Posted on 07/18/2011 11:11:31 AM PDT by Colofornian
The CNN blog just ran a lengthy interview with Tricia Erickson, who makes a variety of arguments that no believing Mormon should ever be elected President. (Link here; note that in her interview she cites language from the endowment ceremony).
Erickson’s arguments...repeats the old evangelical anti-Mormon reasoning that Mormons are all basically automatons, and suggests that any Mormon politician would have a secret church-promoting agenda. It’s an argument straight out of The Manchurian Candidate (and reminiscent of the anti-Catholic arguments raised against JFK)...But what are the implications of the article’s prominent publication today — what does it say about the current political and religious discourse?
I found it interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it surprised me that CNN would run this sort of thing... Erickson...quotes lines from the temple, which CNN should know will bother church members. The decision to run this anyway suggests that there is still an audience for this kind of thing, which is unfortunate. Her article is interesting not for its content but as an illustration of attitudes which still exist. (Check the comments at CNN, if you dare. Yikes.)
On the flip side, CNN also asked Richard Bushman to weigh in, and he did. In his response, included after her interview, he reasonably points out that Erickson has not given any actual evidence that Romney or any other LDS politician would be a puppet...
(Excerpt) Read more at timesandseasons.org ...
No Mormon has ever been POTUS.
This is like the parallel argument such as…
(a)…“Mormons are generally conservative so what concerns need be made with a Mormon in the White House?”
Sorry, but if same-sex marriage passed in the Bay State on Mitt Romney’s watch;
and since state-run healthcare rode on Romney’s shoulders in that same state…
…let’s not try claiming either the above as conclusive, or that…
(b) “We’re not aware of a Mormon ‘prophet’s’ overreach @ the state or territorial level so what concerns need be raised with a Mormon in the White House?”
[Sorry, Richard Bushman, but we know of REAL overreaches extended by Lds “prophet” Brigham Young when he was territorial governor of Utah…plus REAL overreaches by Mayor Joseph Smith when he sought to destroy First Amendment rights with the destruction of the printing press in Nauvoo, IL]
From the CNN Bushman interview itself – found here: Tricia Erickson: 'An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President': The question is Mitt Romney’s independence. Will he pursue the public good as he rationally understands it, or will he bow to the judgment of Church leaders? Does his religion force him to be a puppet? (Richard Bushman, Mormon scholar)
Why, Richard I have the answer straight from the Mormon “prophets” in the chart I'll include in the next post!
| Lds Leader | Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title) | Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words) | |
| John Taylor | Lds 'Prophet' #3 | “The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto…[so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours…and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862) | |
| Orson Hyde | President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875) | “What the world calls ‘Mormonism’ will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53) | |
| Heber J. Grant | Lds 'Prophet' #7 | "Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984) | |
| Harold B. Lee | Lds 'Prophet' #11 | ...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989) | |
| Spencer Kimball | Lds 'Prophet' #12 | "President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983) | |
| What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father? | Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets') | "Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984) | |
| Ezra Taft Benson | Lds 'Prophet' #13 | Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: “…remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet…” (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #5 | 5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney? Ya hear that Jon Huntsman?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #9 | 9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt? Still listening, Jon?) | |
| Benson (cont'd) | Fundamental #10 | 10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt? What say ye Jon?) | |
| Mitt Romney as POTUS??? | Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do? | The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."] |
What “bothers” Lds church members – that former members like Tricia Erickson are quoting such “sacred oaths” made in private Mormon temples and bringing it out to the public? What did Erickson, the daughter of a Mormon bishop, say in the interview that was so bothersome?
From the CNN Erickson interview: Ex-Mormon Ed Decker reveals the penalty for disobedience that was made by Mitt Romney (and all temple Mormons) at the time he took out his temple endowments: The "execution of the penalty" for disobedience was demonstrated "by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side." He further states: "It is hard to imagine that well-educated Mormon men of such political stature like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada could bring their thumbs to their throats and swear a blood oath that they will 'suffer' their throats slit from ear to ear should they not sacrifice all that (they) possess, even (their) own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God, as defined by the Mormon prophet." I attest to these violent oaths and death signs that were made in the secret temple ceremonies, and more, because I also experienced and enacted the same.
Single issue poster alert.
From the CNN Bushman interview itself – found here: Tricia Erickson: 'An indoctrinated Mormon should never be elected as President': The question is Mitt Romney’s independence. Will he pursue the public good as he rationally understands it, or will he bow to the judgment of Church leaders? Does his religion force him to be a puppet? (Richard Bushman, Mormon scholar)
Bushman dealt with this same issue in an online debate early 2007 re: Romney. The FR article & discussion on this can be found here:
Mitt Romney's Mormonism: A TNR online debate
The original debate can be found here: Mitt Romney's Mormonism: A TNR online debate
One of the claims Bushman made in 2007 re: Romney falls under what I call “When Mormon Leaders Have Talked, the Thinking's Been Done”:
From that 2007 online ‘debate’ Richard Bushman had with Damon Linker: Mitt Romney's insistence that he will follow his own conscience rather than church dictates is not only a personal view; it is church policy. (Richard Bushman, Jan. 3, 2007)
One of the criteria of a cult is thought control -- placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning. Bushman insists that a Mormon POTUS' conscience would not be overriden. Well, here's a sampling from Mormon automaton thought from 1899-->2010!
Circa October 2010:
It's Oct. 24, 2010. Just weeks earlier, the Lds faithful had gathered for one of their two key 'y'all" come meetings in Salt Lake City, which are fed via satellite around the world to Mormons who can't make the trek to SLC. You would have thought that if an earth-shaking announcement needed to be made, it would have been made there. It wasn't. Perhaps too much media glare was on the conference. Therefore, more quietly, Lds leadership sent a world-wide circular letter to all church members. Here's two sources for that:
Source 1: Quit pestering us, church leaders tell membership in letter
Source 2 -- from a Mormon columnist, Robert Kirby: Wrestling with doctrine no match for me
From the first source:
On October 24th, the LDS First Presidency (led by Prophet Thomas S. Monson) wrote several letters that were to be read in Mormon Sunday services around the world. According to examiner.com, the first letter was “likely spurred by Boyd K. Packer’s most recent General Conference talk entitled ‘Cleansing the Inner Vessel.’ Church Headquarters has been receiving an increased amount of correspondence from its members about doctrinal issues. Because of this influx of correspondence, the First Presidency reminded and encouraged LDS church members to utilize their local church authorities – bishops, branch presidents, stake presidents, etc — before resorting to contacting Church Headquarters.” In other words, the Mormon laity was told to quit bothering their church leadership on issues related to doctrine. We can only wonder why the church is apparently receiving so many inquiries.
From the second source (Kirby): With only partial tongue in cheek, Kirby said: "According to the First Presidency’s letter, members with real doctrinal concerns were to seek the counsel of our local leaders — stake president, bishop, Scoutmaster, building custodian, etc."
Why? Well, per Kirby: "The letter...told/counseled rank-and-file Mormons to stop pestering church headquarters for clarification of church doctrine. Apparently some members get so stressed about the finer points of doctrine that they’ll fire off a letter asking for the final word. Church HQ can’t handle the demand...
There ya go. Just as the Wall Street Journal writer said: "placing sharp limits on doctrinal questioning" [Many an Lds historian has commented on this as well...do your own Google search with the words "faith promoting" in quotations...add the words "historian" and "Lds" to the search for better specific results]
Circa 2004:
”We discourage using sources that have not been approved by Church Correlation or the Brethren” (David B. Marsh, Church Curriculum Department, “Approved resources aid Book of Mormon study,” Church News Jan. 3 2004, p. 14)
Ah, that Lds hierarchical automaton bottleneck!
Circa 2000:
Mormon writer Orson Scott Card pens an article entitled Hey, Who are You Calling a Cult?
Ah, such irony! Card writes in the piece: What do they [cults] have in common?...AUTOMATONSs. The members are discouraged from thinking for themselves, and, insofar as possible, are turned into unquestioning "obedience machines."...Far from being robots, most of us Mormons are, by inclination and by doctrine, determined to make up our own minds about everything.
How funny! Keep reading the following comments, and then tell us if "Mormons are...by doctrine, determined to make up our minds about everything?"
Circa 1999:
”…in the Lord’s Church there is no such thing as a ‘loyal opposition.’ One is either for the kingdom of God and stands in defense of God’s prophets and apostles, or one stands opposed” (Lds “apostle” M. Russell Ballard, “Beware of False Prophets and False Teachers,” Ensign – Conference Ed., Nov. 1999 p 64)
[No disagreement tolerated. You cannot speak vs. a Mormon leader…you must, robot-like, be in 100% conformity!!! Elsewise you are deemed “disloyal”]
Circa 1984:
“No true Latter-day Saint will ever take a stand that is in opposition to what the Lord has revealed to those who direct the affairs of his earthly kingdom. No Latter-day Saint who is true and faithful in all things will ever pursue a course, or espouse a cause, or publish an article or book that weakens or destroys faith.” (Lds "apostle" Bruce R. McConkie, Conference Report, October 1984, p. 104)
Ah, such "fragile faith" -- IF EVERY single article or book content needs to go through a legalistic filter of how it's going to potentially effect the end-user -- the reader -- re: if it might be perceived as "weakening" a challenged faith!!!
Circa 1979:
"I would like to tell you something about the way the Church operates from headquarters. We often hear the Church referred to as a democracy, when in reality, instead of being a church where the body is governed by officers elected by the members, the Church is a THEOCRACY..." (First President Lds N. Eldon Tanner, "The Administration of the Church," Ensign (Conference edition) Nov. 1979 p. 42
Well, that makes ya wonder who would occasionally call ultimate shots if a Mormon was in the White House, doesn't it?
Circa 1978-1979:
“Recently, at the Churchwide fireside meeting held for the women of the Church, Young Women President Elaine Cannon made the following statement: ‘When the Prophet speaks…the debate is over (Ensign, Nov.1978, p. 108). I was impressed by that simple statement, which carries such deep spiritual meaning for all of us. Wherever I go, my message to the people is: Follow the Prophet” {First President N. Eldon Tanner, “The Debate is Over,” Ensign, August 1979 p. 2)
For the true Christian, wherever we go, we say, “Follow the Lord Jesus Christ as a disciple of Him” -- not a mere Salt-Lake City-based man [who MUST reside in the Salt Lake City area!]. Our message is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, how He came to earth as an ever-living God-man – the ONLY SON of God who bodes no pre-existent brother rivals, died for our personal sins, and was raised to the same glory He shared with the Father before all was (John 17:5).
Circa 1963:
"'The holy Priesthood is a system of laws and government that is pure and holy;...' (JD7:202) - 'a perfect law of THEOCRACY.' (Joseph Smith's Teachings, p. 322)" (As cited by William J. Critchlow, Jr. Assistant to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Conference Reports October 1963, p. 28)
Circa 1960, citing an earlier Lds time as well:
"President Heber J. Grant once said, 'Always keep your eye on the President of the church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, even if it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it…” (quoted by First President Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78).
Circa 1945: "He [Lucifer] wins a great victory when he can get members of the Church to speak against the leaders and do 'their own thinking.' He specializes in suggesting that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he beguiles. What cunning! And to think that some of our members are deceived by this trickery...WHEN OUR LEADERS SPEAK, THE THINKING HAS BEEN DONE. (Spoken @ a convention of Lds teachers: Ward Teachers Message, Improvement Era, June 1945 p. 354)
Circa 1900: "We sustain President Lorenzo Snow as the mouthpiece of God. Therefore, when he has anything to say to us as the mind and will of the Lord, it is just as binding upon us as if God spake personally to us” (Abraham O. Woodruff, Conference Reports, April 1899 p. 7)
[Ah, forced feeding like little children]
From the 2007 debate: ...its scriptural and doctrinal traditions are fluid and radically open to revision in light of new prophetic revelations. (Damon Linker, Jan. 4 2007 response to Bushman)
From the 2007 debate: Could all this be overthrown by a new revelation? You think that revelation wipes the slate clean, negating everything that went before. But that is not the way prophetic revelation works, now or ever...prophets...work outward from the words of previous prophets, reinterpreting past prophecy for the present. That was certainly true for Joseph Smith, whose most extreme revelation--plural marriage--was based on plural marriage in the Bible (Richard Bushman, Jan 5 2007 response to Linker)
Bushman is either somehow oblivious to the changes below, or, more likely, more lying for the Lord.
* Polygamy change 1831 -- 'cause polygamy in the Book of Mormon was an abomination...something Bushman ignored; he also ignored the warnings vs. entering into polygamy in Deut. 17:17; it was NOT sanctioned by God; polygamy was changed again in 1890;
* Skin color changes for priesthood, 1978
First they came for the Mormons but I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Mormon....
Just wait until they next decide to go after Christians with the same picking and choosing of quotes and spinning beliefs and traditions to look “bizarro”.
What do mean..."just wait"?
That's been happening for hundreds of years now.....
Give a couple examples of "spinning" of mormon beliefs.
Thanks!
DELIA GALLAGHER, CNN: I'm interested in a clarification on the teaching authority, if we can say that, versus kind of revelation. If you shy away from the philosophical or rational kind of development, what is the teaching authority then based on? Is it personal revelation to the prophets, or just how does it work in general, say, in regard to an issue like contraception or abortion or so on, and then how is that binding on individual Mormons or on Mormon politicians? I think you said earlier that they don't have to follow one thing or the other in the Mormon Church.
Part of Bushman’s response included was this: "There is great respect. The leaders are followed; they are honored. People wouldn't try to contradict them, but 'binding' isn't a word Mormons use. We talk about the 'counsel' of the brethren. This is what we advise you to do, and this has great weight, but it isn't like it straps down your conscience."
Source: Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible? (May 14, 2007) – for transcript see: Mormonism and Democratic Politics: Are They Compatible?
Indeed…as Bushman is on record saying, Mormon “people wouldn’t try to contradict” their leaders imposing things upon them…’cause when they “advise you…this has great weight…” [From the mouth of even their own highly proclaimed "scholars"]
The leftists already are doing this with Michele Bachmann.
Either way, though, there is no reason not to consider Mormanism itself in deciding whether to support a candidate who is Mormon.
I see in no place within the article or discussion so far that ANYONE is coming for the mormons (contrary to what some mormons have squeeled about special gov't camps being set up for them. . . ). Care to point any out? (crickets)
Care to provide factual information that is contrary to the opinions expressed by mormon apostles and prophets in their official publication - the Ensign. Care to provide factual, mormon doctrinal evidence that beliefs and traditions are being spun.
Or are you unable to present a meaningful presentation of facts absent pitiful bleatings.
The president is a role model, a mormon makes a poor role model.
That a mormon is expected to be subject to the mormon prophet is also a reason not to vote for them.
#1...Please note that the headline was written by MORMONS (times and seasons.org is a Mormon Web site). And the Mormons there were on the attack vs. those who oppose MormonISM -- the Mormons were calling them "bizarro."
Just wanted to clarify who was using that term on whom.
#2 here you quote a Lutheran pastor (Martin Niemoller) as if it's somehow some reason we should all be defending Mormons.
I don't think you can use Niemoller -- Lutheran leader who opposed Nazism -- as such a springboard when the Mormons have called Niemoller an "apostate" leader who was "corrupt" [see general reference, Joseph Smith History, vv. 18-19, Pearl of Great Price + countless Mormon references to the Protestant church]
Interesting, tho: here we have Mormons attacking others as "bizarro" -- and yet no word of rebuke from your keyboard for that?
Besides, the key to quoting Martin Niemoller, who opposed Nazi-ism, is knowing when to apply this. Otherwise, what you get is:
"When the Law enforcement folks came for the Planned Parenthood counselors who were telling clients how to get around rape & incest laws,
I remained silent;
I was not trying to protect a racist or incest perp.
When they locked up the educators who slept with local students;
I remained silent;
For I was not an abusive educator
When they came for the fundamentalist Mormon polygamists marrying underage girls in mock marriage ceremonies;
I remained silent;
I wasn’t a fundamentalist Mormon polygamist.
When they came for the abusive Roman Catholic priests I did not speak out;
For I was not such a priest
When they came for me, there was no more pedophiles left to speak out."
But go ahead, mnehring. Keep defending Joseph-Smith-who-bedded-14-yo-teens-when-he-was-already-wedded...and married 11-already-wedded-women.
Given the fact that Mittens Rommney will not be elected, his faith is of theological interest only.
Lots of interesting issues in LDS theology/history, though.
So you missed the first line where CNN runs a story implying that a religious test be added to holding political office and it should disqualify Mormons because they are 'bizzaro'? Typical CNN garbage just like, as another poster brought up, like the MSMs going after Bachmann's faith and some of her 'bizzaro' beliefs. My comment was somewhat tongue in cheek but it is just like the Liberal Media (in this case CNN) to pick and choose quotes and beliefs of a religion to make it appear 'bizarro'. As I've stated many times, all religions appear weird from the outside. Are we going to stand against these liberal MSM attacks or just go along with it because it doesn't happen to be 'our' religion?
Funny you take it so personally- as I stated in 16, I was referring to the liberal media’s (specifically CNN as cited by this article) actions.
Just wait until they next decide to go after Christians with the same picking and choosing of quotes and spinning beliefs and traditions to look “bizarro”.
- - — -
What do you mean ‘just wait’? They already do!
However, the comments about the Mormons are accurate representations of Mormon belief, no quote mining, out of context or spinning of beliefs necessary.
They save that for the Evangelicals.
that was tongue in cheek- see 16
Not handing a Mormon the Presidency, even thought it’s “his turn” is not exactly the same as “coming” for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.