Mitt Romney’s attempt to narrow the religion issue to a, ‘Shucks folks, there isn’t too much difference between a Mormon and a Christian’ and the blogging discussions it triggered have obfuscated the real issues. It’s like tossing in a packet of aspartame and a little creamer to disguise a bitter cup of coffee.The Constitution prohibits a litmus test so that a candidate of any persuasion should be able to take a shot at the presidency. That includes Christians, Mormons, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, etc., as well as Satanists, and Atheists! However, that prohibited litmus test is applied to religious beliefs in general not to a specific political agenda which may be sought by that religion. When politics are hidden within a religion, that agenda becomes fair game for discussion and litmus.
Any attempt to narrow the qualification of a candidate to being a true blue Christian is a political scam not supported by any law and rightly so. Besides, what is a true blue Christian?
From the dawn of history those in political power have consistently merged the two issues of government and religion in an effort to create a manageable constituency. It has been responsible for the dumbing down of the populace and more often for instilling fear as a control device.
The real issue for America is not what religious belief or disbelief a candidate cradles in his/her head but rather does that belief system support or advocate a total separation of itself from the rule of government. What is its political agenda? In a democracy that is a true legitimate concern.While Mormons do believe that Jesus and Satan were spiritual brothers (as announced by presidential candidate Mike Huckabee) and have a belief of a pre-existence (before earth mortality), which differs from the other two religions spawned by the Father Abraham story, that doesn’t in itself condemn a Mormon as a theocratician.
Since the Mormon Church is a relatively new religion, a brief review of its history can easily tell us if it supports true separation of church and state.
In that context, God The father (of their view) stands at the top of the pyramid. Jesus Christ the son is the God of this earth. The next officer descending is designated as the current living successor to Founder Joseph Smith or the living mouth piece of God in mortality. This individual, currently Gordon B. Hinckley, is claimed and testified to by all faithful and not so faithful Mormons to be a living, breathing prophet who communicates with God on a daily basis. Or as the late “prophet” Spencer Wooley Kimball declared after I challenged the leadership on black priesthood in 1976, “The channels of communication are unbroken.”This first subordinate Priest to Christ has selected two counselors who serve in capacity as the First Presidency. This group of three is surrounded by a Quorum of twelve which constitutes the pool from which upon the death of the current mouthpiece, is selected the ascending “prophet seer and revelator”. Longevity is the selection mode in that God directs it by allowing the senior member to out live others and thus succeed to the presidency. The Law of Succession doctrine doesn’t explicitly state that God takes the lives of those not healthy enough to outlive one another but it infers that the succession is the will of God! There are other groups, quorums and councils constituting the “General Authorities” From there in descent are the Presidents of Stakes (Dioceses) and Bishops of Wards (Parishes) In every instance, the person to fill a vacant office is selected by “authorities” above. In fact the Articles of faith state: 5. “…..all men must be called of God by prophecy and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority…” This is where the order of the priesthood enters into the equation. There are two distinct orders of priesthood: The “Aaronic” or lowest and the “Melchizedek” or higher. There are several degrees in each. The Aaronic has Deacon, Teacher, Priest and Bishop while the Melchizedek has Elder, Seventy and High Priest. The lower concerns temporal matters, the higher spiritual. An axiom often used is, “The priesthood can exist without the church but the church cannot exist without the priesthood”. Paramount to the priesthood is the notion of “KEYS”. That is, one individual possess the Keys, the whole ball of wax. The whole nine yards. Smith’s claim to priesthood first concerned the Aaronic order when he states that John the Baptist, as a resurrected being, ordained him and associate Oliver Cowdrey in the River in Pennsylvania on May 15, 1829 during the time they were involved in “translating” the Book of Mormon. This lower priesthood had no authority to organize the true church. However, to cure this defect, according to Smith, the Melchizedek priesthood was restored to the earth from the days of the New Testament Apostles “sometime**” in June 1829 by the ordination of Smith and Cowdrey under the hands of resurrected Biblical personages Peter, James and John whom Jesus had ordained. The “keys” were laid upon Smith. It was essential in the Smith narrative that priesthood predated the organization of the church for without its prior re-establishment there would have been no authority to establish the “one and only true church”. ** It is unfortunate that he couldn’t recall and document the location and the exact day as he did for the Aaronic. This has always posed a weak link for authenticity which is supplemented by strong faith. Therefore, the President, Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the church holds all powers of priesthood. In order for any man and I mean a male, females excluded, to hold any degree of priesthood he must have it delegated to him through the channels of priesthood which operate independently though in concert with the church. This law of the keys also means that only the prophet can receive revelation for the church. That living person to day is Gordon B. Hinckley. Example: a Bishop is the officer head of a ward (parish) but his calling as a Bishop (being the highest office of the Aaronic priesthood) can only come under ordination to the office of a High Priest (unless he is a direct descendant of biblical Aaron brother of Moses). And so on with his two counselors. Likewise a Stake President (diocese) and counselors can only hold that office if he/they are an ordained High Priest of the Melchizedek priesthood the keys of which are held by the prophet. So the priesthood is like a tree upon which the leaves of church hang or the skeleton upon which hangs the flesh. On top is the head or the crown. Disassemble the church and the priesthood would still continue to exist.Mormon detractors to my referenced article attempted to play down the value of a high priest in Mormon layman ministry but that office of priesthood has to be held if one is to function in a higher structured church leadership role. It usually takes years of service and obedience to attain it. While church members are given the opportunity ( and expected) to express consent for any individual who may be appointed (“called”) they have no voice in the selection and are subject to discipline if they should question the selection with a nay vote. Thus works theocracy within Mormonism. The same tactic is employed in dictatorships where the duty to consent is enforced but the right to dissent is non existent and punished! In early Mormon settlements the priesthood order of the church selected the political as well as the military order. In Nauvoo it was Joseph Smith at the helm as President-Prophet, City Mayor and commander Lieutenant General of the 5,000 man militia known as the Nauvoo Legion. In the Utah territory before the Federal territorial Government existed, Brigham Young held the high political office as well as head of the religious order. When Johnston’s army was sent to Utah to quell the Mormon Rebellion by President James Buchanan in 1857, the subordinate priesthood/church authorities to Young held the State Militia offices. And they had been organized to fight the U.S. army. “Up Awake Ye Defenders of Zion’ written to the tune of The Red White and Blue was a rallying song of the era. It was in this context of hyped-up battle anticipation that the Mountain Meadows Massacre happened in 1857 by the territorial militia under the command of Brigham Young. This past September the church finally admitted complicity of the church but blamed it on the local church leaders who were also the militia commanders under the priesthood/church order. In a democracy under chain of command the buck stops with the president but not in a theocracy! See Mountain Meadows Massacre (1950) Juanita Brooks: We can conclude therefore that when the church had complete control of a geographical area that it functioned as a theocracy. That it was not allowed to do that under the Constitution was a lesson never learned by Smith or Young and only tolerated by successive leaders. In Utah it is still a shadow government, I have not discussed herein the failed practice known as the United Order which Smith introduced during his theocratic rule. That order required all members of the church to deed all their property to the church (Smith) for redistribution by the church (Smith). That program predated Marxism by seventy years but smells of communism. It is still contemplated that in the full bloom of the Kingdom Of God (the Church) that order will be re-instated. The reader can obtain a detailed discussion of the United Order in Ed Decker’s latest Book, MY KINGDOM COME email@example.com which also discusses at length the Mormon Empire quest!
So how does this all square with the presidential candidacy of Mitt Romney?Romney holds the office of a High priest. He is subordinate to Gordon B. Hinckley who holds the Keys to the priesthood. Romney is dependent upon him for his church/priesthood-active relationship with God. Even as US President, Romney cannot defy any ruling or direction given to him by Hinckley who speaks for God, as affecting the government of the United States without subjecting himself to discipline for his membership in the Mormon Church. And thus his eternal welfare would be at stake. A dedicated, brainwashed Mormon such as Romney wouldn’t even question such a directive. He will consider it the will of God. Now if we didn’t have all the evidence of political subterfuge and empire quest that wouldn’t be a problem for us.
Romney should be asked the question at the next debate, “ As a subordinate priesthood holder to the Mormon President, What would you do if you were ordered by the Mormon president to do or not do something that ran counter to the will of the Congress, the courts, the people or of the Constitution ?” IT WOULD DO WELL TO PLACE HIM UNDER OATH TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. Ed Decker, author of My Kingdom Come (supra) asks the question: “Suppose that Romney is elected president and the Mormon Church should crown him prophet, seer, revelator and earth king?” To fit right into the world of the American Empire prepared under Bush! (Italics added are mine.) But beyond that question we need to look at exactly what has been “prophesied” by a Mormon leader on the issue of one world government.The Following extracts are quoted verbatim from the pages of Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. Mckonkie, Doctrinarian Son-in-law of past Mormon Prophet. Joseph Fielding Smith. 1966 edition. Under the topic of Kingdom. Kingdom of God: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormon or LDS) as it is now constituted is the kingdom of God on earth; nothing more needs to be done to establish the kingdom. The Church and kingdom are one and the same. (p. 415) The Church or kingdom is not a democracy; legislation is not enacted by the body of people comprising the organization; they do not make the laws governing themselves. The Church is a kingdom, The Lord Jesus Christ is the Eternal King and the President of the Church, the mouthpiece of God on earth, is the earthly king. All things come to the Church from the King of the kingdom in heaven through the king of the kingdom on earth.… There is of course, the democratic principle of common consent where-under the people may accept or reject what the Lord offers to them. Acceptance brings salvation; rejection leads to damnation. During the millennium, the kingdom of God will continue on earth, but in that day it will be both an ecclesiastical and a political kingdom. That is the Church (which is the kingdom) will have the rule and government of the world given to it. When inspired teachers speak of the future setting up of the kingdom of God on earth, they have reference to the millennial day when the “The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and his Christ; and he shall reign forever and forever.” (Rev. 11:15) Daniel also saw the day when “the saints of the most High (LDS I added) shall take and posses the kingdom forever and ever.” (Dan 7:18, 22, 27.) The Prophet (Joseph Smith) prayed that the present ecclesiastical kingdom of God on earth might roll forth that the future political and kingdom of God on earth might come. (Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 65; Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1 pp 229-246.) (p. 416) Additional documentation concerns the hearsay prophesy that the day would come when the Constitution would hang by a thread and it would be saved by the “Elders of but not by the church”
Considering the fact that the Mormon Church was declared by its founder and, its present day leader that it is an ecclesiastical/ physical/political kingdom, the idea that nothing about it can be discussed in a political sense because it is a religion and therefore out of bounds under litmus prohibition is utter nonsense.As I stated in my prior article, Joseph Smith organized the Council of the Fifty of the church to bring about one-world government. The council in turn crowned him “Earth King”. Since the church has been identified by the founder as the Kingdom of God on earth, it still exists today and has crowned Gordon B. Hinckley “Earth King” subordinate only to Jesus Christ to act as Vice-Regent of Christ in political and ecclesiastical matters affecting planet Earth!
For a full discussion of this doctrine, see Quest for Empire: The Political Kingdom of God and the Council of Fifty in Mormon History. By KLAUS J. HANSEN. 1967 East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. Also see Kingdom on the Mississippi Revisted by Roger D Launius (300 pp) and Equal Rites: The Book of Mormon Masonry by Clyde R Forsberg (364 pp).
In a futile attempt to bring that theocratic condition upon the earth before he died, in the early 1840s Smith dispatched Orson Hyde, a Jewish convert to Mormonism, to the Holy Land to bless and dedicate it for the return of Israel as stated under his tenth of thirteen articles: “We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and the restoration of the ten tribes;….” When that failed to immediately happen, the priesthood repeatedly sent emissaries to bless and re-dedicate the land for the return of the Jews a total of some five times. God didn’t seem to be listening.In 1917, 75 years after Orson Hyde’s dedication of Palestine for the return of Israel, the Balfour Declaration of November 2, 1917 in the UK addressed to Lord Rothschild spoke in support of the gathering of Israel in Palestine. Finally by fiat, the United Nations in 1948 created the nation of Israel against the interests of the Palestinian people who as descendants of the same Abraham were equally entitled to the land. For that vision of equal rights, we have to discount the dishonesty and subterfuge occasioned by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in cheating Abraham’s Arab descendants of the promise of God. Neither the Mormon Council of the Fifty, the Mormon Prophet nor the United Nations had authority to do such a thing if one is to believe the Old Testament stripped of the dishonesty favoring the descendants of Judah.
With Smith’s declaration that the New Jerusalem or Zion would be built at Far West (Jackson County ) Missouri, his actions or that of the Council of the YTFIF in dedicating the Holy Land for the return of the Jews would seem to be counter productive to the scheme of the Missouri plot.
However, the scripture, “The law shall go forth from Zion and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem”, (Isaiah 2:1-5) (paraphrased) posed a serious hindrance to Smith. Smith identified two separate places to fit into that scripture and the former could not be fulfilled until the latter had been consummated. To him it made sense that Israel would have to be re-established in the Holy Land before the Lord could utter His word (gospel) from Jerusalem and validate laws issuing forth from Zion in America.
In this endeavor, there is a conflict between the Jewish freemasonry Zionists and the Mormon Zionists***. The former anticipate that Jerusalem will be the center of world control while Mormons intend it to be in Missouri with themselves in control. [Or in Salt Lake City pending establishment of the temple in “The Garden Of Eden” in Far West (Independence) Missouri.]
In Christian end time theories, the world will come to an end with its destruction after it has been subjected to a thousand year rule of peace under Jesus. What has never been discussed in scripture however, exactly….. How is Jesus, the “Prince of Peace” going to maintain peace for a thousand years in the absence of the use of violence or force? Will he hypnotize everyone? Will he hold all life in a state of suspended animation? If so where is their free agency? What good would living like a robot produce?