Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another Tired Anti-Mormon Diatribe
Captain's Quarters ^ | Jan. 08, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: diatribe; mormon; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-544 next last
To: jdm

I don’t know how he gets off saying he was frat brothers with Mitt Romney at BYU. BYU doesn’t have fraternities.


41 posted on 01/08/2008 10:20:36 AM PST by blue state conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TChris

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.


42 posted on 01/08/2008 10:24:04 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: montag813
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.


43 posted on 01/08/2008 10:25:30 AM PST by esarlls3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TChris

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.


44 posted on 01/08/2008 10:31:17 AM PST by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
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.

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.

45 posted on 01/08/2008 10:34:27 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Are you saying that God told the Mormon Church not to ordain blacks?

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but essentially, yes.

46 posted on 01/08/2008 10:35:25 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Let me give you a hint on how to answer these things.

Thanks for your advice. I'll always try to do my best. :-)

47 posted on 01/08/2008 10:36:18 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TChris

Just for documentation, can you tell me where God did that?


48 posted on 01/08/2008 10:38:15 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy

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).


49 posted on 01/08/2008 10:43:36 AM PST by HoustonTech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: AppyPappy
Just for documentation, can you tell me where God did that?

Here are a few links on the subject. They should get you started.

Official Declaration 2

Topic Definition - Priesthood Ordination Before 1978

Revelation on Priesthood Accepted, Church Officers Sustained

LDS.org search: "priesthood african"

50 posted on 01/08/2008 10:47:43 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HoustonTech

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.


51 posted on 01/08/2008 11:02:38 AM PST by AppyPappy (If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: TChris
God's will for His people changes from time to time. There was a time for polygamy, and that time passed.

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.

52 posted on 01/08/2008 11:09:58 AM PST by Godzilla (Chaos, panic, and disorder .... my work here is done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Unlike the Huckster, candidate of the religious left, who will call anyone Unchristian who doesn't go along with his political agenda.

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..

53 posted on 01/08/2008 11:16:26 AM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
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.

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.

54 posted on 01/08/2008 11:17:02 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: jdm

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.


55 posted on 01/08/2008 11:17:35 AM PST by Skenderbej
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: N3WBI3
Rush is no fan of Rudy McHuckster. Does that tell you anything?

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?

56 posted on 01/08/2008 11:50:43 AM PST by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Skenderbej
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.

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 98

4 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.


57 posted on 01/08/2008 11:55:40 AM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: TChris
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.

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????

58 posted on 01/08/2008 12:00:32 PM PST by Godzilla (Chaos, panic, and disorder .... my work here is done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman
Rush is no fan of Rudy McHuckster. Does that tell you anything?

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...

59 posted on 01/08/2008 12:15:49 PM PST by N3WBI3 (Ah, arrogance and stupidity all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Godzilla
So what changed in mormon circles that caused god to change 'everlasting' covenant that lasted for what, 47 years. What was that TChris????

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.

60 posted on 01/08/2008 12:17:34 PM PST by TChris ("if somebody agrees with me 70% of the time, rather than 100%, that doesn’t make him my enemy." -RR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 541-544 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson