Harry Reid’s Racist Mormon Beliefs Exposed in Illinois Senate Contest

Pensito Review ^ | January 4, 2009 | Trish Ponder

[ejonesie22]

Daddy always said there were “yankees” and “damn yankees”

I have some friends who are the later and it seems more stay down here all the time instead of dealing with the filth and overcrowding of the North.

So in the end I often ask exactly who won the war...

[Elsie]

 

You don’t care who you offend, do you?

 

You talkin' to ME!!??

 

---

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/js_h/1/17#17

  17 It no sooner appeared than I found myself delivered from the enemy which held me bound. When the light rested upon me I saw two Personages, whose brightness and glory defy all description, standing above me in the air. One of them spake unto me, calling me by name and said, pointing to the other—This is My Beloved Son. Hear Him!
  18 My object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.
  19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”
  20 He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, “Never mind, all is well—I am well enough off.” I then said to my mother,

“I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”

 

 

 

[reaganaut]

The Churche of JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day Saints, was made up BY a flawed man who had no principles, for worldly power.

- - - - - -
You forgot riches and all the teenage girls he could handle.

“God told me to take you AND your sister, to be my wives”.

[Colofornian]

Until 1890 the only significant parties were the Liberal and the Peoples parties. [Your post #191]

Until statehood there were no Republicans and there were no Democrats. [Latest post]

Q 1: Utah statehood was 1896. You're seriously now claiming no Republicans or Democrats existed in Utah prior to 1896? (What? You never heard of the Utah Territorial legislature? You think that ALL representation was tied in to official statehood? What defective thinking!!!)

Now certainly we can agree there wasn't any significant organization of either party pre-1884. So, I'll grant you that give or take a few years -- you say up through 1889...I say around 1888...the Democrats were not organized and we agree were not significant.

Q 2: But tell me, how did your statement implying that the Democrats were not a significant party pre-1890 in post #191 go to where you made this wild claim that Democrats didn't even exist in your last post? (How do you go from less "significant" to 0 ("no Republicans and...no Democrats" in one post?...presto-Martial Monk magic?)

Now some have said Brigham Young was a Democrat (I'm still looking for evidence of that). If he was that would have been an 1860s or 1870s Democrat. But besides that, how can you claim no Democrats existed between 1884-1895 in light of the following? (Yeah, I know it's easier for you, MM, to engage in name-calling that actually deal with the historical evidence, but deal with it anyway):

As early as 1884, a Democratic party club was organized, allying a group of Utahns with the national Democratic party. Four years later another organization, known as Sagebrush Democracy, (initially a term of derision given the group by the Salt Lake Tribune), was established marking the first real effort to bring together Utahns in support of the national Democratic party. [Source: http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/d/DEMOCRATIC.html ]

Now what was even worse about your 1895&before claim is that I already posted this other evidence, which you ignored:

Anthony Ivins, the man behind many of the continued Lds "plural unions" solemnized in Juarez, Mexico 1895-1907 (that's right, hundreds of such unions were solemnized after the famous 1890 manifesto), was appointed to a church position in St. George, UT in 1888 and according to onlineutah.com, Ivins "organized the Sagebrush Democrat" movement that year to draw more away from the People's Party & Liberal party.

According to another source, a 1909 book in the BYU library, the movement was sweeping. Josiah F. Gibbs wrote a 1909 book published by the Salt Lake Tribune called "Lights and Shadows of Mormonism." On p. 314, Gibbs says: "...the fact that ALL the Utah delegates, from Dr. Bernhisel down to John T. Caine in 1888, affiliated with the Democrats in Congress clearly proves that the Mormon leaders believed that the interests of the church were safer in the hands of the Democratic party, which, as a national organization, had not manifested any hostility to the Utah Saints."

We know that the Liberal party only had 1/3rd of the representation in the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1891. What? Do you really think the People's Party made up the other 2/3rds? If that was the case, then why do historians talk about the Liberal Party having such "power" in a sudden post-polygamy manifesto world? (They claim the Liberal party "surged" late 1880s into early 1890s because of suddenly becoming anti-polygamy). I'm sorry but a party claiming only one-third of the legislators isn't in a very powerful position if the People's Party held 65-66% of the legislature.

[Elsie]

 

“God told me to take you AND your sister, to be my wives”.

---

---

 

 

 

Joe: Hey Emma!   Guess what!?

 

Emma: You KNOW I hate these guessing games! What is it, Dear?

 

Joe: I heard a voice, probably the Lord, tell me I must take other wives.

 

Emma: WHAT!?   You ding bat!  Don't you KNOW what our precious BOOK says?   After all; YOU are the one that translated it!

 

Joe: Books; schmooks.   All I know is I've been COMMANDED to take other wives and you are to OBEY ME!!!

 

 

Emma:      "Though shalt NOT commit ADULTERY!!!"

 

 

Joe: Silly Woman!  You KNOW better than to take things out of CONTEXT!!!

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

...and the rest is HISTORY...

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI

CHAPTER 2

 

  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.

 

---

Or even HERE:

---

 

 1 Timothy 3:2-3
 2.  Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3.  not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.

 

 

1 Timothy 3:12
   A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.

 

 

 Titus 1:6
   An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.

---

---

 

 

Emma: That's IT!   I'm LEAVING your sorry *!!!

 

Joe:  DARN you Emma; you were TOLD to accept this!!   Wait!!!   I hear a voice again!!!

 

 

---

---

 

THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS

SECTION 132

 

  51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.

 

 

  51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to ^aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.

  52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, ^areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.

  53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been ^afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.

  54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and ^acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be ^bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.

  55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ^ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of ^beternal lives in the eternal worlds.

  56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid ^aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to ^brejoice.

[Colofornian]

Me: Do you realize that most Lds political leaders from the 19th century into the early 20th century were Democrats? [post #55]

Martial Monk: No they weren't. The enabling act for Utah's admission to the union was signed by a Democrat in anticipation of a new Democratic State. That didn't happen. Despite being a western mining state admitted during the height of the free silver and Populist/Democratic movement Utah dallied with the Democrats for a brief moment and went straight Republican. It is one of the most conservative and Republican of states. They will, on occasion, vote a popular personality with a Democratic tag but since admission the LDS has always been Republican. Always.

Well, now that we’ve set MM straight on the latter 1880s and some of the 1890s – and he helped alert me to the brief dallying that Mormons had with Republicans in 1896, let’s deal with Mormon Utah 1900-1940, shall we? After all, Martial Monk makes the absolutely wild unhistorical claim that ”since admission the LDS has always been Republican. Always.”

Now, class, how many of your posters & lurkers think that “always” means “always?” (Well, Martial Monk…you’re statistically wrong; you’re historically wrong; you’re factually wrong; you’re just wrong)

State politics was reorganized after the 1890 Manifesto discontinuing polygamy was announced, and both the Republican and Democratic party emerged in the state. Many assumed that the traditional ties of many LDS Church leaders to the Democratic party philosophy would make Utah a strong Democratic state. In 1894, however, Republican Frank J. Cannon was elected Utah's delegate in Congress and the Republicans elected 60 members to the Constitutional Convention, a 13-vote majority over the Democratic. [Source for this & below quotes: http://www.media.utah.edu/UHE/d/DEMOCRATIC.html ]

Now keep in mind, this Republican surge was initiated pre-statehood admission. When we look at the actual first post-statehood election in 1896, what do we find?

In the first presidential contest held after achieving statehood in 1896, however, Utah Democrats did well, drawing more than eighty percent of the presidential vote for William Jennings Bryan and electing a variety of Democrats to state and local office as well. That same year, William H. King was elected to Congress and the Democratic legislature selected Joseph L. Rawlins to serve as U. S. Senator. Two years later, the Democrats elected B. H. Roberts to Congress although he was denied his seat because of his practice of plural marriage. Roberts was eventually replaced by William H. King in a special election held in April 1900.

We know that in the Utah state Legislature assuming office that 39 in the Utah House of Reps in 1897 were Democrats, only 3 were Republicans & 3 were Populists. In the state Senate, it was a 17-0 shutout for the Democrats (plus one populist).

Sorry, MM, the 1896 election & 1897 stats in Utah proves your “always” statement dead wrong. ‘Fess up.

By 1900, the parties became balanced, and then the Democrats dropped off for a while in Utah as Republican’s Teddy Roosevelt’s ways carried the national day:

Utah Democrats were far less successful after 1900,…

But the Democrats rebounded with the help of the Progressive Party in 1914: In 1914, Utah Democrats allied with the Progressive party to take control of both houses of the Utah legislature as well as many county offices. Two years later, the Democrats scored a major victory garnering the state's electoral votes for Wilson, and electing Simon Bamberger as Governor, William H. King to the U.S. Senate and both representatives in Congress. The state legislature was overwhelmingly Democratic as well.

So I’d say my statement Do you realize that most Lds political leaders from the 19th century into the early 20th century were Democrats? was accurate, wouldn’t you MM – especially also considering that Democrats dominated in Utah throughout the 1930s?

In the early 1930s, Utah Democrats, like their counterparts across the nation, emerged greatly strengthened by the candidacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Utah Governor Dern was selected by FDR to serve as Secretary of War in the first Roosevelt cabinet. In 1932, Elbert D. Thomas, a professor at the University of Utah, defeated Reed Smoot in a bitter contest and served in the Senate until he was defeated in a similarly bitter race in 1950. Moreover, a resurgent Democratic party paved the way for the emergence of the leading Utah Democrat of his generation -- Herbert B. Maw. Elected first to the state senate in 1928, Maw, an attorney and University of Utah professor, became the leader of the liberal, pro-FDR, wing of the party. In 1937, he was President of the Utah State Senate during one of the most liberal sessions in its history. This legislature passed bills dealing with relief and assistance and unemployment and enacted an open primary law that would strongly affect Democratic candidates. For the next decade, liberal forces dominated Utah's Democratic party, most notable Senator King, continued to hold office. In 1940, Maw was elected governor and was reelected four years later. In 1948, he ran for an unprecedented third term. As the result of scandals within his administration, and a weakened campaign organization, Maw was defeated by Utah political maverick J. Bracken Lee.

Even in the 1920s, Utah had a three-term Democratic senator (mentioned above) – Sen. King – who was re-elected in 1922 & 1928 due to internal divisions within the Utah GOP.

[mrreaganaut]

“In the 1830’s nearly everyone believed that blacks were descended from Cain, that the black skin was the mark of Cain. I don’t think the Mormons have believed any differently on this subject than the vast majority of American religions.”
______________________________________________________________

Then why did Northerners bother to denounce slavery? Why did they say it was unchristian? Southerners promoted the idea that black skin was the mark of Cain; just because some Northerners like Joseph Smith believed it does not mean that the “vast majority” did.

“Everybody does it” is a poor excuse, especially for a religion that claims to be superior to all others.