“Mormons! The Least You Should Know”
By Gregory J. Krieg ABC OTUS News,
May 25, 2012
QUOTE:
“Magic Underwear” is an apt name for something that would bestow “protection from evil spirits.” I thought faith in God/Jesus would grant all the protection needed.
For an article that claims to share the “least you show know” about Mormons, why doesn’t it say anything about the importance of revelations from God which are periodically granted to LDS leaders, which then become doctrine? That’s how polygamy was formally “disembraced” – a revelation from God to a leader.
As for drinking, Mormons would do well to remember that Noah was a drinker. Just saying.
It doesn’t take much googling to come up with this: “The Mormon teaching that Jesus and Satan are brothers is based on their concept of God being the Father of all pre-existent spirits.” Don’t, as the article urges, just go to mormon.org for info. There are other, dissident sources – tons of them – including from former Mormons.
Mormons are not Christians simply because the Jesus they worship is not the same Jesus worshipped by the rest of Christendom.
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
“Mormonism is an invention, pure and simple, born in the land that believes, ‘There’s a sucker born every minute.’”
Polygamy: A Pragmatist’s Questions
The “pragmatist” in question is me. I don’t understand how a fledgling religious movement with few members, which it was in the 1830s, could embrace polygamy. And I mean this in a practical sense, for how could a man be allowed (say) four wives unless 80% of the community were female? With the usual male-to-female ratio of roughly one-to-one, if some men have many wives, other men couldn’t have any. And some Mormon men had way more than four wives.
I’m trying to wrap my mind around how the plural marriage concept was sold to Mormon women. When men court women, they try to make them feel special. Once a couple gets married, it’s hard for me to imagine how a Mormon man goes about meeting other women – especially within the confines of a small, insular group. Not to mention: “Hi sweetie, I’d like you to meet my wife,” or “Hi sweetie, I’d like you to meet my new girlfriend [who could become an additional wife].”
I’d also like to know what happened to those marriages based on polygamy once that practice was banned by the LDS church in 1890.
Reynolds v. United States
I’m going to quote sections from the Wikipedia article about this case on which the US Supreme Court ruled in 1878. Within the quoted material are my indented comments.
Source:
QUOTE:
Reynolds had argued that as a Mormon, it was his religious duty as a male member of the church to practice polygamy if possible.The Supreme Court recognized that under the First Amendment, the Congress cannot pass a law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.
I highlighted the last five words to emphasize a point. As you will read (in a bit), the Court claimed that actions could be legislated while opinions could not. I disagree. Religious beliefs are a source from which actions flow and those actions are protected by the First Amendment, which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” When one “exercises” his religion, he takes action. What part of “the free exercise thereof” did the Supreme Court not understand?
US law was based on English law, but not so as to be totally dominated by it. That’s why we had a revolution.
Although the constitution did not define religion, the Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States. In the ruling, the court quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he stated that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."
I’ll interrupt this paragraph here to say Jefferson’s treading on dangerous ground here. He is wrong when he claims religious belief “lies solely between man and his God.” What happens when men make their beliefs public and (gasp) try to spread them? Then these beliefs are not “solely between man and his God.”
With this in mind, Jefferson’s next contention is downright scary. When he says “the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions,” what happens when opinions are well-publicized and reach a point that cause people to take action? Could the government claim a right to legislate a preemptive strike - to nip those opinions (and the propagating of same) in the bud before they have a chance to cause actions by a large group of people? I can see our current Congress, in the name of national security and public safety, making such a move.
I want to take a moment to reiterate one of my harshest personal opinions: Much of what Thomas Jefferson had to say finds itself tainted in my mind because he owned slaves. I absolutely do not forgive Jefferson this sin. And that’s exactly what it is – it is now and it was then – a sin.
I’ll interrupt this same paragraph again. You know, sometimes it amazes me to what degree SCOTUS judges come across as real dumb asses. Even if someone were to argue that human sacrifice is permissible under the First Amendment, any potential victim would also have rights under the Constitution which would shield him from harm. Honestly, I have no idea where judges come up with this stuff – human sacrifice, indeed!
In addition, there are limits to the reach of the law of the land, as stated in the Constitution itself in its Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Each individual in this country has a residual personal sovereignty which the government cannot touch.
That’s how this paragraph ends. However, let’s take the case of a Conscientious Objector. It is his opinion that he ought not to fight in an unjust war. You’d better believe, though, that Congress would, in effect, “legislate against [that] opinion.” And our CO friend would not be helped by the existence of this particularly evil doctrine: “The state can do no wrong.”
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of The Independent Contractors’ Party
“I think Obama’s Super Pac supporters would be making a grievous mistake by failing to unleash merciless exposure of the doctrines of the LDS Church to the light of day.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Here’s the link to “Mormons! The least you should know,” followed by selected quotes from that article:
QUOTE:
Mike Huckabee … reportedly asked [in 2007]: "Don't Mormons believe that Jesus and the devil are brothers?" The answer is no; Mormons do not believe that, nor does Mormonism teach it. …… here is the least you should know about Mormonism:
- Are Mormons Christians? Or put it this way: "Do they worship Jesus Christ?" Answer: Yes. Mormon doctrine goes in lockstep with the Christian creation myth, including and especially Christ's crucifixion and subsequent rising (it veers away later, in the Book of Mormon, where it is written that Jesus took a trip to America, post-Resurrection).
- Drinking alcohol, coffee, tea, and smoking (anything that can be smoked) are official no-no's for church members. …
Ah yes, T he Magic Underwear, so easy to make fun of until you consider their actual meaning, which is really kind of boring. Little more than purposefully designed cotton shirts and knickers, they're meant to be worn day and night (by those who choose to wear them) and symbolize a holy covenant with the church, along with protection from evil spirits. …
For more resources on the history of Mormonism (violent and dangerous at times, like the rest), the details of its doctrine (often-debated and constantly evolving, like the rest), and how it might or might not effect a President Romney (like any other politician), check out the user-friendly mormon.org. Or go the library or a bookstore. Open a book. Talk to a person. Just don't believe everything you read on the Internet.
:UNQUOTE.
