Posted on 01/08/2008 8:16:22 AM PST by jdm
Bloggers had speculated on the actual subject of a series of e-mails from a publicist breathlessly informing us of a "Swift-boating" on a major presidential candidate, complete with documentation and hard evidence. Some thought it might target Hillary Clinton, some John Edwards, but the plurality went with Mitt Romney -- and that turned out to be the correct answer. Revelation Press apparently wants to conduct the Klan's 1928 anti-Catholic campaign against Al Smith, updated for eight decades later, at least according to the e-mail I received:
"Should Romney become U.S. President," Moody explained, "his oaths create an inevitable conflict of interest. Just as an Army private is not free to question his General's orders &-- and does so only at the risk of a dishonorable discharge -- Mormons such as Mitt Romney question their Living Prophet's revelations and edicts only at risk of excommunication. This penalty is unthinkable to any faithful Mormon -- and in Romney's December 6th speech, he swore to remain faithful to his religion.
"As Noah Feldman pointed out," Moody pointed out, "since the days of founding Prophet Joseph Smith, Mormons have held their secrets close -- including their 'White Horse Prophecy:' one day a Mormon leader will literally ride in to save the U.S. Constitution -- and to transform America into the base for the institution of a world-wide Mormon theocracy. Since his college days, when I was Mitt's fraternity brother at Brigham Young University," Moody said, "Mitt's made it clear to his intimates that he was pre-ordained to fulfill this prophecy, to become the Mormon President who would save our Constitution and transform America as Joseph Smith prophesied.
We've seen this crap before, especially those Roman Catholics among us. As I noted above, it played right out of the Ku Klux Klan's playbook in the 1928 presidential election, and even came up during John Kennedy's campaign in 1960. The argument goes that a man who professes allegiance to a church, especially one with a hierarchy, cannot "serve two masters" and therefore cannot serve the Constitution. America heard a lot of nonsense about Papal infallibility and how the Pope cannot be defied on any matter -- all of which was nonsense then, and is still today.
I had to laugh at this press release, though, as it is so badly written. Take for example this passage: "As Noah Feldman pointed out," Moody pointed out, ... That's a lot of pointing in a short space of time. Did someone lose their Roget's Thesaurus, or can we presume that this is indicative of the literary quality of Revelation's stable of authors?
For the record, Mormons, Catholics, and Anglicans have no trouble separating the spiritual from the temporal. If Noah Feldmans' hypothesis was true, then we couldn't be trusted in the military, either. Who knows when the Pope or the Mormon's leader would issue contravening orders, preferably through secret handshakes or subliminal broadcast from the Temple? We also couldn't be trusted as governors -- never mind Mitt's failure to turn Massachusetts into East Utah, or his father's failure to convert Michigan residents into good Mormons.
Catholic and Mormon politicians have given this nation splendid public service, and given no hint of disloyalty or even confused priorities between their public responsibilities and their religious beliefs. People like Feldman want to create the kinds of sectarian animosities that have riven other democracies. They should be rejected, and then aggressively ignored.
The point is that it was the Huckster who started the hysteria. He's already turned off Mormons (small voting block, but very conservative) with his blatant religious bigotry. Catholics, Jews and other "unorthodox" Christians won't be far behind. That includes a lot of conservative Baptists who understand what he did in siding with the politically correct wing of the church.
He's turned off me, an economic conservative, with his Club for Growth = Club for Greed rhetoric. He's rapidly wearing out his welcome with the people who produce wealth due to his cozy relationship to the global warming crowd.
While I appreciate it that he is pro-life and pro-gun (yes, I'm a social conservative too), this is not enough to overcome the fact that he is partners with McCain and Guilani in pushing a racist colonization of America.
I don't see much of a base for electability among populists who hate Mormons, view Catholics as second-class Christians, think we should subsidize Mexicanization of America as atonement for slavery, have little grasp of foreign affairs and buy into the global warming religion.
And, yes, I would vote for a Democrat version of Jimmy Carter before I would vote for a Republican version thereof because, at least, Jimmy Carter got us eight years of Ronald Reagan and a chance to redeem the country.
You are a wonderful example....
Congrats-
Context is everything. There is no reference to temple anywhere in section 132. That is not how it was historically practiced by the prophet.
Look. Any religious leader who finds enough time to tear down the religion of someone else isn’t spending enough time caring for his own flock. And there are plenty of Southern Baptists that I know who do NOT appreciate the anti-Mormon/(name the disfavored religion) teachings of the SBC.
Let’s spend less time arguing why we don’t like the religion of another and more time coming together and fighting for what we agree on:
* less taxes
* fiscal restrain
* strong defense
* conservative courts
If God found it just to limit the priesthood to members of a certain tribe (of a certain race) in the Old Testament, who are we to argue that he was wrong to open it up to a wider audience later but still impose a restriction (albeit smaller)?
ROFLOL!!!!
Obviously J. Smith and/or B. Young were great biblical scholars....
You are a hoot.
Yes but it wasn’t racist. It didn’t prohibit people based on color or race. A black Levite could be a priest.
>Context is everything. There is no reference to temple anywhere in section 132. That is not how it was historically practiced by the prophet.
Untrue. The temple ordinances were not at first practiced in a temple because the Church members were being driven by good Christian folk from their homes in Ohio and Missouri to Illinois (and then on to the wasteland of Utah). While the Church did allow for a limited number or temple ordinances to be performed outside the temple, God instructed the Church to stop and finish the temple and THEN perform those ordinances.
Eternal marriage is one of those (along with baptisms for the dead) and that is one reason why the Saints endured persecution in Illinois as long as they did, such that the Nauvoo Illinois temple could be completed, the ordinances then performed, and then they abandoned the area for safety in the West.
>Yes but it wasn’t racist. It didn’t prohibit people based on color or race. A black Levite could be a priest.
Um, Levi was not black. And white person does not give birth to black children.
How about explaining what my error is in the explanation I provided by the Old Testament?
Would you care to talk about J. Smith and/or B. Young's "revelations" about "someone else's religion?"
Or is that a inconvenience?
Do you comprehend the difference between the words old and new?
Wanna bet?
There is a difference between stating that your religion contains the fullness of the Gospel with all other religions lacking that fullness and arguing from the pulpit that members of another faith are not Christian and are going to Hell.
You won’t find anti-Baptist/Catholic/Methodist literature in any LDS bookstore. You won’t hear a Mormon leader preaching how evil the Baptist/Catholic/Methodist church is and how their members are going to Hell.
We concern ourselves with trying to live our gospel and teach others what we believe. We don’t spend our time tearing down their faith.
I chose those churches of the top of my head. I’m not trying to characterize those churches by naming them, e.g., all SBC preachers do not preach against the Mormon faith.
If he had sex with a black woman, the child would not be white. There is no color clause in that prohibition.
>Do you comprehend the difference between the words old and new?
Maybe not. Why don’t you teach me? While you are at it, help me understand about an unchanging God. And if the “old” is no longer good, why was it good back in the ancient times?
Does the definition of “good” change based on the calendar year?
Are you unaware that the members of the ancient tribe were supposed to marry within their own tribe, and that there was a general prohibition on marrying outside the tribe?
I don’t recall too many black children of Jacob. Which ones are you thinking of?
***The 19th century church was in the Protestant milieu at the time where the enslavement and degradation of the black race was justified by Scripture by the Protestant Americans. The Mormons merely followed their lead and added a new twist that turned out to be wrong.***
Mormons claimed that this “new twist” in racism was prophetic revelation from God. In the abolition of this “new twist” Spencer Kimball claimed that they (whomever they are) prayed to God and that God is NOW allowing blacks to hold the priesthood.
So, should I accept what is your own historical revisionism,....
#1. A great many LDS prophets claimed that this racism was from God. That’s not good for Mormons.
#2. Kimball seems to claim credit for presuading God to no longer be racist. That’s not good for Mormons.
#3. Blaming Mormon racism on other’s racism is just plain pathetic.
#4. The underlying Mormon scriptures which are the foundation of this racism are still present. And, that is not very “white and delightsome.”
Perhaps you might want to reconsider your historical revisionism.
According to 132, were those who did not practice condemned to damnation?
Why would God tell Moses to settle the land of Israel and then tell him later that he couldn’t go in? Same God?
Comparing apples to pine trees. Sect 132 applies to an entire people - in this case mormons. You are trying to link that to an individual - Moses, not a valid comparison. God told Moses to take the Israelites out of Egypt, and that the Israelites were promised to go in (as a nation), no personal promise to Moses (Exodus 3). Thus the promise was to a people, not individual. Secondly, as an Israelite, Moses had a special obligation to God to follow His instructions but violated God's specific instructions (Numbers 20) and as a result he is forbidden to enter the promised land.
So, did god succumb to political pressure and discontinue polygamy?
I would vote for Mitt in a heartbeat! I’m mainstream Protesant and regardless of his faith, remember, they gave us the Osmonds and the Morman Tab. Choir. The Great Oz Has Spoken.
I don't recall seeing any photographs of 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.