Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Look Before You Leap

Listen, before you leap to the polls and pull the lever for your favorite presidential candidate, I beg you to read the following information. You need to know the facts about Barack Obama. You need to know that the mainstream media has been hiding the truth from the American public. Journalists from well-respected internet news sites have been carrying the following stories and more, but they never made it to your television, because the media outlets didn't want you to hear about them. Please, for the love of God, freedom, and country, take the time now to read these things, share them with your misguided friends, and vote carefully!

1. Socialism
Obama is a former card-carrying member of the New Party, a political party founded in the 1990's by the Democratic Socialists of America. The New Party was disbanded because the U.S. Supreme Court declared its goals unconstitutional.

What is Socialism and why should I be concerned? Socialism is a form of Marxism. Karl Marx's ideas were the foundation for Communism (Remember Communists? You know, the ones who have murdered hundreds of millions to date as they've taken over countries in the attempt to reach their publicly declared goal of world domination? Think Russia, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela...). Socialism is the less-violent twin brother of Communism- simply another approach to achieve the goals of Marx. The stated goals of Marxism have always been to rid the world of God and religion, family structure, and ownership of property.

Required Reading:
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS as stated in 1963 (NOTE: This is a list of 45 points/goals. Please make special note of the following points, because they relate directly to things discussed below, as well as specific policy agendas that Obama has made public: #3, 15, 17, 19, 20, 24, 26, 27, 29, 32, 37, 40, 41, and 42) [, quote from "The Naked Communist" by W. Cleon Skousen]
Obama and the New Party []
The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx

2. Constitutional and Human Rights
Socialists have always sought to remove the rights of the individual, as they believe that unless the state can form our thoughts, words, and deeds for us, we will continue to squander our lives in "the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." They believe in Karl Marx's deluded concept that all of life's inequalities can be turned into equality by forcing the population into subservience. To them, God does not exist, individuals do not have the God-given rights accorded them in the Constitution, and life has no inherent value.

To this end, voters will do well to note the following:

  • Barack Obama voted several times against legislation that would help babies who survive abortions (who were being left in laundry rooms to die, unaided), and in favor of the murder of babies who are completely born except for the head, at which point their brains are sucked out (known as "partial-birth abortion"). This procedure is performed on babies that are completely "viable" (the medical way of saying that a baby is normal), and there is no documented instance of this type of procedure being required to save the life of a mother. Obama claims he did not favor these things, but rather rejected/supported them on technical and/or legal grounds. However, he never did anything to promote any legislation that would have made these procedures/practices illegal!

  • Obama has opposed legislation to require minors to get parental consent prior to abortions, or to make it illegal for minors to cross state lines to get abortions.

  • Although he claims to now be FOR gun rights, Obama is already on record voting for laws that would remove the rights of individuals to own, and protect themselves with, guns. So is Biden. If you are wondering why this is such a big deal, read the Second Amendment [Wikipedia]. Notice the portion of that article that points out how "history [has] shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents." If you do not believe that Obama has such intentions, you may be surprised by the rest of this post.

  • Love America? Sure, it's not perfect, but it stands miles above every other nation on earth, as evidenced by the facts that a) people from all over the world emigrate to this country in droves, and b) they become successful! This is because the constitution guarantees God-given rights and opportunities to every man! Obama believes that the constitution is flawed.

  • Like your American way of life? Appreciate being able to improve your circumstances through hard work and ingenuity? Obama believes that your money should be taken from you and given to whomever the government determines needs it more than you do. He has also stated that he believes financial reparations should be made to Blacks, particularly in the form of "redistributing wealth." His pastor has, too.

Required Reading:
Obama's Abortion Extremism [Real Clear Politics]
Barack Obama's Pledge to Overturn Every Pro-Life Abortion Law One Year Old [Life News]
Obama: Spike energy costs to make people go 'green' (i.e., mandatory environmentalism) [WorldNetDaily]

3. Guilt by Association
A popular radio show host recently noted that his mother always told him that people will always judge you by the friends you keep. Somehow, Obama has been able to politically separate himself, in the public eye, from the people that he has associated himself with over the years. Why is this important? Because, despite the popular untruth that "you can't judge a book by its cover," you can tell a lot about a person by the way he dresses, conducts himself, and, indeed, the people he surrounds himself with. Social scientists will agree with this notion because, although some people deliberately present themselves in such a way as to hide their true selves, most of us do not go to such lengths, thereby making the study of these characteristics generally useful to investigative sciences like detective work and psychology.

A Personal Example
As an example, let's consider my own relationships during high school. I was friends with a few people who characterized themselves as white supremacists and skinheads. This would, and did, lead some to conclude that I was, myself, a racist. However, those who got to know me better soon learned that I also had friends who were Black, Vietnamese, or identified as S.H.A.R.P.'s ("Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice"), among others. I spent a lot less time among the former group, much more among the latter. As a former psychology major, I would probably conclude, based on these limited factors, that during high school I was either unwilling to stand up for my own beliefs, or I was friends with most everyone I met regardless of their stance on racial issues. Had I chosen to associate myself solely with individuals who adhered to one philosophy or the other, my own agenda would have been fairly obvious- even when based on nothing but my relationships with these people. See how it works?

Who has Obama Surrounded Himself With?
Here is a partial list of people that Obama has associated with in various ways over the years, including some that currently serve in his campaign. Do these relationships tell us anything about Barack himself?

William "Bill" Ayers
Much has been made of Obama's relationship to William Ayers, former member of the terrorist group Weather Underground. Several people were murdered by the bombs that his group placed, but their intentions were much more serious: "In... the 1982 documentary No Place to Hide, Grathwohl describes a Weather Underground meeting at which the terrorists discussed the need to murder at least 25 million people-those diehard American capitalists who would resist “reeducation” " (The Atheist Conservative). Obama initially claimed that Ayers was "just a guy in my neighborhood," presumably because that's all he thought people knew. He later admitted, during the final presidential debate, that the two had worked together on a school board. They did, indeed, work together on several boards, and even had the same business address for several years as they ran different organizations from the same small building. Obama's political coming out party was held at Ayers' house. Recently, experts have determined that Bill Ayers edited, and wrote much, if not all, of Obama's "autobiography," Dreams of My Father.

Barack Obama's justification for a long and intimate working relationship with Weather Underground bomber William Ayers is that he was only 8 years old when Ayers performed his infamous deeds in behalf of an international communist revolution that literally declared war on America.

This explanation has been picked up by Obama's media partisans without question.

Actually, however, what Obama means is that Ayers, and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, began their deadly reign of terror when he was about 8 years old. But these most-wanted fugitives who attacked the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations and other targets continued until Obama was 20 years old!

Ayers and Dohrn didn't turn themselves in until 1980. (WorldNetDaily)

Required Reading:
Ayers dedicated book to Sirhan Sirhan [WorldNetDaily]

Rev. Jeremiah Wright
Racist, anti-American preacher of the church that Obama attended for 20 years. Please read the following article to get the picture!

Required Reading:
Jeremiah Wright's 'Trumpet' [Weekly Standard]

Raila Odinga
This man "was appointed prime minister after his election loss was followed by widespread, deadly violence that destroyed or damaged 800 Christian churches...

As WND has reported, Obama openly campaigned for Odinga during the Illinois Democrat's 2006 Senate "fact-finding visit" to Kenya.

Odinga called for protests over alleged voter fraud after losing the December 2007 general election. The resulting protest violence left an estimated 1,000 members of the dominant Kikuyu tribe in Kenya dead and an estimated 500,000 displaced from their homes...

Odinga... once told the BBC he is Obama's cousin" (WorldNetDaily).

Required Reading:
Obama - Muslims Admit Cousin's 'Islamification' Pact [YouTube]

Tony Rezko
While quite arguably the least worrisome of Obama's associates, Rezko is a dishonest political fundraiser from Chicago who was convicted on several counts of fraud and bribery this year (2008), and who has been linked to Barack Obama in a real estate scandal (Wikipedia). Rezko apparently received millions in funds from a former Saddam Hussein agent, Nadhmi Auchi, just three weeks before Rezko and Obama bought real estate property on the same lot.

Obama ended up buying his side of the property for $300,000 below the asking price [He paid $1.65 million], while Rezko, through his wife, paid full price, $625,000, for the adjacent vacant lot.

Just three weeks earlier, Rezko – who at the time was under indictment and virtually bankrupt – received a $3.5 million wire transfer from Auchi, his "close friend" and partner, who smuggled weapons to Saddam's regime.

A year before their real estate deal, Obama, fresh off his U.S. Senate win, attended a dinner that Rezko hosted honoring Auchi at the Four Seasons hotel in downtown Chicago...

While Obama acknowledges attending the 2004 event, he claims having no memory of meeting Auchi there.

"I just don't recall," he said, even though the dinner was held in Auchi's honor and Rezko had invited Obama to meet him and other friends.

What's more, Rezko that same year had held another reception for Auchi, this time at his mansion; and according to court testimony in Rezko's trial, both Barack and Michelle Obama attended the reception and met Auchi. [WorldNetDaily]

Kevin Jennings
While hardly a household name, this man is "one of Senator Obama's top homosexual fundraisers", and he "founded a group, namely GLSEN, which has recommended books that condone sex between men and teenage boys" (OneNewsNow). "Just about every type of sexual practice imaginable is apparently acceptable and even worthy of "celebration" by any age student or teacher as far as GLSEN is concerned. GLSEN also supports gender-distortion through cross-dressing, even for elementary school children" (WorldNetDaily).

Required Reading:
GLSEN founder part of Obama's team [OneNewsNow]
'Gay' pedophilia and Obama [WorldNetDaily]

4. Like Flies to, um... Something
While we can tell a lot about a person by the persons they choose to be around, we can also tell a lot about someone by the persons who choose to be around them. Here is a list of people and groups who have publicly endorsed or otherwise declared support for Obama.
Louis Farrakhan
Farrakhan In His Own Words [Anti-defamation League]

The American Communist Party
Not only does the American Communist Party support Obama, he also was mentored by "Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American poet and journalist who was also a CPUSA member."

Investigative journalist Cliff Kincaid and Herbert Romerstein, a former investigator with the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities, presented evidence Obama was mentored, while attending high school in Hawaii, by Frank Marshall Davis, an African-American poet and journalist who was also a CPUSA member...

Obama's run for the Illinois state Senate was launched by a fundraiser organized at Ayers' and Dorhn's Chicago home by Alice Palmer. Palmer had named Obama to succeed her in the state Senate in 1995, when she decided to run for a U.S. congressional seat.

Nine years before Palmer picked Obama to be her successor, she was the only African-American journalist to travel to the Soviet Union to attend the 27th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, according to an article Palmer wrote in the CPUSA newspaper, People's Daily World, June 19, 1986...

According to Kincaid and Romerstein, U.S. Peace Council executive committee member Frank Chapman "blew the whistle on communist support for Obama's presidential bid and his real agenda" in a letter to the People's Weekly World after Obama's win in the Iowa Democratic Party caucuses.

"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface.

Kincaid and Romerstein wrote, "The clear implication of Chapman's letter is that Obama himself, or some of his Marxist supporters, are acting like moles in the political process. The suggestion is that something is being hidden from the public." (WorldNetDaily

Al-Qaida sites show support for Obama [WorldNetDaily]

5. The Politics of Disparity

The former Orange Democratic official who provided the e-mails to WND asked for anonymity because of concerns the disclosure of his identity could endanger his life in a volatile political atmosphere in Kenya where Odinga's fellow Luo tribal members staged sometimes violent protests against Kibaki's supporters, who primarily are Kikuyu.

Sen. Obama's relatives in Kenya are Luo.

The former Orange Democratic official reported abandoning the party and opposing Odinga because of concerns Odinga had manipulated tribal violence in Kenya to gain political power.

During Corsi's trip to Kenya, WND also confirmed the role of the anonymous party source in implementing an Odinga campaign strategy which the source claimed was shared with Obama's Senate office. The strategy is described in a document titled "Executive Brief on the Positioning and Marketing of the Orange Democratic Movement & 'The People's President.'"

The document at one point suggests: "It is possible to trigger a class war by painting the Kibaki Government as an insensitive, uncaring group of Muthaiga Golf clubbers. Available research also suggests that this strategy could also resonate with poor kikuyu youth who feel economically marginalized by their own government. As part of this strategy the party should seek to elevate the emotions within all youth constituents who may it successful, be willing to vote for us in the protest. Visible signs of class disparity will provide important fodder for this theme." (WorldNetDaily).

Let me rephrase that for you, in case you didn't get it:

"It is possible to trigger a class war by painting [White Republicans/Whites in general] as an insensitive, uncaring group of... Golf clubbers. Available research also suggests that this strategy could also resonate with poor [Black] youth who feel economically marginalized by their own government. As part of this strategy the party should seek to elevate the emotions within all youth constituents who may [if] successful, be willing to vote for us in the protest. Visible signs of class disparity will provide important fodder for this theme."

Did visions of Black teenagers in camouflage dedicating themselves to Obama's victory run through your head? Maybe now you will understand why everything that anyone has said against Obama in the past few months has been referred to as "racism." It's all part of the plan. Remember, it was Obama's people who were talking about riots if Obama doesn't win.

Required Reading:
Barack Obama The Racist - In His Own Words [YouTube]
Obama Warns Of 'Quiet Riot' Among Blacks [CBS]
James Carville Hints at Riots If Obama Loses Election [Newsbusters]

6. Pravda
For years, the Soviet Union fed their citizens the official party line by way of the state newspaper, Pravda. Today, we face an even greater threat- the admittedly pro-Obama media complex. Given the rampant sucking up by NBC, CBS, and ABC, and pretty much everyone else, we stand to never again hear anything but the "official party line" if Obama gets elected. They certainly aren't given to unbiased truth anymore, as they once claimed was their journalistic purpose and integrity! Every dictator relies on a propaganda machine. Obama already has his.

Required Reading:
Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media - How Barack Obama Could Not Have Won the Democratic Nomination Without ABC, CBS and NBC [Media Research Center]

I know, the ACORN thing is getting old; you're tired of hearing about it. Unfortunately, you haven't been told all of the facts yet, so I'll try to do that now.

The Obama campaign officially denies any connection to ACORN. Research, on the other hand, shows that Obama has had an extensive relationship with them over the years, including work as their lawyer, training their employees, and even referring to them as "family." To top things off, the Obama campaign has given ACORN $800,000. Do you really think there is no reason to be concerned that an organization has had a lengthy relationship with a presidential candidate, has received nearly a million dollars from that candidate, and is perpetrating mass voter registration fraud in key states, in FAVOR of the candidate?

Listen, I could actually go on and on, and I have left many things out, but I think you get the idea. This is research that has been done by respected journalists, from many different publications, colors, and backgrounds. You might be able to brush a few things off, but how can you deny the rest? The list of reasons to fear for your freedom is endless when you begin talking about this man. Please, SAY NO TO OBAMA!!! Keep America free!

Watch This Video!!!

Friday, September 12, 2008

The Spirit of God Like a Fire is Burning

I came across a brief article saying that the Minnesota Temple had been lit on fire by an arsonist. Something about this article peaked my interest:

Smoke and fire were reported in the front entry of [the] temple shortly before 3 a.m. Wednesday... authorities don't believe the case is a hate crime. (Emphasis added.)

Excuse me? How is it not a hate crime to light a church on fire? If you singled out a church as the object of your "burning passions" (pardon the expression), then you were trying to make a statement! I don't suppose it could have been any of those folks who are upset with the Church's current nationwide stance on gay marriage, could it? Of course not.

Now, if this were an exclusively Black church, there would be no doubt it was a hate crime. We must have too many White folks in the Church right now to afford that claim.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Stand And Be Counted

This afternoon, we all went out to a busy strip of road next to a high school just at the time that school let out, and parents were coming to get their kids, and also around the time people were just starting to come home from work. Last night, we made signs. We stood at this intersection for about 1 hour and 45 minutes.

We got a few "thumbs down," one guy who stopped and yelled unintelligible things from his car, and one crazy lady screaming "NOOOOOOO! NOOOOOOO!" at the top of her lungs, like we were about to about to commit infanticide or something. Funny about those Liberals, they poop their pants if you don't let gays get married, and they whoop and holler in favor of Obama, who actively supports baby murder.

On a brighter note, the large majority of responses were positive, from horns honked supportively, to comments, "thumbs up," and even a "Thank you!"

Overall, it was a great success.

We decided to do this on a whim, because we know that this time we're playing for keeps. All of us, quiet, keep-it-to-ourselves, Conservatives have to stand up now, and be counted. We need to let the world know that we will not let radicals and activists destroy our society. We also realized that many people don't know anything about the propositions that they will be asked to vote on in November. We wanted to make sure that those people were made aware of what Prop 8 was, and also wanted to show other Conservatives that it is okay to stand up for what is right. I kept having this verse from the Doctrine and Covenants run through my mind:

For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it— (D&C 123:12)

We invite all like-minded individuals, couples, and especially families, to make their own signs and stand up and be counted! Remember, there are only 2 months until election day!

We also printed quarter-sheet flyers to hand out, which you can download from here (.doc format).

If you have any cool friends, we think it would be cool to have one individual, couple, or family posted at every intersection for several blocks in a row along a busy street.

If you do anything, please let us know in the comments! A link to pics would be nice!

PS - Oh, and don't forget to check with property owners if you are not on public land, like a sidewalk. We left the sidewalk for a shady spot on the grass. This grass is apparently considered part of the high school we were beside, and someone tattled on us. The cops showed up and asked if anyone else was coming, but when we told them it was just our little family, and they saw that there was no shade on the sidewalk, they told us they would go smooth things out for us with the school. It was a little surprising to have them stop, but everything went fine! Yay for nice cops!!!

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

What if we legalized all drugs?

I just came across this article on MSNBC.

One of the major selling points for the idea of legalizing marijuana is that it would save loads of money by not having to fight its use anymore, and tax revenue would be increased by pot stores opening up.

Savings on drug-related law enforcement -- FBI, police, courts and prisons -- of $2 billion to $10 billion a year if marijuana were legalized, based on various estimates, or up to $40 billion a year if all drugs were legalized...

Okay, fine, those things are probably true. But, tell me something. Is there anything that is so worthwhile that no monetary value could be associated with it? I would argue yes.

Let's think back in American history 150 years. What if Americans then took the same view towards slavery? "Look, Jethro, these aren't people, they're property! If we give them their freedom, look at all the revenue we'll lose! The country will forfeit all that tax income because productivity will decrease!"

Good idea/bad idea? I'm sure you'll agree that even the thought is preposterous. A war was fought -and won- by people who believed that human beings were more important than money.

So, I have another take on the marijuana issue: Perhaps the mental well-being of our country is more important than boosting the economy by revising our morals. Perhaps, if we actually treated crimes like, oh I dunno... crimes, people would be less likely to commit them and it wouldn't spin into an out of control epidemic forcing so-called great thinkers to suggest legalizing them!

Maybe it's just me, but maybe the health of our society and its individuals is something that we should be taking more seriously! Once we allow something, it is almost impossible to retract. Like throwing feathers in the wind. Oops! I needed those for my quilt! I hope winter never comes! We need as many healthy people as we can get in this world.

The arguments in favor of legalizing drugs have several other points that have had equally little thought put into them:

Increased productivity as fewer people were murdered, drug offenders were freed to find work and those stripped of their criminal record found it easier to get jobs (including running drug boutiques). However, how many of those now in prison would turn away from crime is unknown.

There are a few "doozies" in this one paragraph, so we'll address them one by one.

1. What makes you think that fewer people would be murdered if drugs were legalized? Instances of people doing drugs and then killing other people will likely increase!

2. Will former criminals really find it easier to get jobs? I'm pretty sure this is an overly optimistic suggestion. Most businesspeople in America value the qualities of honesty, hard work, and self-control. Even if their particular brand of crime has now become legal, they still displayed the laziness and horrendous lack of judgment and self-control when they knowingly committed a criminal act!

3. What makes you think that legalizing a crime will lead freed prisoners to "turn away from [a life of] crime?" Most criminals are repeat offenders! Sure, they won't have their former life of marijuana-selling to return to, but what would probably happen is that they will move on to other things that are still illegal, since that's where the big money is.

C'mon, people. Let's think these things through!

The $65 billion market for all illicit drugs, he estimates, might bring in $10 billion to $15 billion in taxes.

Does it bother anyone else to accept money that cost other people's blood? Drugs kill people!!! Legalization won't change that fact. Of course, the government could mandate that health professionals provide counseling on the "safest" possible methods of drug use. And that won't have any effect on the already insurmountable fees we already pay for health insurance, I'm sure.

A new legal drug industry would create jobs, farm crops, retail outlets and a tiny notch up in gross domestic product as the black market money turned clean. A 1994 study... suggested 100,000 jobs and 60,000 retailers could emerge from a legal marijuana industry.

I've got another idea. Why don't we just stop requiring people to follow any laws? Imagine the potential jobs that could be created if American pedophiles could stay here to indulge their fantasies instead of flying halfway around the world to drop their cash in a Third World country? Think of the burgeoning economy we would develop if murderers-for-hire could report their income! I hear that the sex slave industry is still alive and well, too; that's gotta be worth something.

While we're at it, why don't we just turn ourselves over to the Communists? That way, we'll save ourselves the trouble of deciding how to govern a population that is uncontrollable. And we'll save them the trouble of taking us over by force in the future. Of course, that won't be too hard, since we'll all be stoned anyway.

PS- What kind of people do you think would be behind such a proposition? Certainly not the same kind of people who would like to see our country collapse. I'm sure that this is all being suggested with our country's best interests in mind. Right...?

Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days...

D&C 89:4

Tuesday, September 9, 2008


I would like to coin a new term: homophobiaphobia ~ the fear or strong disapproval of the heterosexual disapproval of homosexuality; ie, when gays can't tolerate the fact that straight people are averse to homosexuality. The common term, "homophobia," is actually a misnomer: it suggests both a clinical condition as well as an irrational fear.

Everyone that I know that has an aversion to same-sex attraction has a logic behind it, some more reasonable than others, but a logic nonetheless. It is therefore a rational conclusion because it is based on ideas, experiences, and beliefs.

There are many logical reasons to disapprove of homosexuality, and all other licentious sexual behavior, but whenever these views are shared they are immediately put down as "homophobic," which suggests irrationality and automatically deems an idea unacceptable and it's author uneducated, uncouth, and unfit for consideration. Why has this attitude developed? Because those that participate in socially unacceptable behaviors are always seeking to normalize their ways by forcing acceptance of the behavior on the general populace.

A poet once said:

"Vice is a monster of such frightful mein,
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet, seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace."

[vice = An evil habit or wicked tendency, mien = appearance]

First, the objectionable matter is put before us: we don't like it, but we are forced to see it and not allowed to object, so we endure. Next, after we have been caused to ignore our consciences, we begin to feel pity for the misfit and his ways. Then, we see defeat as the population begins to doubt his own moral conscience, to question why they even objected in the first place as they can no longer remember, and then to embrace the evil thing as equal to or above the moral behavior it replaces.

Stop the Homophobiaphobic!!!

The Sacrament

Not too long ago, I got a link to this Washington Post article from within the LDS Living email that is sent out by Deseret Book. It gives an accurate, straightforward description of the LDS view and practice of taking the Sacrament, showing how it might differ slightly from other traditions, and how it is entirely Christian. It's very well-written, and I would imagine it would be a good reference for an inquisitive non-Mormon acquaintance.

(Click on the title to jump to the article.)

Slander On The Sly

I came across this gem yesterday. It's a mostly interesting article cashing in on the current FLDS sensationalism. It wasn't bad, but I have to admit that what really struck me was the way the author, and sometimes horrible folk singer, Neil Young, found occasion to slide a little anti-Joseph Smith sentiment into his otherwise historical account of an attempted raid on a polygamous compound in 1953. You can read the entire article by clicking on the title above, but I will share the offending parts here (emphasis mine):

But as more time passed since the Short Creek raid, the fundamentalists began taking jobs outside their community and interacting more with the world around them. It was this decreasing separatism that Warren Jeffs sought to curb by moving some of the residents of Colorado City and Hildale to the Texas compound. Jeffs, who had succeeded his deceased father as leader and prophet of the FLDS Church in 2002, claimed direct lineage from both Jesus Christ and Joseph Smith, and he took more than 70 women as wives, many of whom had been his father's spouses, too. Jeffs' sense of his own power was immense, and he commanded absolute obedience from his community. In building the ranch compound in Texas, Jeffs hoped to prepare a perfect place where God's chosen could wait for His imminent return—the compound's name is Yearning for Zion—and he gloried in his status as God's leader on earth. "It was almost as if he thought he was invincible," Martha Bradley notes. "It was exactly how Joseph Smith acted in the last year of his life."

Martha Bradley, a University of Utah professor, author of a book about the Short Creek raid, and originator of the last line quoted above, apparently knows something about Joseph Smith that no one else does. I hope she writes a book to explain the similarities between Joseph Smith and Warren Jeffs to the rest of us. As of now, I've never read a single comment from anyone who knew Joseph Smith to suggest that he "commanded absolute obedience" or "thought he was invincible." Sure, modern-day Mormon-haters will tell you things like that, but you aren't much of a historian if those are your sources for history.

And seriously, Mr. Young. You put this article together, so tell me - What does a (slanderous, contrived) knock against Joseph Smith do to further our understanding of the incident at Short Creek?

Justification Of Crooked Paths

In yet another LDS Living article, an organization of LDS gays are trying to meet with General Authorities of the LDS Church. Why, you ask? Well,

"Any time that two groups come together there's a possibility, and I hope the possibility can lead to more understanding, more acceptance and less isolation," said Larabee.

Among other things, they are seeking acceptance. Who is this group, you ask?

Founded in secret by gay students at BYU in 1977, Affirmation has traditionally been ignored by church leaders, Melson said.

Affirmation has several similar definitions, and among them I believe this one is most appropriate:

An affirmation has the same purpose as an oath: to compel truthfulness. An affiant may refuse to swear to a supreme being and may therefore choose the affirmation rather than the oath. The affirmation has the same legal effect as an oath. (

Notice the particularly religious direction that this term leans. When taken in context, the moniker suggests that the overarching purpose of this group might be to compel truthfulness to others, including a supreme being. Personally, I think I'd be hesitant to compel the truthfulness of homosexuality to a supreme being that has made it quite clear, on multiple occasions, through both ancient and modern prophets, that homosexuality is thoroughly and completely unacceptable. But that's just me.

Freedom of Religion

Since people really seem to not understand Mormonism, it is certain that most people do not understand the actual stance of Mormons concerning freedom of religion. To paraphrase: while we believe that our church is the only true church, we also vehemently support an individual's right to worship in whatever way they choose. This is based on the LDS belief that God does not force us to do anything, and therefore, we should not force others to do things, either. Rather, it is the responsibility of each individual to seek out and obey the promptings of the Holy Ghost. This link goes to a recent speech given by Mitt Romney at the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty’s Canterbury dinner, where he elaborates on the connection between freedom and religion.

Pastor Wilson, Do Your Homework

The Washington Post has an article discussing opposition to a newly planned Mormon church on 16th Street in Washington DC. You can read the article here. The most striking bit in the article, though, is the following:

Dozens of homeowners have expressed opposition to the new church with lawn signs that read, "Too Big, Too Much, Too Many." And the Mormons are finding little support from the neighborhood's clergy, including one pastor who said his objection is rooted not in architecture, but theology.

"They don't accept Jesus as the Messiah; they accept him as the prophet," said Edward Wilson, pastor at Church of Christ, a block from the Mormon site. "It's wrong, I disagree with it, and I wouldn't want them in the neighborhood."

Aside from being downright unneighborly (not to mention un-Christlike), Pastor Wilson's comments about Mormonism are blatantly incorrect. And I mean incorrect as in, 5 minutes in front of the internet will cure your ignorance.

Pastor Wilson, you are confusing us with Muslims, who actually DO think of Christ as merely a prophet, and not the Messiah. If someone was kind enough to send you a link to my blog, here are a few things I think you should read:

1. Click here.
2. Click here.

For #1, I went to, the official website for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and typed "jesus messiah" into the search box. What you see after clicking on the link is articles from LDS magazines and lesson manuals, about how Jesus is the Messiah, most of the time not discussing how He IS the Messiah, but talking about His work on the Earth AS the Messiah, you know, almost as if the audience for which it was prepared already understood the concept.

For #2, I went to, the official internet edition of the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and typed "jesus messiah" into the search box. And the funny thing is, Pastor Wilson, the ONLY verse that came back containing both words was from the Book of Mormon. How interesting is that for a bunch of heathens who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah?!?

In case you are unable to follow the above link, let me quote the verse for you:
For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (2 Nephi 25: 19, emphasis added)
Today's lessons kids: many years at theological seminary does not a religious scholar make, considering you can learn more by spending 5 minutes in front of your computer monitor xP

Further Reading: "JESUS CHRIST, MESSIAH" (link to entry from topical guide at

Monday, September 8, 2008

Our Slow March to Communism

When I heard about the recent government bailout of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac banking institutions on the radio this morning, the first thing that popped into my mind was the word "Socialism." Yes, I've been reading a lot about Communism this weekend, but even so, this is not a usual reaction for me. But, I think there may be something to this.

When I was explaining to my wife about what Socialism is, and how it's exactly what Obama is, she asked me how they would go about changing our form of government from Capitalist to Socialist. I didn't have a very good answer for her at that moment.

And then I woke up to this morning's news about FM/FM, and things started to make sense.

Many people have been using the term "nationalization" in reference to the bailout. I think this term is correct, because if the government owns it, the "people" own it. This all started to disturb me when I reflected on the Marxist ideal that all private property cease to exist, and all things become the property of the government. With this bailout, the government now owns the two largest buyers of home mortgages in the US. In other words, until these loans are paid off, the government now owns the countless private properties that these loans are held against. In other words, private property is now falling directly into the hands of the federal government, which is now shockingly close to falling, itself, into the hands of the biggest outright Socialist presidential candidate the US has ever seen, Barack Obama!

If this doesn't concern you, then you don't yet grasp what Obama is all about.

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

Here Come The Brides, and Grooms, and Uh... Others

You may recognize the name of Stanley Kurtz by virtue of the fact that he is the one who recently blew the lid on the long, long, well-documented relationship that Obama "never had" with the radical terrorist, William Ayers, who is "just a guy who lives in [Obama's] neighborhood."

What you may NOT know is that he also wrote an amazing, eye-opening, looooong, article on the topic of the changing landscape of marriage in the modern world. While I strongly encourage you to read the original article, I would also like to share some of the comments and concepts that stood out to me as I read it.

Mr. Kurtz successfully presents the case that, despite the claims to the opposite, same-sex marriage has already opened the doors to other behaviors and definitions of marriage in some European countries, and that there are organizations here in America, waiting eagerly albeit quietly in the wings for their chance to demand acceptance. The reason, which conservatives and religious folks alike have said from the beginning, is obvious:

In a world fully accepting of gay marriage, it will be difficult to withhold equal standing from another organized sexual minority.

One group that was/is at the forefront of legalizing gay marriage is the Unitarian Universalist Church. They have formally allowed ceremonies to join polyandrous couples (multiple men and women in one relationship), but have kept this fact quiet for important reasons:

Unitarians understand that moving too swiftly or openly to legitimize polyamory could validate the slippery-slope argument against same-sex marriage.

So, although they recognize the validity of the "slippery-slope" argument, they choose to keep it as inconspicuous as possible.

But the clearest statement of strategic intent came from Valerie White, a lawyer and executive director of the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund: "It would put too much ammunition in the hands of the opponents of gay marriage. . . ." In short, the Unitarians are holding the polyamorists at arm's length only until gay marriage has been safely legalized across the nation. At that point, the Unitarian campaign for state-recognized polyamorous marriage will almost certainly begin.

Further, bisexuals are also waiting for their moment to spring into action and demand recognition in marriage. The following quote, in reference to a Unitarian Universalist minister, also takes a spine-tingling twist:

One polyamorist minister who had recently come out to his congregation as a bisexual treated polyamory and bisexuality synonymously. "Our denomination has been welcoming to gays and lesbians and transgendered people," he said. "Bisexuals have not received the recognition they deserve." In other words, anything less than formal church recognition of polyamory is discrimination against bisexuals.

This seems to suggest that a religious refusal to recognize non-monogamous relationships is equal to discrimination, an attitude which is already having stark results in America. (See my post prior to this one for examples.)

Yale professor Kenji Yoshino, a prevalent expert on bisexuality, provides the following perspective:

...heterosexuals and homosexuals have an interest in convincing bisexuals that they've got to make an all-or-nothing choice between heterosexuality and homosexuality.

Heterosexuals, for example, have an interest in preserving norms of monogamy, and bisexuality "destabilizes" norms of monogamy. Homosexuals, notes Yoshino, have an interest in defending the notion of an immutable homosexual orientation, since that is often the key to persuading a court that they have suffered discrimination. And homosexuals, adds Yoshino, have an interest in maximizing the number of people in their movement.

Thus, Prof. Yoshino provides some illuminating professional context to the debate on gay marriage: the "born that way" lie is the key to their political clout.

Of significant note to me, is the article's mention of a film that I had never heard of before, and its ungodly conclusion:

Three of Hearts is the story of the real-life 13-year relationship of two men and a woman. Together for several years in a gay relationship, two bisexual-leaning men meet a woman and create a threesome that produces two children, one by each man. Although the woman marries one of the men, the entire threesome has a commitment ceremony. The movie records the trio's eventual breakup, yet the film's website notes their ongoing commitment to the view that "family is anything we want to create."

It is this very attitude, that "family is anything we want to create," that conservatives and religionists have long warned against, and that many liberals have long held would never become public opinion by our allowance of inappropriate sexual behaviors. This notion is refuted, unintentionally, in an article in New York magazine:

According to New York, the growing popularity of polyamory among New York-area straights is largely inspired by the increasing visibility of gay relationships, with their more "fluid" notions of commitment.

Perhaps there is, after all, truth to the old conservative standby that says:

Vice is a monster of such frightful mien,

As to be hated needs but to be seen.

Yet, seen too oft,

Familiar with her face,

We first endure,

Then pity,

Then embrace.

The ironic twist, though, is that the same article

...also found that the most stable polyamorous groupings have as their core element a straight man and a bisexual woman who sticks to one man.

In other words, even promiscuous, "open-minded" relationships require a "One man, One Woman" core to remain intact. An interesting fact, indeed.

Mr. Kurtz discusses the fact that gays and bisexuals are generally treated with respect and compassion by traditionally religious members of society, but he finds that:

Somehow the idea has taken hold that tolerance for sexual minorities requires a radical remake of the institution of marriage. That is a mistake.

As I have said before, these minority groups are seeking to force their own brand of change on the whole of American society, despite the fact that they are generally treated well by the mainstream.

Says Mr. Kurtz:

The fundamental purpose of marriage is to encourage mothers and fathers to stay bound as a family for the sake of their children. Our liberalized modern marriage system is far from perfect, and certainly doesn't always succeed in keeping parents together while their children are young. Yet often it does. Unfortunately, once we radically redefine marriage in an effort to solve the problems of adults, the institution is destined to be shattered by a cacophony of grown-up demands.

Allowing the "marriage" of multiple partners also allows an "easy out" to partners who wish to leave a polyamorous relationship later, since, they will reason, there will still be others left behind who can take care of their offspring for them. This is sure to be the norm, when the obvious comparison to unmarried couples is made. The only difference will be that they will be in a legal relationship. The courts, however, are sure to be indifferent to an individual's "divorce" from a polyamorous relationship, since, as I have stated, the children will have other "parents."

In the discussion of polyamorous relationships, I was surprised to learn, for the first time, of the De Bruijn's, a Dutch trio who were all basically married to each other officially in 2005, and Koen Brand - a married man who publicly declared his bisexuality and then entered into a public homosexual relationship with another married man. These stories were all kept out of the American public's view due to the obvious damage they would have done to the ongoing social engineering by supporters towards the acceptance of gay marriage.

Mr. Kurtz concludes his article thus:

The De Bruijn trio, Koen Brand, the Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness, the legal arguments of Elizabeth Emens and Kenji Yoshino, and the bisexual/ polyamory movement in general have been launched into action by the successes of the campaign for gay marriage. In a sense, though, these innovators have jumped too soon. They've shown us today--well before same-sex marriage has triumphed nationwide--what would emerge in its aftermath.

Liberals may now put behind-the-scenes pressure on the Dutch government to keep the lid on legalized polyamory for as long as the matter of gay marriage is still unsettled. The Unitarian polyamorists, already conflicted about how much recognition to demand while the gay marriage battle is unresolved, may be driven further underground. But let there be no mistake about what will happen should same-sex marriage be fully legalized in the United States. At that point, if bisexual activists haven't already launched a serious campaign for legalized polyamory, they will go public. It took four years after the full legalization of gay marriage in the Netherlands for the first polyamory test case to emerge. With a far larger and more organized polyamory movement in America, it might not take even that long after the nationalization of gay marriage in the United States.

It's easy to imagine that, in a world where gay marriage was common and fully accepted, a serious campaign to legalize polyamorous unions would succeed--especially a campaign spearheaded by an organized bisexual-rights movement. Yet win or lose, the culture of marriage will be battered for years by the debate. Just as we're now continually reminded that not all married couples have children, we'll someday be endlessly told that not all marriages are monogamous (nor all monogamists married). For a second time, the fuzziness and imperfection found in every real-world social institution will be contorted into a rationale for reforming marriage out of existence.

Homosexuality Is Eroding Religious Freedoms Already

According to an article in the LA Times, the courts are already ruling against the free expression of religion when pitted against the gay agenda:

Conflicts about the rights of gays and those of religious believers demonstrate that these are not hypothetical fears. Consider the following:

  • A San Diego County fertility doctor was sued for refusing to perform artificial insemination for one partner of a lesbian couple for religious reasons. The doctor referred the patient to a colleague, promised there would be no extra cost and offered to care for her during her subsequent pregnancy. The case is now before the California Supreme Court, and justices seemed hostile to the doctor's defense during oral arguments last month.

  • Catholic Charities in Boston and San Francisco ended adoption services altogether rather than be compelled by anti-discrimination laws to place children with same-sex couples. In the Boston case, Catholic Charities was prepared to refer same-sex couples seeking to adopt to other providers, but that was not sufficient.

  • A Lutheran school in Riverside County, Calif., was sued in 2005 under California's Unruh Act (which forbids discrimination by businesses) for expelling two students who allegedly were having a lesbian relationship, in contravention of the religious views of the school. The case was thrown out in Superior Court in January, but the students have appealed.

  • Public school officials in Poway, Calif., so far have successfully barred students from wearing T-shirts that register their opposition to homosexuality on campus. One lawsuit made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court before being dismissed (as moot, because the students had graduated), but another federal lawsuit is pending

The gay agenda loudly proclaims that this WILL not happen, while in reality it IS happening ALREADY! It's time to face the facts and reject this behavior.

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Who Obama Is, and Why He Is a Threat To Your Freedom

In public, Obama just seems to say all the right things. The news media, Democrat Party, and left-leaning Liberals just love him. Conservatives, on the other hand, disagree, of course, and claim that his outward message and calculated public image is a concentrated effort to hide his true identity and goals for America. So, what's this all about?

Who Obama associates with:

To understand Obama, we must first understand who Obama associates with. William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn should especially be noted:

Ayers and Dorhn are extremist radicals from the 1960's anti-war terrorist group the Weather Underground, and they are unrepentant in the bombings they were a part of. They disappeared in 1970 after a bomb designed to kill army officers in New Jersey accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse. They turned themselves over to authorities in 1980. While the Weather Underground claimed 25 bombings, these characters were never prosecuted. Charges were dropped due to improper FBI surviellance...
Obama does some nice double talk and condemns the actions of the Weather Underground, however he remains good friends with two of them that remain unrepentant for their actions. They helped launch his political career. (Will the Media Report Obama's Terrorist Connection?,, 2/23/08)

Obama says, basically, "Oh, goshdarn those guys! They'll do the darnedest things!" As though radicalism is something to simply be shrugged off. Obama doesn't really care, of course, because he is also a radical. Consider the following.

What he has studied: Saul D. Alinsky

Recently, Barack's wife, Michelle, quoted from Alinsky's book, Rules for Radicals, which is infamous if for no other reason than that the dedication includes the following display of respect for a surprising character:

an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical . . . who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.

Yes, the Obama's chose to study, and quote from, a man who felt he owed at least some acknowledgement to the Devil for founding the practice of radicalism! And this from a couple who claim to be Christians?! Y'know, it's an interesting twist. Communists violently deny the existence of God, but apparently Socialists embrace the teachings, and follow the example of, Satan.

What he espouses: Socialism

Obama is a Socialist, by virtue of his political views and statements. One area where his Socialism is obvious, which should be truly repulsive -not to mention shocking- to Americans, were they not being brainwashed by the Liberal "news" media, is in his push for mandatory Preschool. The most effective programs that the Nazis, and Communists alike, ever instituted has been that of propagandizing the children. In a violent revolution, you would kill the adults and indoctrinate the children. In non-violent Communism (aka Socialism), you indoctrinate the children as soon as you get the chance, and wait for the parents to either die, or be put down by the radical youth that you have created. "Then," said Karl Marx:

I shall stride through the wreckage a creator!

In Conclusion

Friedrich Engels, the man who created Communism along with Karl Marx, said:

We do not promise any freedom, nor any democracy.

Socialism IS Communism! It is Communism won without bloodshed! It is socially engineered by creating artificial social strife (read: High gas prices due to Liberal Democrats disallowing drilling, etc), and then promising change; causing problems and then miraculously solving them because you were behind them!

Take a look at the world. How much of it is Communist? Large portions. Were those countries always that way? Of course not. Marx and Engels (and Lucifer, of course) created Communism in the early-mid 1800's, un-coincidentally at the same time that the Lord was establishing The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints here in America! So, how did Communist countries get that way? Through violent revolutions! Millions upon millions were murdered to pave the way for their anti-freedom, anti-God movement. Now, how much of the world is Socialist? An even greater portion. Do these people fare much better than those in Communist countries? Not much. They are still slaves to the whims of the government that claims to know what is best for its people. They do not have the freedoms that allow us to be Americans, those freedoms that are guaranteed us via the Constitution. And the worst part is that once you have lost your freedoms, whether to bloodshed or social engineering, you are a slave and cannot become free again except through the methods that were necessary to obtain our freedom in the first place: bloodshed! If we let it go now, it will be very, very difficult to get it back.

Just like Karl Marx, Obama believes that HE knows what is best for YOU. His ilk (Liberals/Democrats) are behind everything that is destroying our country at this moment: gay marriage, activist judges, oppression of churches and religion, and the radical indoctrination of our youth.


Further Reading:

Friday, August 29, 2008

Apparently, Telling the Truth is Hate Speech

A website called "Recovering from Mormonism" has taken it upon themselves to re-post, for some reason, all the manure that was originally spread across My favorite post, so far, is the one entitled, "Why I consider the mormon church *a hate group.*"

You are invited to read my comments in response to that post, here:

Be sure to leave your own form of *hate speech*

Get Your Facts Straight

The following two articles may be the most important things you will read concerning the gay "marriage" debate. They contain the facts needed to understand, and explain, why homosexual marriage is detrimental to our society, our culture, and religion in general.

Born That Way? Facts and Fiction about Homosexuality

The Divine Institution of Marriage

You may also wish to watch the following video that discusses Proposition 8. It is almost 30 minutes long, so if you can only watch for a few minutes, please skip to the 20 minute mark. You will find that the gay agenda's promise that "no one will be forced to perform gay marriages if they choose not to" is a lie, and that this has ALREADY HAPPENED!!! I believe that if the so-called news media didn't have their heads so far up Obama's backside, this would have been front page news!

Watch Prop 8 Video

We need to wake up and realize that the gay agenda does not want equality, as they suggest. They want superiority! They want to force social acceptance and full integration with mainstream culture despite the fact that every major religion has declared it a sin for thousands of years, despite the fact that 97-98% of America is not gay and that most Americans do not want it promoted as an acceptable practice in our culture! If this is allowed, the gay activists will have all they need to completely overhaul our society to their own desires. IT IS ALREADY HAPPENING! Instead of stating an honest case and allowing an honest vote, they have already forced the practice of gay marriages on the people of California against their will, they have already successfully sued the Methodist church in New Jersey for "discrimination," and it will not stop there!

Allowing Prop 8 to fail means that homosexuality will be taught as acceptable in public schools, as it is no doubt in many schools already. Even though no science supports the theory that gays are "born that way," it is being taught as such to our children in the name of "social justice." The intention being that it is okay to push this agenda based on a lie because in the end it will supposedly end discrimination against gays. IF YOU HAVE TO RESORT TO LIES TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS, THEN YOUR GOALS CANNOT BE BENEFICIAL TO SOCIETY!!!

Let's stop the madness, people! Read the documents above and find out how you are being swindled by the gay movement, and how much our society will suffer if we allow Prop 8 to fail!

Saturday, August 16, 2008

Gays Speak Out, Spout Intolerance, Misunderstanding

I came across this article on a gay website called the Lavender Newswire. The following is the response I submitted to the comments on this article. They were submitted, but "awaiting moderation," so who knows if they will actually appear on the page. I just thought I would post them here so that at least SOMEONE would see them :)

RE: Comments by the Editors:

1. "It’s too bad they don’t believe in the Bible. If they did, they would have to follow the admonishment, “Judge not that ye be not judged.”

Mormons DO believe in the Bible, which is why they believe in the declarations of God that define homosexuality as a sin, as well as the other passages you guys forget to quote, that say that we should "judge righteous judgment (John 7:24)."

2. "I really do not understand why some people, and now the Mormon Church officially, want to impose their perception of civil marriage onto all of society. I understood the history of this country was based on..."

Well, if you actually ever read a history book, you will find that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, which for thousands of years have considered homosexuality a sin. It is GAYS that are seeking to "impose their perception of civil marriage onto all of society" by virtue of activist judges, since clearly the voice of the people was against it from the beginning.

3. "The court is not directing any faith to change or amend its practice or belief in marriage."

No, but it IS seeking to redefine an institution that has been in existence for thousands of years.

RE: Miscellaneous commenters:

1. "Bigots."

The Wikipedia entry for bigotry says:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own." That also makes YOU a bigot, smart guy. I have said elsewhere that intolerance is shouting "Diversity!" in a crowded theater, but denying entrance to Christians and heterosexuals.

2. "Whatever you folks want to do in Zion (Utah) is your business. California is off limits."

Yeah, like the activists that would have forced this on California would think it prudent to stop there.

3. "terrorists in our own backyard that want to take away our freedoms"

No, gays DO NOT HAVE the freedom to marry, so nothing would be taken away.

4. "the LDS (Mormons)... are NOT non-profit"

Well, since no one in the leadership gets paid, who exactly profits? It couldn't be the millions of people the church helps with humanitarian efforts each year. (, (,5232,23-1-851-18,00.html)

5. "Institutionalized racism until 1978."

Y'know, there is just as much mistrust and misinformation about Mormons from you folks as you tend to believe exists about gays amongst Mormons. You might want to read up on the issue of Blacks and the LDS Priesthood before you go spouting off. Here is a good place to start:

6. "They are always alarmed when it comes to being criticized about their “cult like ways” "

Yeah, probably because we ARE a cult. Be sure to visit to find out more!

7. "Most people do not trust the Mormons."

Nothing like a little bit of "virtual fact" (ie, opinion) to prove a point! Sure, we're human. But, I also know several organizations that are not owned by Mormons that PREFER Mormon employees because they know they CAN trust them.

8. "the greatest hipocrisy is thier interests in Las Vegas."

Right, because a city is either ALL evil, or not at all, right? No good people can exist in a city that has so much bad in it.

9. "marrying their 13 year girls to a 50 year old man is ok even without her consent in certain sects."

Those "certain sects" are not affiliated with the Mormon church in any way. Please see

10. "The descendants of Brigham Young’s 55 wives will now lecture on the subject of marriage morality."

Because all 13 million-plus Mormons on the earth today are descendants of Brigham Young.

11. "Religious organizations have no right to foist their dogma onto others or into law. Period. This is not a theocracy."

Counter-point: NON-Religious organizations have no right to foist their dogma onto to others or into law. Period. This is not a Godless political system. Our country was FOUNDED on principles of Judeo-Christianity.

12. "Jefferson had things right centuries ago when he penned a religious freedom statute that kept church and state separate."

The separation of church and state was intended to keep Americans free from compulsory church attendance, such as that which the former-Brits-turned-Americans had been subjected to under the Church of England. It had nothing to do with voters being denied the right to vote according to their religious belief.

13. "I remember the strong and organized opposition the Mormon church had in the ’70s to the equal rights amendment to the US Constitution. Their arguments against it were reactionary and unfounded, e.g., “if it passes, people will be forced to use unisex public restrooms.” (The horror!) That amendment did not pass, and historians usually site the Mormon church’s highly organized efforts as a large factor in its defeat"

To begin with, the church has always strongly been in favor of women's rights. Utah was the FIRST state to allow women to vote, long before the ERA was proposed. Your "unisex bathroom" accusation is simply ungrounded. If you want to know what the church's stance was on the ERA, visit this webpage: (

Sunday, August 3, 2008

Gay Marriage, Part 2

In my recent post, I addressed the issue of gay "marriage." Today, I was surprised to find this post by a fellow Mormon, who feels very strongly about this issue, too. Please read her post, and then proceed to my responses below:

  1. Homosexuality is NOT a civil rights issue!

    To begin with, the very issue of whether or not gay people are "born that way" is debatable. I can say this with certainty because I have lived in California for the past 18 years, and had a great many gay friends. I have had people try to convince me to "experiment" with it, and I have known people who have experimented with homosexual acts due to the pressure put on them by our mutual gay friends, who would otherwise not have done so. Regardless, there are obviously those who have felt homosexual attractions for as long as they can remember. Either way, let this one thing ring clear: Having a feeling does not validate the committal of any subsequent act! Many convicted criminals, particularly lifetime offenders, such as kleptomaniacs and pedophiles, also contend that they are only acting on feelings that they have had for as long as they can remember. What makes homosexuality any different? Because it's between two mutually consenting adults? Then, on those grounds, how can you justify the conviction of Armin Meiwes, the German cannibal who killed and ate a willing victim? We all have feelings, but there are some that should, and others that should not, be acted upon. The scriptures, and modern prophets, have made the distinction abundantly clear.

  2. Our Christian duty is to love the "despised... rejected... and vulnerable...

    ...But this does not require us to allow or promote actions which are contrary to the Gospel. Sure, the Savior loved the prostitute, but He also told her to "go [her] way and sin no more" (John 8:11).

  3. Yes, many gays will be offended by Proposition 8.

    Nephi says it best:
    And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center. (1 Nephi 16:2)

    What is at the "very center" of the matter is
    that in the last days... men shall be lovers of their own selves... Without natural affection... lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God (2 Timothy 3:1-4)

    How can you argue with that? A homosexual in the LDS church has the following options: 1) Be chaste, or 2) Live a double life, or 3) Leave the church. The test, as described in scripture above, is: Which do you love more - pleasure or God?

    How does it come down to "pleasure or God?" Because our sexuality was given to us by God for two purposes: First and foremost, to create bodies for our Father's spirit children to inhabit; and second, for a pleasurable bonding experience for man and wife following marriage. Inasmuch as homosexual acts CANNOT perform the first and foremost purpose of sexuality, it exists solely as an act of pleasure.

  4. On "violated spirits" and censoring the pulpit.

    If you are attending church and feel that your spirit has been "violated," then I think you should do a check of your personal attitudes. Sure, our leaders sometimes make mistakes, but (pay attention here:) this particular issue has been addressed by the First Presidency, in no uncertain terms! Are you suggesting that our local leaders refrain from relaying to us messages from those individuals that we sustain as being called from God, simply because there might be a "significant minority" in the congregation who don't want to hear it? I believe there is a quote somewhere about how to recognize when you are on the road to apostasy...

  5. "The United Church of Christ... opens its arms to gay people.

    Yes, but they don't have a living prophet. But then, it sounds like that doesn't mean much to you anyway.

    And, for the record: the LDS church opens it's arms to gays, as well.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Ancient Tablet Found

Heard about this one, yet? A new tablet has been found that contains some interesting information. They are unsure about its origins, so there is some speculation about its legitimacy but it is cool nonetheless.

Read the articles here:

Biblical Archaeology Review

New York Times

Just Because You Haven't Found It Doesn't Mean It's Not There

I love The Cure. When I found out that the album, Disintegration, had come out, I returned to school from my lunch break and borrowed enough money to return immediately and buy it. I almost missed the bus when I got back.

The day I stopped buying albums from The Cure was the day I discovered that one of the songs on their then-new album, Bloodflowers, was about how God does not exist. Robert Smith, the singer, was quoted in a magazine article (I believe it was Rolling Stone) saying that he had searched all his life and finally, in his late 40s or early 50s, come to the conclusion that there was no God. I was devastated to hear someone I had idolized throughout my teenage years say something that went so fully against my personal beliefs.

Ironically, about this same time, I visited Bjork's website and she had similar things to say. Thankfully, none of her songs have this as a theme.

A few years before this, I threw out a Dead Can Dance album when I learned that the song, How Fortunate The Man With None, was about religion. Funny, I consider myself quite fortunate.

Who are people to think that a thing does not exist merely because THEY have not discovered it? My mind goes to the gentleman who in recent years left the LDS Church and created an anti-Mormon video all due to the fact that his personal research failed to turn up the specific proofs of Mormonism that he had expected to find. Did your patriarchal blessing tell you, sir, that "you will map the Nephite genome and prove once and for all to the world that Mormonism is true"? If so, then I would leave the church, too. Well, unless I had a testimony that the Lord would come through for me, in which case I would just keep working on it. But anyways.

So, on a related note, one that is much more understandable, I recently listened to an interview of Maurice Sendak on the NPR website and learned that he, too, is an atheist. He can't understand how God would allow something like the Holocaust to take place. You can listen to it here, if you wish. I'm just grateful for the perspective that the Gospel gives us as Latter-day Saints.

Don't Lose Your Top

So, you've probably heard about the guy who got excommunicated because he put out (well, is putting out) a calendar of shirtless returned missionaries. I read this article, and something stood out to me.

This fellow was interviewed by reporters immediately following the excommunication proceedings, I am assuming, and this was what he had to say:

"I feel empowered and free and I feel like I no longer have to apologize for anything."

Well, sir. That is an amazing concept. I heard another ex-Mormon say this exact thing to me while I was a missionary. I realize that you were inactive for six years, so let me explain this phenomenon to you. Are you ready? You no longer have the Holy Ghost!

In case you still don't understand, let me explain further. It is the Holy Ghost who brings us to a knowledge of truth, and who also brings us to a point of godly sorrow, wherein we recognize our misdeeds and long to correct them. You, and the 100 respondents to your query for models, could not have honestly thought for even a moment that it would be appropriate to violate the standards of the church.

"The project is about stepping outside the stereotypes and stepping outside of the image," Hardy said. "Not everybody fits the image, and I let them know we're not trying to portray an image for the entire church."

So, your point was what. To show the world that there are Mormons out there who have poor judgment? Excellent example.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Name That Person

Can you tell who the following quote is referring to?

[H]e is a rhetorical genius who developed his own abilities with no help from anyone
else. One cannot imagine that [he] ever spoke differently than he does today, or that he will ever speak differently. He speaks his heart, and therefore reaches the hearts of those who hear him. He has the amazing gift of sensing what is in the air. He has the ability to express things so clearly, logically and directly that listeners are convinced that that is what they have always thought themselves.

If you said Barack Obama, you'd be half right. It is from a 1936 book by Joseph Goebbels, discussing the speaking abilities of... Adolf Hitler. Although we can look back now and see how atrocious the things were that Hitler espoused, the everyman of 1930's Germany was blinded by his rhetoric; he spoke so well that people believed unspeakabe things. And so it is today. You need to read the entire excerpt here to see how closely this fits the persona of the Obama that we see today, and who may turn out to show an altogether different face if he ever finds himself in the presidency of the United States, God forbid. Of course, Obama is not entirely as convincing as Hitler was; Hitler didn't change his position on things, he persisted until he had others convinced and exuberant about his position.

From an LDS perspective, this reminds us of the War in Heaven, which I am sure consisted of arguments such as those that we are faced with now in our society: how much freedom should be allowed us while we are on Earth? Satan, then known by another, unknown name, had such rhetorical power as to convince millions upon millions that his ideas were superior to those of our Heavenly Father. A powerful speaker is a forceful speaker, pushing the weakminded and confused individual further and further into the mindset of the speaker, until the individual no longer discerns their own ideas from those of the speaker. This is not how God works, however, but by "long-suffering and love unfeigned" as the scriptures tell us, so you can imagine how one-sided the argument may have become, or at least appeared, as our Heavenly Father lovingly and thoughtfully presented His plan for our salvation, only to then have it countered violently by Satan, in forceful tones and persuasive arguments designed to convince dominatingly instead of persuade patiently.

How would we learn if we had chosen the plan of Satan, and come to earth only to have our every movement planned out and orchestrated for us ahead of time? In contrast, we were sent to this Earth that we know - one where babies get diseases, wars are raged, and people do unspeakable things - and it is only when we think for ourselves, and always stand for truth even when it is hard, that we discover for ourselves why we have been given the commandments to follow. It is when we are weak that we decide it isn't worth arguing over what is correct... and a little untruth is allowed to exist in the world. And little untruths build up and gather together to become great untruths, and people become confused, and mighty speakers rise up with their powerful rhetoric to convince us that the only way to freedom is to give it all to them, so that they may whisk us effortlessly away from all our discomforts.

And so we end up with socialism, which begins with leaders making all of our decisions for us. You want healthcare, you say? Well, you must see Dr. Whatsit. You don't like Dr. Whatsit? Too bad! We make the decisions now! Socialism, in turn, leads to Fascism, because the people no longer have the freedoms available to them to enable them to resist: namely, the freedom to gather, the right to bear arms, and freedom of speech. For examples of Socialism, one need only look to countries like Brazil, where socialized medicine is a nightmare, and daily life is fraught with experiences like those of my wife's cousin, who married a Brazilian girl. On a trip to Brazil, they ate at a restaurant. He was given the wrong kind of soda, and so he went back to get the correct kind. The workers all told him that it was too bad, and refused to do anything about it, to which he had no recourse because Socialism does not allow for the benefit of an individual's preference: you get what you get, and if you don't like it, tough!


If you did not click through and read the article I linked to above, I would suggest you do so now. It was written in an era when Adolf Hitler seemed innocuous, but many truths were openly spoken because people were not as bent on subversing their motivations as they are now. One of these truths is spoken in the following passage, from the same article:

An organization comes from the
propaganda of the word, a movement from the organization, and
that movement conquers the state.
One could no more cut a perfect diamond with a laser than construct a more perfect description of environmentalism. The propaganda of the word has come and gone, the formation of a movement has taken place, and all that is left now if we do not cut it off in its present state is that it conquers us. The science is imperfect - many do not even agree with the conclusions that are the source of the "choices" that we have been already forced to make (which cars to drive, which light bulbs to use, etc) - but individuals and organizations with the intent to destroy our country and take away our freedoms have taken the demon by its horns and are leading us on a pathway to Hell, paved with good intentions. Don't get me wrong: conservation, itself, is not evil. It is the obsession with conservation, the belief that this thing and this thing only will be our salvation that blinds its followers.

Buyer beware.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

John Welch's Discovery of Chiasmus in the Book of Mormon

I remember how excited I was to learn of the discovery of chiasmus, or Hebrew poetry, in the Book of Mormon. This article at tells exactly how Bro. Welch made this amazing discovery:

Monday, June 16, 2008

Gay "marriage"

Thank God the gay marriage ban recently qualified for the California ballot, but there are still some troubling issues, like who do "gay Mormons" think they are? A recent article, found here, reports on a so-called "support group for gay Mormons" that has asked the church to stay out of the recent affairs surrounding the fight over whether to legalize or ban gay "marriage" in California. My problems with this are manyfold, but a few are prominent. First, are you a Latter-day Saint or not? If so, then you believe that a) the scriptures are true (which clearly denounce homosexuality), and b) that the leaders guide the church under the direction of the Lord (who has also made it abundantly clear through modern prophets that homosexuality is unacceptable). Which is it? This is not liberal Christianity, where we can mold religion to our own whims, this is TRUE religion, where we are held accountable to our obedience to the Lord's commands and counsel. Who do you think you are to counsel the Lord's representatives?

Second, who do you think you are fooling in attempting to claim that allowing gay "marriage" "affirms the worth of families?" Homosexuality, by its very nature, is anti-family. No homosexual union is able to produce a family of their own accord. This is by design. By God's design, and not the church's, I might add. And don't give us your Liberal crapload about how you "encourage LDS leaders to find a new focus by preaching and living a
Gospel of love and respect toward all peoples and all families," because you are well aware that even as the Lord does indeed love all people regardless of their choices, He is just as adamant about our obedience to Him, including the heterosexual lifestyle that He has proscribed for us (or celibacy, as one of the New Testament apostles points out). The scriptures are clear: We cannot enter into God's kingdom if we choose to live in opposition to His plan. Period. End of sentence. We can love God, and He can love us back just as much, and more, but being Latter-day Saints (or so we're told) you know that we will only be rewarded to the degree to which we are obedient to God. We can't philosophize with God, as we can with man, and justify and excuse our actions. It just doesn't work that way.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Pastor Wilson, You Are a Jackass

NOTE: I have recently made the decision to post all my LDS stuff to it's own blog. I posted this yesterday on Army of Buddhas, but have now moved it here.

The Washington Post has an article discussing opposition to a newly planned Mormon church on 16th Street in Washington DC. You can read the article here. The most striking bit in the article, though, is the following:

Dozens of homeowners have expressed opposition to the new church with lawn signs that read, "Too Big, Too Much, Too Many." And the Mormons are finding little support from the neighborhood's clergy, including one
pastor who said his objection is rooted not in architecture, but theology.

"They don't accept Jesus as the Messiah; they accept him as the prophet," said Edward Wilson, pastor at Church of Christ, a block from the Mormon site. "It's wrong, I disagree with it, and I wouldn't want them in the neighborhood."

Aside from being downright unneighborly (not to mention un-Christlike), Pastor Wilson's comments about Mormonism are blatantly incorrect. And I mean incorrect as in, 5 minutes in front of the internet will cure your ignorance.

Pastor Wilson, you are confusing us with Muslims, who actually DO think of Christ as merely a prophet, and not the Messiah. If someone was kind enough to send you a link to my blog, here are a few things I think you should read:

1. Click here.
2. Click here.

For #1, I went to, the official website for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and typed "jesus messiah" into the search box. What you see after clicking on the link is articles from LDS magazines and lesson manuals, about how Jesus is the Messiah, most of the time not discussing how He IS the Messiah, but talking about His work on the
Earth AS the Messiah, you know, almost as if the audience for which it was prepared already understood the concept.

For #2, I went to, the official internet edition of the scriptures of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and typed "jesus messiah" into the search box. And the funny thing is, Pastor Wilson,
the ONLY verse that came back containing both words was from the Book of Mormon. How interesting is that for a bunch of heathens who don't believe that Jesus is the Messiah?!?

In case you are unable to follow the above link, let me quote the verse for you:

For according to the words of the prophets, the Messiah cometh in six hundred years from the time that my father left Jerusalem; and according to the words of the prophets, and also the word of the angel of God, his name shall be Jesus Christ, the Son of God. (2 Nephi 25: 19, emphasis added)

To sum it up, Pastor Wilson, aside from slandering the most basic belief of more than 13 million people, you are also propagating false teachings that Mormons have been working hard for nearly 200 years to correct. I hope that you have learned, at the very least, how easy it is to research these things in this internet age, but better yet, next time: just ask a Mormon.

Further Reading: "JESUS CHRIST, MESSIAH" (link to entry from topical guide at

Readers: If you would like to contact Pastor Wilson, to assist him in obtaining a correct understanding of Mormonism, or just to tell him you read about him on this blog, click here.