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.
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.I recently discussed the issue as far as Mitt Romney is concerned, where I lay out the argument that separation of church and state has not been an attribute of the Mormon Church.Church founder Joseph Smith Jr. Crafted thirteen articles of faith for his church. Among those articles it states: “10. We believe……… that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth…” One will have to consider that the building of a New Jerusalem is a political concept when used for the governing of earth’s inhabitants. Further identifying the location of that New Jerusalem, Smith declared in 1838 that a location at Far West, Jackson County, Missouri was the site of the original Garden of Eden and it was there that Zion (New Jerusalem) would be built. The order of governing the Mormon Church is one of theocracy. I use that term with full knowledge that the God concept of Mormons does not square with that of Christians, Jews or Moslems. However, it is within the context of the Mormon view of God that the church is claimed to be Theocratic. The Catholic Church is theocratic but there is no priesthood nexus between the Pope and layman such as JFK as it is between the Mormon “Prophet” and candidate Mitt Romney.
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.”
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?