Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 In America today, there is a small group of privileged citizens who wield disproportionate power over the rest of the country and seek to bend national policies to suit their collective will. Bound together by clannish, somewhat secretive ritual practices, and disproportionately represented among the nation’s wealthy and its political class, this population uses its largess and extensive influence to mold America to its perfidious ends. Their ultimate aim is to take over the United States.I am talking, of course, about Mormons.This isn’t my argument. It’s one that has been appearing in reputable media outlets ranging from the New York Times to Salon over the past several months as the GOP primary season has heated up. Writing in the Times about the potential presidency of Mormon Republican candidate Mitt Romney, the renowned Yale literary critic Harold Bloom darkly mused that “we are condemned to remain a plutocracy and oligarchy. I can be forgiven for dreading a further strengthening of theocracy in that powerful brew.” At Salon, a lengthy essay by journalist Sally Denton argued that “the office of the American presidency is the ultimate ecclesiastical position to which a Mormon leader might aspire,” and that in running for president, Romney sought to fulfill an LDS prophecy and usher in a Mormon “theodemocracy.” The piece quickly went viral, racking up over 1,000 Facebook shares.http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/91447/protocols-of-the-elders/An interesting view of the attacks on Romney and the church, many of which we have seen here.
frankenstein Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Is there any degree of truth? Do LDS attribute all they have as blessing? Do Lds consecrate all they to building up the Kingdom of GOD? does all things include or exclude anything?
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 The text of the story seems to indicate a suprise at how much press and privlege is given to anti Mormons who's views are literally a slight retelling of anti Jewish tracts. Are the authors given their free wheeling attacks because of their reputation as scholars (granted Bloom meets that criteria, but almost all others do not). And what of the editors who should have done some research to ensure the opinion is well founded (Salon tries to do this, even as they slant their issues to the let).
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 I appreciate Frank's frank reflection as being similar to the extremes who are freely given a great deal of leeway to make their claims. The context of the article speaks to that, and like the authors Frankenstein chooses to pick and choose what he wishes to read and what he wishes to post... Scores of Mormons have served faithfully in the United States Congress and other top governmental positions; currently, six senators and nine members of the House are Mormon. Mormons have also occupied numerous ambassadorships and Cabinet positions, from solicitor general to secretary of education. Under President Eisenhower, Ezra Taft Benson served as secretary of agriculture and as one of the 12 apostles of the LDS Church. (Afterward, he became the church’s 13th president and prophet.) And although few Americans are aware of it, the highest ranking and most influential Mormon in American politics today is not Mitt Romney—it’s Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.Given the preponderance of prominent Mormon politicians, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that if there really is a clandestine Mormon blueprint for U.S. domination, Latter-day Saint lawmakers have done a remarkably poor job of executing it. Those pundits fretting about the advent of Mormon theocracy never get around to explaining why all of these officials have always seemed much more interested in advancing the interests of party and country rather than imposing church doctrine on the unsuspecting American masses. (I, for one, would love to hear how LDS Sen. Orrin Hatch’s penchant for composing Hanukkah songs fits into this nefarious scheme.)
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 Card added that Mormonism, as an international missionary religion, would rather not be equated with the United States. “Can you imagine what the effect would be in Mexico, in Nicaragua, in Honduras, in China, if the Mormon Church was viewed as an instrument of the American government? It would be difficult for us to get our missionaries into countries that now accept them. This is actually quite perilous. Our primary mission as a church is to spread the gospel of Jesus Christ,” not to elect an American president. “So, those that think that Mormons are all universally united behind the idea of a Mitt Romney candidacy and that we’re just chomping at the bit to get control of the government of the United States—that’s the opposite of the truth. The truth is, Mitt Romney’s candidacy, leading to his election as president, would be perilous to the Mormon Church and would make our work worldwide more difficult.”I can appreciate this sentiment. As a missionary in Arequipa Peru I remember having to leave Ayacucho, the center of activiity for the Sendero Luminoso, we were identified as an American church and our chapels were targeted for bombings and our missionaries were also pointed out.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I can appreciate this sentiment. As a missionary in Arequipa Peru I remember having to leave Ayacucho, the center of activiity for the Sendero Luminoso, we were identified as an American church and our chapels were targeted for bombings and our missionaries were also pointed out.Ahh, the joys of attempting to proselyte amongst leftist guerrillas, eh? Edited February 21, 2012 by Kenngo1969
frankenstein Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 I take the approach recommended by Joseph Smith - that is, if Truman G. Madsen was telling the truth. According to Madsen, Joseph Smith was approached by a woman who was upset about gossip she had heard about herself. Joseph Smith stated that when ever he hears gossip about himself he reflects back as asks if there is any bit of truth to the gossip.LDS do consecrate everything, so there is a very small basis for outsiders to be concerned.
Jeff K. Posted February 21, 2012 Author Posted February 21, 2012 To some context is everything, understanding what is meant is important. To others, the words alone are sufficient for condemnation or praise, context has nothing to do with it. One wonders at the evidence of the grand conspiracy versus the words used to imply the grand conspiracy.
The Nehor Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Is there any degree of truth? Do LDS attribute all they have as blessing? Do Lds consecrate all they to building up the Kingdom of GOD? does all things include or exclude anything?You can't consecrate what you don't own. Unless things have gone downhill and I missed it the President does not own the United States or its government.If they are worried about theocracy they should look more at the evangelical dominionists. Those nutters actually want to turn the USA into a theocracy. I wouldn't mind seeing a theocracy as long as it was God genuinely ruling. I have much less trust for those who claim to follow him, even less for those whose sole access to his wisdom is an ancient book, and virtually none for the same who want to put themselves in charge as God's regents when it isn't at all clear he wants them to.
Bob Crockett Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) The article quotes Sally Denton. I wrote a review for FARMS about her MMM book. Her book which outsold Bagley's concluded the Indians had nothing to do with the massacre. Her principal proof was an Indian agent's report that that said that he first heard about the massacre from Indians who denied any participation; the agent then said he sent back some Indians for further investigation who reported back that the Mormons led the Indians in the attack. Denton cited and relied only upon the first report without mentioning the second, even though they were in the same document.Her scholarship was terrible. She concluded that Brigham Young received a revelation to kill the Fanchers. Her sole source was the fanciful tale of the anti-Mormon wife of a federal judge who had no source of her own. Edited February 21, 2012 by Bob Crockett
inquiringmind Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) Romney's chief claim on the Republican nomination seems to be that the pundants (many of whom are Democrats) insist he's the most electable in a general election.I've never believed that.How many times have questions about the priesthood ban come up on this forum?(I believe there's one now on whether it's still "doctrine.")The Obama campaign will have more money than Romney's campaign, media matters, and the mainstream media behind it in a general election.Does anybody think that Romney's religion (and anything in Church History that could remotely be interpreted as racist) wont be an issue when he's running against the nation's first incumbent black president?Anything that could be considered politically incorrect, intolerant, or divisive (and that would include poor scholarship on the MMM) would also come up, so I actually think Romney is the least electable Republican in the field. Edited February 21, 2012 by inquiringmind
The Nehor Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Romney's chief claim on the Republican nomination seems to be that the pundants (many of whom are Democrats) insist he's the most electable in a general election.I've never believed that.How many times have questions about the priesthood ban come up on this forum?(I believe there's one now on whether it's still "doctrine.")The Obama campaign will have more money than Romney's campaign, media matters, and the mainstream media behind it in a general election.Does anybody think that Romney's religion (and anything in Church History that could remotely be interpreted as racist) wont be an issue when he's running against the nation's first incumbent black president?Anything that could be considered politically incorrect, intolerant, or divisive (and that would include poor scholarship on the MMM) would also come up, so I actually think Romney is the least electable Republican in the field.He is the most electable of the current field of candidates. The Priesthood ban would/will have a negligible impact. That the topic comes up on an LDS forum is not evidence that it would become a major point in the campaign. If they thought it was a weakness his primary opponents would already have jumped all over it.Gingrich has too much bad history, Santorum is way too extreme, Romney has the best chance of claiming the middle ground. Most people won't care about Romney's religion's past. Kennedy's opponents tried that line and failed. The biggest anti-Mormon voting bloc is in the Republican party and will probably prefer Romney to Obama if that is what the election comes down to.That being said, being the most electable does not mean he will win. Unless something crazy happens I think Obama has this election. The Republican Primary has been a circus of idiotic errors on all sides.
frankenstein Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 Basically, if the EVs have to choose between a muslim and a mormon, pretty sure they will pick the mormon. The middle ground people probably won't care about the religion of either. This upcoming election is about kicking hussein Obama out of the white house, if it takes a Mormon to do that....well some can just consider it an Abrahamic test to have to vote for a mormon
The Nehor Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 This upcoming election is about kicking hussein Obama out of the white house,
LeSellers Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 This upcoming election is about kicking hussein Obama out of the white house What?!? It's his name.Lehi
The Nehor Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) What?!? It's his name.LehiWhy was his middle name used but not his first name? It has been my experience that everyone who uses his middle name except in a situation which warrants using a full name has an agenda to tie him to another well-known Hussein. If you skip his first name it's pretty obvious why you used the name. You're trying to tie him to the dictator of a country he is not from or a religion he has never espoused or followed. In other words, the worst kind of rhetoric. All the more insidious because you can claim it was innocent. Edited February 21, 2012 by The Nehor 2
inquiringmind Posted February 21, 2012 Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) The Priesthood ban would/will have a negligible impact...If they thought it was a weakness his primary opponents would already have jumped all over it.Any republican who made an issue of an opponent's religion would be (rightly or wrongly) vilified as a religious bigot by the mainstream media.In the general election, it wouldn't be presented as a religious issue at all.It would be a racial issue, and those raising it would have left wing credentials that put them above accusations of religious bigotry.That the topic comes up on an LDS forum is not evidence that it would become a major point in the campaign.That Mormons have questions about the ban, and bring them up here on a Mormon friendly forum isn't evidence that the left would make an issue of it in the general election?Most people won't care about Romney's religion's past. Kennedy's opponents tried that line and failed. That was a long time ago, and the country has changed.You forget that in the last election cycle, Democrats made an issue of Sarah Pallin's religious beliefs, and of Mike Huckabbee's.Some left wing pundants openly said that anyone foolish enough to publicly question the theory of evolution--as Huckabee did in one televised debate--isn't qualified to be present.It was argued that Huckabee's views on evolution weren't just a religious issue, but were relevant because they had to do with his world view (the implication being that if he really didn't believe in evolution, his sanity must be called into question.)I believe that the day after Romney becomes the Republican nominee, the most vocal Anti-Mormon outlets will be ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Edited February 21, 2012 by inquiringmind
Recommended Posts