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 don’t know how he gets off saying he was frat brothers with Mitt Romney at BYU. BYU doesn’t have fraternities.
Let me give you a hint on how to answer these things.
Appypappy: Was the church wrong when it refused to ordain blacks?
TChris: No, the church was not wrong because it was simply following God’s orders. Later, God changed his mind and allowed the church to ordain blacks.
Now if Mitt gives that answer, he will be toast.
MANIFESTO OF THE PRESIDENCY AND APOSTLES "SALT LAKE CITY, Dec. 12th, 1889. To Whom It May Concern: In consequence of gross misrepresentations of the doctrines, aims and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly called the 'Mormon' church, which have been promulgated for years, and have recently been revived for political purposes and to prevent all aliens, otherwise qualified, who are members of the 'Mormon' church from acquiring citizenship, we deem it proper on behalf of said church to publicly deny these calumnies and enter our protest against them. We solemnly make the following declarations, viz.: That this church views the shedding of human blood with the utmost abhorrence. That we regard the killing of a human being, except in conformity with the civil law, as a capital crime, which should be punished by shedding the blood of the criminal after a public trial before a legally constituted court of the land. We denounce as entirely untrue the allegation which has been made, that our church favors or believes in the killing of persons who leave the church or apostatize from its doctrines. We would view a punishment of this character for such an act with the utmost horror; it is abhorrent to us and is in direct opposition to the fundamental principles of our creed. The revelations of God to this church make death the penalty of capital crime, and require that offenders against life and property shall be delivered up and tried by the laws of the land.’’ We declare that no bishop's or other court in this church claims or exercises civil or judicial functions, or the right to supersede, annul or modify a judgment of any civil court. Such courts, while established to regulate Christian conduct, are purely ecclesiastical, and their punitive powers go no further than the suspension or excommunication of members from church fellowship. [Signed]: WILFORD WOODRUFF, GEORGE Q. CANNON, JOSEPH F. SMITH, Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. LORENZO SNOW, FRANKLIN D. RICHARDS, BRIGHAM YOUNG, MOSES THATCHER, FRANCIS M. LYMAN, JOHN HENRY SMITH, GEORGE TEASDALE, HEBER J. GRANT, JOHN W. TAYLOR, M. W. MERRILL, A. H. LUND, ABRAHAM H. CANNON, Members of the Council of the Apostles. JOHN W. YOUNG, DANIEL H. WELLS, Counselors
Following the renovation of the Mesa Arizona Temple some years ago, clergy of other religions were invited to tour it on the first day of the open house period. Hundreds responded. In speaking to them, I said we would be pleased to answer any queries they might have. Among these was one from a Protestant minister.Said he: “I’ve been all through this building, this temple which carries on its face the name of Jesus Christ, but nowhere have I seen any representation of the cross, the symbol of Christianity. I have noted your buildings elsewhere and likewise find an absence of the cross. Why is this when you say you believe in Jesus Christ?”
I responded: “I do not wish to give offense to any of my Christian colleagues who use the cross on the steeples of their cathedrals and at the altars of their chapels, who wear it on their vestments, and imprint it on their books and other literature. But for us, the cross is the symbol of the dying Christ, while our message is a declaration of the Living Christ.”
He then asked: “If you do not use the cross, what is the symbol of your religion?”
I replied that the lives of our people must become the most meaningful expression of our faith and, in fact, therefore, the symbol of our worship.
I hope he did not feel that I was smug or self-righteous in my response. Our position at first glance may seem a contradiction of our profession that Jesus Christ is the key figure of our faith. The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We worship Him as Lord and Savior. The Bible is our scripture. We believe that the prophets of the Old Testament who foretold the coming of the Messiah spoke under divine inspiration. We glory in the accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John setting forth the events of the birth, ministry, death, and Resurrection of the Son of God, the Only Begotten of the Father in the flesh. Like Paul of old, we are “not ashamed of the gospel of [Jesus] Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation” (Rom. 1:16). And like Peter, we affirm that Jesus Christ is the only name “given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
To which I will add that LDS church buildings contain many portraits of the Savior at various points of his ministry taken from the New Testament and from LDS scripture.
Thank you for illustrating what others have been saying about electing a Mormon to the Presidency. Your response to my questions show that he would not be able to question the doctrines of the Mormon Church (either past or present) no matter how dishonorable.
BTW I understand your answer, and I also understand why you won’t give a simple yes or no. I’d be ashamed to answer the question too if I were you. And for what it’s worth, the question, “Have you stopped abusing your children” is easily answered too, if you have never abused them. If you have, it can be quite difficult to answer truthfully. That’s why the Mormons have such difficulty answering the question about their barring black priests. It’s hard to admit to something so obviously wrong, especially if you are forced to defend it.
Protestant churchs also have a dark spot in their history with regard to blacks, but most have not only corrected that problem—they have admitted that they were wrong to exclude them. I was just wondering if a Mormon was able to do the same. I guess not at least from your point of view. Should we nominate a man for the Republican ticket who would have such difficulty answering this question from the Democrats? I don’t think so.
God's will for His people changes from time to time. There was a time for polygamy, and that time passed.
Thanks for your concern about my soul, but I have no doubt about our prophet.
That's a bit of an oversimplification, but essentially, yes.
Thanks for your advice. I'll always try to do my best. :-)
Just for documentation, can you tell me where God did that?
AppPappy,
You are correct in your suggestion, but TChris knows that he cannot give an answer quite that clear.
I have spent a good deal of time studying logic, and have even taught it for a brief time. TChris makes the same error that many do when he calls the question about the Mormon past a “complex question.” A complex question is one that assumes a fact that has not been proven to be true. The question “Have you stopped beating your wife yet” is not a complex question if asked of a known wife beater, and would be a perfectly legitimate question in that case.
Similarly the question “Was the Mormon Church wrong to exclude the blacks from the priesthood” is a ligitimate question, since there is no question about whether the Mormon Church did that. Now if one were to ask, “Was it wrong for the Mormon Church to sacrifice babies on Christmas,” he might have a valid objection, but there is no valid objection to the question about a known Mormon practice.
If a man who once beat his wife were asked, “Have you stopped beating your wife yet,” he might not want to answer, but he can’t call that a complex question (at least not truthfully).
Here are a few links on the subject. They should get you started.
Topic Definition - Priesthood Ordination Before 1978
Revelation on Priesthood Accepted, Church Officers Sustained
If someone were to ask me “Was it wrong for the Presbyterian Church to refuse to ordain women?”, I would say “No” and then produce the Scripture reference that was used to justify the ordinance against women’s ordination. If they asked “Is it now wrong for the PCUSA to ordain women?”, I would say “yes it is wrong” and use the same Scripture to justify that answer.
The idea that “Yes, it was wrong to ordain blacks but yes, it is now OK to do so” just makes your brain hurt. Of course, it is a result of having latter day prophets but it is confusing nonetheless.
Riiiigggghhhhttt. What was special about 132, here are a couple of key verses in the introductions where 'god' is addressing Smith and this doctrine:
4 For behold, I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant; and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.
6 And as pertaining to the new and everlasting covenant, it was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.
Soooo, an EVERLASTING covenant that if you don't abide in it results in damnation can change from time to time. How is this so if the prophet is 'inspired' by god.
I'm sorry but you have anything to back up that assertion or are you just recycling leftist talking points about evangelicals because its convenient?
Or pardon convicted murderers if they "find Jesus." Even Forrest Gumpf had the brains to observe "I didn't know he was lost."
I believe you're looking for "I didn't know I was supposed to be looking for him". If you're going to insult someone at least go a 10 second google search. Pathetic post which instead of taking on hucks positions just gives weight to the lefts view of evangelical christians... nice show..
The covenant, once made, is everlasting. That's the meaning of it.
What it does not mean is that the same covenant will always be required of His people. All Bible-believing Christians already know this, as the old covenant was done away with the crucifixion of Christ. Afterward, there was a new covenant; a change.
In any case, Romney is bound by his faith to obey and uphold the law. From Mormon scripture:
Article of Faith #12
We believe in being asubject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.
The Doctrine and Covenants Section 134
http://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/134
Basically, righteous governments are instituded by God and men should uphold those governments.
Inasmuch as Romney is subject to his God, and his God has said that Romney must uphold the law of the land (the U.S.), Romney is bound by God to follow the Constitution.
Our morning drive show detailed how the Huckster raised taxes, pardoned dangerous criminals, threw open the doors for illegal aliens and bought into the global warming agenda. Are they lying too? How about Michael Savage? How about Huckabee's own record which has been detailed here repeatedly by those willing to look and check it?
Do you think it is a mere coincidence that he went from being an also-ran candidate a few months ago to being the front runner now?
55% of the evangelicals in Iowa weren't fooled by Huckabee, nor were 86% of the non-evangelicals. My post wasn't intended to insult these people, just to shine the light on those who play into the hands of the religious left as does Huckabee.
He's a Republican version of Jimmy Carter just like Obama is a Democrat version of Jimmy Carter. You do remember what Carter did to the country, don't you?
Very well put. That is what we believe.
Also, there is this, as revealed by the Lord to the prophet Joseph Smith:
Doctrine and Covenants, Section 984 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them.
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9 Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10 Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil.
11 And I give unto you a commandment, that ye shall forsake all evil and cleave unto all good, that ye shall live by every word which proceedeth forth out of the mouth of God.
Some of your brethern would not agree with you. However, I didn't dispensational theology was part of mormonism. Never the less, the dispensations in the Bible are contexturally different from that of mormonism as stated in D&C. As you noted, a specific EVENT signified a modification or change in the covenant in the Bible
So what changed in mormon circles that caused god to change 'everlasting' covenant that lasted for what, 47 years. What was that TChris????
It does not tell me that huck will "will call anyone Unchristian who doesn't go along with his political agenda"
Are they lying too?
I'm not accusing anyone of anything Im asking for you to back up the statement that huck "will call anyone Unchristian who doesn't go along with his political agenda"
Im still waiting...
What changed was that the Lord revealed to His prophet that the practice of polygamy was to end. The covenants entered into by those who had practiced it are and were everlasting. The covenant is everlasting, not the practice of polygamy.
We believe today that the covenants entered into between God and man in the Holy Temple are everlasting. There is no polygamy involved, but the covenant and its nature are the same.
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.