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.
>According to 132, were those who did not practice condemned to damnation?
Only if you fail to understand 132 is about eternal marriage and not just polygamy.
>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.
Incorrect. Moses was supposed to lead the Israelites into the promised land. But once Moses mocked God, Got punished him by not allowing Moses to enter.
>So, did god succumb to political pressure and discontinue polygamy?
I think that God looked at how things were going, saw that the people were willing to suffer persecution in obedience to God’s word for 40 years and finally decided that his people had proven themselves worthy. To me, it’s proof of a test of faith.
God didn’t force Abraham to thrust the knife into his son’s heart.
>I don’t recall seeing any photographs of them.
Is this your way of admitting you are wrong?
No, just confessing that neither you nor I can accurately describe whether they were white or black.
You hit the nail on the head.
You see, Mormon apologists are trained to make rationalizations regarding the history and practices of their Church to other Mormons. They aren’t used to the public at large caring much what they say, believe or practice.
Romney’s foray into the limelight has given ample opportunity for plenty of non-Mormons and Christians to examine the claims of Mormon apologists. The claims fall very short of explaining how the changing god of Mormonism can be relied upon; how truth is a constant; how God is unchanging. In fact you will see Mormons, even on this thread, try to throw doubt upon the unchanging nature of God simply to justsify all the unexplainable twists and turns of Mormon doctrine, from racism, to murder, to polygamy and back.
>No, just confessing that neither you nor I can accurately describe whether they were white or black.
So you aren’t sure whether Jacob was a white, black, Asian or Hispanic fellow?
Not really sure to tell you the truth. Never seen a picture of him. The Bible just said it has to be a Levi. It didn’t say he had to be a white Levi.
>[Mormons] aren’t used to the public at large caring much what they say, believe or practice.
Yeah. That’s why we sequester all our youth into shelters, and do not allow them to venture into that strange world. It’s also why we urge all members to move to Utah and get out of their home countries, not to mention why the Book of Mormon is only allowed to be printed in Swahili (to limit distribution).
>The claims fall very short of explaining how the changing god of Mormonism can be relied upon;
As opposed to the very consistent God of the Old/New Testament.
>how truth is a constant;
Like we followers of God should not eat pork and women are unclean during their menstrual cycles.
>how God is unchanging.
Id.
Am I getting close?
>The Bible just said it has to be a Levi. It didn’t say he had to be a white Levi.
That’s why most Jews you see are black. Might I suggest a doctoral thesis into exploring whether Jacob and his sons were white, black, hispanic or asian?
Oh and check this out, dog
The Jews were building the pyramids when Moses called them out. Guess where? Africa. And they didn’t have any rules against marrying the locals yet. That came later.
I don’t know. There’s a lot of water under that bridge.
So was it wrong for the church to exclude blacks from the priesthood prior to 1979?
Even if you believe that Levi was black, since the priesthood was limited to the descendants of Levi (and all priests had to be descendants of Aaron), there would be discrimination based on birth.
The whole reason why racism is repulsive is because it’s irrationally based on birth (as opposed to behavior).
Further, you ignore that the Old Testament further restricts ordaining all women to the priesthood.
Why would a just God discriminate against all non-Levite/Aaronic males and discriminate against all women? If you can justify that, then you can justify any discrimination based on race since all both are determined at birth without any choice of the person discriminated against.
You simply cannot make a consistent argument on this point and accept the Old Testament to be the word of God.
>So was it wrong for the church to exclude blacks from the priesthood prior to 1979?
It was wrong for the LDS Church to exclude blacks from the priesthood prior to 1979 if that was not God’s will.
Is it wrong for the LDS Church (and other Christian churches) to exclude all women from the priesthood today?
There is little use in spending time with you...as apparently ( by design or ignorance..I know not, nor care not. ) you know little about your OWN mormon religions history/foundation.
This, I believe, is the “big scandal” relating to Romney that has been brewing for weeks. Epic fail!
There are many in mormonism that focus on the latter.
Incorrect.Moses was supposed to lead the Israelites into the promised land.
You didn't even read my post. Sect 132 is for the mormon peoples, Exodus 3 is for the Israelite peoples. peoples = peoples. Moses = individual. individual does not equal peoples. Your understanding in Ex 20 is slightly flawed but understandable.
I think that God looked at how things were going, saw that the people were willing to suffer persecution in obedience to God’s word for 40 years and finally decided that his people had proven themselves worthy. To me, it’s proof of a test of faith.
Nice opinion, show me where that is official mormon doctrine.
typo - meant Woodruff
Let me guess. You are going to tell me what I believe, right? Is that the next line?
How about this tidbit. While certain Christian preachers claim that Mormons and Catholics are going to Hell, the LDS doctrine teaches that the other Christian religions will get exactly what they teach a good member of their own religion will receive in the afterlife.
* Mormons say that Baptists will get exactly what the Baptists preach a good Baptist will get in the afterlife.
* Mormons say that a good LDS saint will receive blessings in the afterlife that the Baptists claim will never be given out.
* Some Baptists say that Mormons will NOT get what Mormons teach, will NOT get what a good Baptist will get, and WILL go to Hell.
Which of those religions seems more Christian to you?
BYU does NOT have fraternities.
Obviously the author of the article is telling a LIE.
Just another false and misleading article in a long line of articles bashing a good people.
redrock
>You didn’t even read my post. Sect 132 is for the mormon peoples, Exodus 3 is for the Israelite peoples. peoples = peoples. Moses = individual. individual does not equal peoples. Your understanding in Ex 20 is slightly flawed but understandable.
I did read. I use the example to point to the nature of God. I don’t see why that nature would be different based on whether it was for a person or a people. And Moses was one of the people, but he (and all the other adults) were prohibited from entering the promised land.
That was a direct 180 from what God had earlier commanded.
>Nice opinion, show me where that is official mormon doctrine.
There is not official doctrine as to WHY God does things. We can only read what God has done and try to figure it out using our limited human understanding.
Show me where there is an official doctrine that the LDS Church changed the doctrine on its own due to political pressure, as opposed to an order from God?
You are a sleeper troll.
100 post since your sign up date in 2000, and all the sudden you have these diatribes concerning Mormonism.
You are exactly what we have been warning other freepers about!
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.