blanket statements you cannot reinforce. There is nothing to back up your claims that "there is no more scripture" and "only two testaments" besides the words your pastor told you. I, on the other hand, drew from the Bible to show that God has never insinuated he would stop speaking to man. In fact, if he did so he would be a changing God, and you and I both know he is not. Go back and read my post again - you gave the exact type of answer that I claimed you would give.

Posted by: Mac Reynolds | Nov 16, 2007 3:25:24 PM

"Scripture is STILL being written."

Actually, it is not.

Nothing that God says today differs from what He has already given in the Word of God which is made up of Two Testaments -- th eOld and the New. There is no newer testament.

"The Book of Mormon is nothing more than it claims to be: another testament of Jesus Christ."

There is no other Gospel.

How many gods are there? Mormons say the God of the Bible is one in a long line of gods. They can't tell you who, where and when the first god arrived.

Posted by: Bob | Nov 14, 2007 7:03:51 PM

It seems that a lot of people here are assuming that [any of the many versions of] the Bible is, uh, "factually accurate". How come ?

Posted by: midvanisle | Nov 14, 2007 8:51:26 AM

Is there any intelligent candidate running for President? This guy is another clown. . .

Posted by: Kevin | Nov 13, 2007 3:47:24 AM

Bob,

You made many, many arguments on this post that I disagree with.For the sake of time, I just want to address one that I found to be especially fallacious.

You said in essence that the Book of Mormon can't be scripture (I define scripture as I imagine you do, as the written text of God communicating with man). Your argument was that it would insinuate that God "missed" something in the old and new testament, and we both know that God doesn't make mistakes.

But where does God tell us that everything he has spoken is included in (take your pick of your favorite version) the Bible as we know it today? Even the Bible itself refutes such a statement. Amos teaches us that God will do NOTHING save he revealeth his secret to his servants, the prophets. Do you think every prophet's writings are included in the Bible? The Bible is the word of God, but you are being presumptious to claim it the "only" word of God. Remember: it was compiled from HUNDREDS of books - a group of men got together and decided which ones were "bible-worthy," and they made the final cut.

I agree that those men were certainly inspired, but that does not even come close to meaning that all of God's words are closed up in the Bible. If God is an unchanging God, the same yesterday, today, and forever, do you think he is no longer a God of miracles? Miracles died when the Bible was published? Do you think God suddenly stopped talking to Man? I don't. It's no wonder that the apostle Paul said "in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (2 Cor. 13:1 I think). Just as Christ witnessed of his Father, and the Holy Ghost witnessed of them both in the hearts of those who hear the word of God, scripture reinforces scripture. The Book of Mormon is another witness that God lives and that the teachings in the Bible are true.

The Book of Mormon is simply a collection of the writings of prophets on another part of the hemisphere. Because they also spoke with God and recorded his words, they further witness that God lives, Christ is His son and our Savior, and that following Him is the only path to eternal happiness.

I don't claim that JUST the Book of Mormon has God's words, just as I don't claim JUST the Bible has his words. God never claimed it either. Please don't use the silly reference to Revelations to say otherwise (John saying that we should not add to or take away from his words). Clearly it would be a sin to change the words of any prophet's words, as they are speaking God's words. This obviously was not referring to the Bible, which was compiled centuries later. If this line was to mean "don't ever call anything after this book scripture," than you can cut everything out of the Bible from Deuteronomy 4 onward (where the same thing was said).

My point is this: Just because your sect of Christianity has determined on its own accord that God cannot or will not communicate with man anymore and that everything God ever said was to a small group of people in the Easter Hemisphere does not make your view the "correct" one. You are basing your argument on flawed logic- you are saying that "because my pastor told me that the Bible is all of God's words, and tradition in my religion says so too, then God must have also said so and everything else is blasphemy."

I, like millions of others, don't believe that the words of the prophets contained in the Bible ever insinuate that the books would later be compiled to be the end all to God's word. He lives, and he still cares about us. He still speaks to us. Scripture is STILL being written. The Book of Mormon is nothing more than it claims to be: another testament of Jesus Christ. Because it comes from the same source as the Bible (God's words to prophets on the earth), you will find no contradictions in the teachings found within it and the Bible. They both emanate from the only real source of truth: God.

As Paul said, if there is anything virtuous, lovely, praiseworthy, or of good report, I seek after those things. Things which testify of Christ fall into that category for me.

Posted by: Mac Reynolds | Nov 13, 2007 3:06:13 AM

James Danley, to correct your misunderstanding: Saddam Hussein *did* comply with the 1991 ceasefire provisions eventually (admittedly at the "last minute", just a few days before the invasion). G. W. Bush invaded anyway. And Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors, too, in case you don't remember. The threats of invasion worked, Hussein backed down and conceded everything -- and then the invasion happened anyway.

Posted by: Anon. | Nov 13, 2007 1:29:43 AM

um, rob lauer, I don't know when you last attended one, but Mormons don't wear fig leaves at their weddings, either in or out of the temple

Posted by: phillygirl64 | Nov 12, 2007 6:43:35 PM

Actually, the male equivolent of a "lady" is a "lord". Let's hope that if it comes to it, Slick Willy will be announced as "First Lord"!

Also, this whole post is stupid. He made a lame joke. NOT NEWS.

Posted by: eliza | Nov 12, 2007 5:22:44 PM

hey ! i've got a crazy idea.. how about if everyone believes in whatever jesus, sun god, or flying spaghetti monster that they want to but they keep it to themselves ? .. and wouldn't it be a great day when we have a presidential candidate to who can comment on the genus of the flora and fauna without dragging some superstitious tale into it ? do we REALLY want a president who believes some old man, sitting on a cloud, is taking care of everything for us ?! it's about time we all grew up.

Posted by: el polacko | Nov 12, 2007 2:37:48 PM

The lady whose all upset about George Bush is on the same band wagon as those who allowed Sept. 11th to happen nutcases, irresponsible and careless.

Posted by: mike | Nov 12, 2007 12:39:36 PM

"The idea that all good christians and mormons think sex is dirty", again is just wrong. How can a gift from god, such as our minds and bodies, ability to procreate and have families be cheap and dirty.

I feel sorry for people who have to post "hohoho" as their username, spineless.

Posted by: Rick Givens | Nov 12, 2007 12:34:38 PM

I disagree with this story. This is nitpicking.

We've got far bigger issues to deal with. Like Congresses 13% approval rating.

Posted by: mark | Nov 12, 2007 12:23:44 PM

All good Christians and Mormons believe the human body is dirty and filthy. Nudity can only mean sex. SEX! SEX!

And these people are in charge.

Posted by: hohoho | Nov 12, 2007 11:15:21 AM

Looking thru all the posts below is very interesting, I commend you Jake.

For those who say this is not news, well your correct, but this is a blog not a Front page new item.

Get over it I know there are libs below that are acting like Republicans or religious, they are obvious, especially the one comparing it to Kerry's speech calling our troops dumb (I presume that is the one he is talking about).

Now as far as Religion and the Constitution, no where in the U.S. constitution does it say Freedom FROM Religion, It says and talking only about the Federal Congress, That congress shall pass no law representative of a religion, This whole separation of Church and state issue is a made up liberal lie.

Now as far as Adam and Eve, you are baptized for forgiveness of original sin!

Those who say the Iraq war is immoral, I guess find it moral for Governments to commit genocide, have sanctioned rape rooms and use chemical weapons!

The same people who say we should not be involved in Iraq because its a so called Civil War (which is stupid in it self, because they do not know what a civil war is then) had no issue with Clinton getting us involved in a true Civil War in Bosnia.

I have gotten to the point that libs are stupid or just plain ignorant. and thats giving the benefit of the doubt.

Oh by the way the devil wants you to forget he exists and forgo God, so he the devil can take over!

Posted by: spock | Nov 12, 2007 11:01:34 AM

Terri Ann, there is nothing illegal about the war. If you are referring to just the War in Iraq, first of all Saddam Hussein shot missiles at several of our planes. At least one of those planes was in Kuwaiti airspace at the time. These attacks ALONE are justification for war. But after 12 years of the UN trying to force Saddam Hussein to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire, it gave its final ultimatum. When it became clear that the UN did not have the will power to follow through on its final ultimatum, President Bush issued his own ultimatum. Since France and Germany had convinced Saddam Hussein that the United States would not invade, he chose not to comply. Unlike the UN, President Bush meant what he said and followed through on his ultimatum. The invasion by an international coalition, therefore, was legal on the grounds that Saddam Hussein refused to compy with the conditions of the original cease fire. We just resumed the original Gulf War.

Now if you are talking about the overall War on Terror, clearly we have the right to attack al Qaeda wherever they are. And since al Qaeda declared Iraq as their primary battlefield, we are more than willing to oblige them in battle in Iraq.

Now as for the war being "deeply immoral," if you adhere to the principle that all wars are immoral, then I will concede you that point. BUT if you allow even the tiniest loophole where a country has the right to defend or protect itself and its national interests, then the war is not only legal but quite moral.

Posted by: James Danley | Nov 12, 2007 9:42:25 AM

Its early so I may get my doctrine less than perfect, but Adam and Even did not even know they were naked until they ate the forbidden fruit. Afterwards, they clothed themselves out of shame and God asked who told them they were naked. Romney's comment, that had they had bigger leaves they would have looked less promiscuous, must refer to how God saw them. Thus, to him nakedness equals promiscuity. This is the same theory behind islamists requiring their women to cover themselves completely.

Posted by: Adair | Nov 12, 2007 8:12:22 AM

"...we are all born without sin..." -- Posted by: saintlymark | Nov 11, 2007 9:59:32 AM

Where does the Word of God say this?

Actually, It says just the opposite.

However, God and I may have missed something.

Perhaps you can straighten us out.

Posted by: Bob | Nov 12, 2007 5:28:02 AM

"Just the type of article I've come to expect from anyone connected with ABC news." -- Posted by: daryl | Nov 11, 2007 10:01:01 AM

If you expect it, why do you continue to read them?

If somebody is twisting your arm, tell them I told you to tell them to stop it.

Posted by: Bob | Nov 12, 2007 5:21:10 AM

"god didn't create people. People created god." -- Posted by: Daniel H. Kroener | Nov 10, 2007 10:42:41 PM

God is the Creator of Mankind.

Men, however, rejecting God, made their cars and money and themselves gods.

Posted by: Bob | Nov 12, 2007 5:17:35 AM

Post a comment





 

POLITICAL VIDEOS