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.
I know which side of politics a person is on by the way they use that term
It means telling the truth.
Was Moses wrong when he refused to ordain anyone outside the Israelite tribe of Levi?
Moses wasn't too prejudiced, he was married to an Ethiopian woman.
Agreed.
“Was Moses wrong when he refused to ordain anyone outside the Israelite tribe of Levi?”
Why the reference to Levi? That had to do specifically with a tribe of people. Does that context justify the ordination of one skin color over another?
The question about Moses was intended to answer your question.
We believe that the Church is led by a prophet of God, just as the Israelites were. Just as in Moses' time, it is God's decision whom to ordain, not man's. That was my point. When the time came that God wanted all men to be ordained, he revealed so to His prophet, and it was done.
During the time of Christ, Jesus himself reserved His message for the Israelites initially. He later instructed his Prophet, Peter, to share the gospel with the gentiles in a vision. Was Jesus being a racist?
Now, if you disagree that the LDS Church is led by a prophet of God, then that's entirely understandable. But that's also a different issue than blacks being in the priesthood.
If we Mormons are not led by a prophet, then the whole thing is a fraud and a scam. The blacks in the priesthood is the least of our problems. But if we are led by a true prophet of God, and I soberly declare that we are, then we must obey what is revealed to him by God as it regards His Church.
This post is inaccurate on one point. The jerks who went after Al Smith were not former Catholics.
That is the case with Romney though.
More on the story here.
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/01/former_classmate_and_lapsed_mo.html
Because it was the tribe of Levi who were ordained into the priesthood at that time. Others were not. It points out the fact that God has restricted ordination to a particular group before, and is free to do so at any time as He sees fit.
>One of the strongest differences between LDS and what I believe is that my God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.
Yeah. Kind of like how God had prophets in the past and no longer has them today?
Or how about God requiring that we execute those who profane His name?
Maybe God requiring that we stay away from unclean things?
Or how about God requiring that women not cut their hair or talk in church?
Ping
I saw a special on Mormonism that was very disturbing. Especially the parts about “blood atonement” which seems very close to Muslim “honor killings”, and the lack of crosses on Mormon temples, and the frequency of inverted pentagrams. And of course the fictions of Joseph Smith and his and Brigham Young’s outrageous polygamy (supposedly bringing one close to becoming a God) and pedophilia.
But it did not answer the question. I answered the Moses question with a simple answer to illustrate that when you aren't ashamed of the answer, a simple yes or no is sufficient.
Can you answer the original question as clearly? Also what if Mitt Romney gave a clear answer to the question. In other words, what do you think would be the result if Romney said the church was wrong to exclude blacks from the priesthood? Would he still be your pick for President? If he said that the church was right to exclude blacks from the priesthood, do you think that would be a justifiable reason for others to reject him?
If you please, give me clear yes or no answers to these questions.
So I guess we’re ready for a Muslim president, but not a Mormon (???) Letting the MSM control the debate on this topic may spell disaster for us all.
It will be of no necessity for me to inform you that you have no concept of what you speak, your mind is made up.
So have a good day.
Then you face a corrundrum. Your founder and premier prophet instituted the doctrine of polygamy as revealed by God and codified in Section 132 of The Doctrine and Convenants, one of Mormonism’s primary scriptural texts.
When the US military was enroute to replace mormon leadership rebelling against US anti-polygamy laws, a lesser prophet came out with The Manifesto, or Declaration 1. The Manifesto can be found following section 138 in the Doctrine and Covenants. This document was basically a promise to the United States stating that the LDS Church would submit to the laws of the land and desist from solemnizing plural marriages. The document, signed in 1890, also denied any accusations that the church was encouraging or performing any such marriages. Polygamy was, in fact, one of the most sacred credos of Joseph’s church and section 132 was never removed from Doctrine and Covenants.
Your 'god' must be pretty fickle if it cannot even get its messages straight for the prophets to reveal. And if you are following a false prophet, your very souls are in danger.
No, of course not. In fact, Mormons are free to criticize our leaders if we feel they’re not doing their jobs properly.
Take me for example. I’ve repeatedly criticized President Hinckley for allowing our church to be “dumbed down.” This is due to the church bureaucracy’s abandonment of apologetics and refusal to engage our detractors as well as for giving pablum to the members in official church literature instead of creating the means to grow on advanced doctrines.
This criticism does not mean I don’t believe in their legitimacy as leaders - I most certainly do. It just means they’re human, and can and do make mistakes.
What a shocker to anti-Mormons - we Mormons actually believe our leaders are mortal and not inerrant.
Absolutely. Joseph Smith ordained blacks like Elijah Able. This practice was discontinued by Brighan Young and rationalized by conflating two separate teachings in the Latter-day Scriptures: the priesthood prohibition to the Egyptian pharoahs (Canaanites) and condemnation of Noah’s son Ham and his descendants.
The justification was wrong since there is no revelation from God where he said those of Sub-Saharan negroid ancestry weren’t allowed to receive the priesthood. They assumed there was one but there wasn’t. The priesthood prohibition against the Egyptian pharoahs wasn’t against the black race because the pharoahs were Semitic, not sub-Saharan negroid.
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.
Regardless, the church was wrong and changed when it found out what was it supposed to do.
No because God ordered Moses.
Are you saying that God told the Mormon Church not to ordain blacks?
Good answer. Thank you
That's a false statement. Just plain false.
The answer to some questions is simply more complicated than a "yes" or "no" will cover. Those who reduce complicated and/or controversial questions to simplistic "yes/no" ones are being deceptive or are lawyers. But I repeat myself.
Can you answer the original question as clearly?
I have answered the original question quite clearly. I have not agreed to follow you into oversimplification via "yes/no" land, but I have answered your question.
Also what if Mitt Romney gave a clear answer to the question. In other words, what do you think would be the result if Romney said the church was wrong to exclude blacks from the priesthood?
Similarly, Governor Romney is quite experienced in answering questions. He too is aware that the question is too complex for a pat "yes/no" answer to be meaningful.
The question of "So, have you stopped abusing your children yet?" is a good example of the technique.
Like the devious "yes/no" questions posed by deceitful men to the Savior during His mortal ministry, people like you try to trap a respondent into a lose/lose scenario.
If Romney answers "yes", then he publicly disagrees with and disavows the clear direction of the men he believes are prophets. Lose.
If he answers "no", then he appears to be "just another Mormon racist" to those who already feel that way about the matter--and you and I both know there are plenty of people in this group. Lose
Would he still be your pick for President? If he said that the church was right to exclude blacks from the priesthood, do you think that would be a justifiable reason for others to reject him?
If you please, give me clear yes or no answers to these questions.
I'm not sure why you are unable to comprehend any answer more complicated than "yes" or "no".
Here's my clear answer to you: You're posing simplistic challenges to complex issues. You're trying to mount a disingenuous and subtle attack on Mitt Romney and the LDS Church, and I'm not going to bite.
Have a nice day.
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.