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.
A sleeper troll?
I found a debate that is interesting (not just this one but a couple of others), and I can’t participate because I haven’t been around for a while?
Wow.
Talk about elitist.
There’s a retread on another thread doing the same thing. I pinged you.
I didn’t say you couldn’t participate. I’m simply pointing out that you are a sleeper troll.
I am very familiar with all the Mormons who post on FreeRepublic. We have been arguing Mormon theology for years now. I’ve never seen you.
Obviously, you haven’t been interested until now. I guess you’ve been *sleeping,* just as I said.
BTW, who are those other people (other than the Admin)? Your fans?
Note that I didn’t even find this thread until after I had discussed other issues. But you can be certain that I am going to take people head on when they attack my faith. This whole debate shouldn’t even be in this forum as an issue, and would not be were there not a few too many religious bigots in the GOP.
Plenty of LDS leaders have served the country well, including Rex Lee (Solicitor General), Ezra Taft Benson (cabinet secretary), J. Reuben Clark (undersecretary of State), and Senator Hatch (judiciary chair), among others. I just don’t like the current religious bigotry being pushed on the GOP.
heh--ask him about the archaeological evidence of the Book of Morman as compared to the archaeological evidence of the Bible.
Well, “troll” doesn’t sound to pleasant a term for someone. And copying a moderator certainly looks like you are complaining about my posts for some reason.
I am not adverse to answering. The question here is whether or not Jesus was told through revelation NOT to pay the tribute before instructing the Pharisees to submit to Caesar. This is not the case at hand.
According to mormon history and doctrine, D&C 132 is a command from god to practice plural marriages and was interpreted by the prophet and those following him as polygamy in this world. Until 1890 polygamy was 'taught" by the mormon church. It was contrary to the laws of the land (Caesar's authority - so to speak). Then suddenly god reversed himself.
The only parallel that is appropriate is the refusal to worship Caesar which resulted in the marytrdom of many Christians. However, Woodruff chose to capitulate.
And it’s not that simple. The argument is that a law prohibiting the practice of polygamy was an unconstitutional infringement on a religious practice.
Later, the U.S. Supreme Court found that polygamy was not a constitutionally protected act. But now, under the push for gay marriage and such, one wonders why gay marriage enjoys constitutional protection but polygamy does not.
(Not that I’m pushing for a change, but I believe it’s hard to reconcile the two.)
The other people in the address line, are a Mormon woman whom I respect almost MORE than any other Freeper I know, and some long-time posters on FreeRepublic who are also very familiar with the Mormons who post regularly to defend their faith.
None of us are familiar at all with you (at least in this particular incarnation of you).
Significant difference - individuals have souls, people groups do not have a collective soul. Therefore God judges individuals differently from a collective.
And Moses was one of the people, but he (and all the other adults) were prohibited from entering the promised land.
Wrong, Joshua and Caleb entered the land, because of their faithfulness. Secondly Israel did enter the land 40 years later - God placed no timetable on when they (the nation of Israel) would enter the land.
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.
Then your explaination is not a supported justification of the 180 degree change in god's command.
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?
Interesting quote found here:
http://scriptures.lds.org/od/1
Made by then LDS President Woodruff:
The question is this: Which is the wisest course for the Latter-day Saints to pursue—to continue to attempt to practice plural marriage, with the laws of the nation against it and the opposition of sixty millions of people, and at the cost of the confiscation and loss of all the Temples, and the stopping of all the ordinances therein, both for the living and the dead, and the imprisonment of the First Presidency and Twelve and the heads of families in the Church, and the confiscation of personal property of the people (all of which of themselves would stop the practice); or, after doing and suffering what we have through our adherence to this principle to cease the practice and submit to the law, and through doing so leave the Prophets, Apostles and fathers at home, so that they can instruct the people and attend to the duties of the Church, and also leave the Temples in the hands of the Saints, so that they can attend to the ordinances of the Gospel, both for the living and the dead?
Facing the choice of eternal damnation and not being permitted to enter glory (D&C 132:4) or accepting the authority of the government over god history shows that Woodruff threw 132 under the wheels.
Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t play games. I am who I am, and I don’t waste time making different screen names.
I stopped posting a long time ago because it was sucking up too much of my time. And it seemed like there were a lot of people unwilling to accept opinions not in line with the FREEP crowd.
I’m conservative, but try not to do it blindly. And I would vote for Lieberman over ANYONE currently running for office.
That is the argument of FLDS, but this wasn't the case in point at the time of the revelation in 1843. The courts continually upheld the anti-polygamy laws throughout that period. The Edmunds–Tucker Act of 1887 was challenged and decided by the Supreme Court in 1890. By September 1890, federal officials were preparing to seize the church’s four temples, Woodruff announced the Manifesto on September 25 by publishing it in the church-owned Deseret Weekly. Coincidence?
I can kind of see your point, but you leave out this part:
>The Lord showed me by vision and revelation exactly what would take place if we did not stop this practice.
So the prophet’s testimony is that God showed him a vision of what would occur if the practice continued.
And this:
>But I want to say this: I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of heaven commanded me to do what I did do; and when the hour came that I was commanded to do that, it was all clear to me. I went before the Lord, and I wrote what the Lord told me to write. . . .
So the only reason why the prophet stopped the practice is because he was “commanded to do that” after he “went before the Lord.”
>That is the argument of FLDS, but this wasn’t the case in point at the time of the revelation in 1843.
What evidence do you have that the LDS Church leaders did not believe a statutory prohibition on polygamous marriage was an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom?
You are such a liar! But not a good one.
You've posted 104 posts on several differnt threads TODAY. But before today, for the last 7 1/2 YEARS you posted four (4) total posts.
And those four posts took up too much of your time? Come on, now!
Good grief. This is what I can't stand about Mormonism, it TEACHES you to lie for the common good. That's WHY Romney is such a flip-flopping, lying, panderer.
Flying Inmans - Mark this thread as an example of a Mormon with multiple screen names.
Is it the nature of god to capitulate to the laws of man if those laws are contrary to his command? DC 132:4 is very strong on what god said.
So the only reason why the prophet stopped the practice is because he was “commanded to do that” after he “went before the Lord.”
So this is god is less than the US government?
They may have 'thought' it unconstitutional, but here again is the problem. One revelation says to practice it in spite of the law or loose access to glory, another revelation says to stop it because the law said so and held up under Supreme Court review. Thus what they 'though' doesn't matter. What does matter is the flip flop of commands from god that come particularly when the heat is put on, or is god subject to the constitution and the supreme court's interpretation of it?
>You are such a liar! But not a good one.
Wow. No shame.
>You’ve posted 104 posts on several differnt threads TODAY. But before today, for the last 7 1/2 YEARS you posted four (4) total posts.
I don’t recall when I first signed up, but I posted a lot more than four posts before today. A LOT more. I had frequent debates/discussions on here. Always under this name.
You are simply wrong.
>Good grief. This is what I can’t stand about Mormonism, it TEACHES you to lie for the common good. That’s WHY Romney is such a flip-flopping, lying, panderer.
Shameful. Utterly shameful. You are wrong and attack a religion based on your wrongly assumed facts.
Wow.
Curious. What religion do you claim as your own?
>Flying Inmans - Mark this thread as an example of a Mormon with multiple screen names.
Flying Inmans. Is this guy ALWAYS this bad on his facts?
>Is it the nature of god to capitulate to the laws of man if those laws are contrary to his command? DC 132:4 is very strong on what god said.
D&C 132:4 is not limited solely to polygamy. The everlasting DOCTRINE is eternal marriage. There is a PRINCIPLE of polygamy. Never has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints taught that man MUST take more than one wife to receive all that is promised by God.
You are simply wrong.
It is an Article of Faith that we obey the laws of the country. The LDS Church does not suggest to Chinese members that they ignore the Chinese laws regarding how many children each family can have. It respects those laws, unless God demands obedience to his law OVER man’s laws. It’s hardly novel that God “dumbs down” his laws to accommodate the weakness of men. Hence the ancient Jews had the Mosaic law as opposed to the higher law given by Christ. And the law of consecration is higher than the currently imposed law of tithing.
>So this is god is less than the US government?
No. This God is no less than the U.S. government than he was during the Holocaust. He allows men to govern themselves, and if the law is not essential to man’s salvation then I really don’t think He spends time worrying about it (though you seem to).
The fact that God allowed it to fall by the wayside is evidence that it is NOT required for salvation (though you seem to claim that it is contrary to LDS teachings). You are simply wrong on LDS thought. Please don’t tell us what we believe, and we really don’t need you to interpret our scriptures for us.
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.