Posted by
Phil E. on Sunday, August 24, 2008 3:00:58 AM
The Wall Street Journal being politically correct,
bowing to the Salt Lake denomination's propaganda.
Quoting the Mormon church about polygamists being a cult.
They should know.
Preamble: Now that Senator Obama has chosen Senator Biden for Vice President, you might think there's no way Senator McCain can lose. That anyone he picks for Vice President would be better than Joe Biden. You'd be wrong.
If Senator McCain chooses Mormon Mitt Romney for Vice President, it's his election to lose.
Ignoring for the moment what Evangelical Christians on the Right will do (i.e. not vote) because they're trouble by why they know
about Mormonism, the Left will once again fixate on Mitt Romney's Mormonism and all that it entails, just as the Right focused on Senator Obama's church with it's "Liberation Theology."
What, you don't think there's a damning audio clip of Mitt Romney or the leaders of the Mormon church out there somewhere? After what those on the Right did to Senator Obama, it'll be double pay pack time for the Left.
I wonder if the Mormon church wants all that scrutiny again. I bet their recruiting numbers (and, therefore, income) are way down. I wonder if they're losing members as Mormons are confronted with facts and finally think about their faith?
Maybe the 'prophet' has a message for Mitt Romney?
Like... "Stop!"
You think it's unfair to hold a man accountable for the religion he chooses? Bigoted? Vile? Oh yeah?
Well, now that those on the "Right" have bashed Senator Obama over and over again for not changing his religion (which is something you can change), spending 20 years with "Reverend" Wright, wondering aloud why he didn't leave the church while playing that infamous audio clip "No, no, no, God d___ America!" The Right has proved that it's perfectly okay to judge a man's religion and expect a man to leave his church if it's in error.
Let's not have a double standard here. Those on the Left will, rightly, bring up same with Mitt Romney, asking why, for example, he didn't leave his church when it
discriminated against Blacks. Who knows what other dark secrets the Left has dug up?
In fact, credit to Senator Obama for distancing himself from Jeremiah Wright. While probably purely political, at least he's made a statement condemning the teachings. Not so Mitt Romney, who continues to be
"proud of his faith."
If the Left doesn't make hay about the secret oath of allegiance Mormons swear to their church,
those who are truly on the Right, who truly care about oaths and vows taken before God, will.
It's true that no one votes for a President because of his Vice President. A good VP choice can't help you. But a terrible Vice Presidential candidate can hurt you. Let's hope Senator McCain doesn't let his guard down, thinking this just got a lot easier with Senator Biden as Veep. If he chooses Mitt Romney, the controversy will never end.
The great thing about finding truth is that you can come at it from different directions and still arrive at the same answer.
For example, you may never have read the Bible, where the Apostle Paul declares that the Creation points to a creator God.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. (Romans 1:20)
But let's say you watched Ben Stein's
Expelled and started thinking about the evolutionists' claims, that somehow, all this stuff appeared out of nowhere and, instead of rusting to death, like everything always does, it instead, quite by accident, produced life. You quickly realize that it takes more faith to believe that then it does in a Creator.
For example, you have faith that sex organs on two different individuals just "evolved" over millions of years and over a million individuals, so that, one day, magically, they fit each other and produced offspring? This isn't even considering all the other "trivial" things that would have to simultaneously, magically work together to make this so. Like, said individuals would have to have branched off into XX and XY individuals BEFORE sexual reproduction (what's the natural selection advantage of that?), presumably while still budding to reproduce. Somehow the XX individuals, for no particular reason, eventually developed a womb, tubes, eggs, etc. (What was the advantage while these things were in process?) And that
mitosis, a process that goes on in every cell to reproduce itself, would suddenly not be the norm in the sex organs, where
meiosis prevails.
How did evolution know in advance that only half the chromosomes would be needed from each partner? How did the sperm and egg work out all that complex chemistry to unite before even knowing about each other's existence? Wow. That truly is "amazing faith!"
This all makes perfect sense when you look at it from the finished product perspective. Like looking at a
folding keyboard for your pocket, you can see that this was all cleverly designed so the parts fit together. But it makes absolutely no sense when you look at it while it's all "evolving." What good are vestigial limbs that maybe will eventually become wings if only the bones in the rest of the body hollow out, if only muscles develop to flap, if only the brain develops a stabilization system for flight, if only "instincts" randomly evolve so you know you can fly with those former limbs, not to mention land in
an aerodynamic stall so as to not kill yourself on landing. Seems to me these mutants would be so slow on the ground to be eaten before the others who are the norm. And who's going to mate with a mutant? Etc. Etc.
So you conclude all that doctrine the public school system has been pumping into your head is wrong, and, quite independently of reading the Bible, you come to the conclusion there is a creator God. You found the truth, despite a circuitous route.
Look at
this photo from Hubble. It's supposed to be where nothing exists!
The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.
Day to day pours forth speech,
And night to night reveals knowledge.
There is no speech, nor are there words;
Their voice is not heard.
Their line has gone out through all the earth,
And their utterances to the end of the world (Psalm 19:1-4)
Okay, end of sermon. The point is, when you've found the truth, it will hold up under analysis from all sorts of tests.
Proof from Geometry class
Now, one of the few things of worth I learned in public school was a method of proof. I forget what it's called, but you assume the premise is true and follow it to it's logical conclusion until you find a contradiction. If you find a contradiction, then the premise can't be true.
Upon researching this while writing, apparently I've "evolved" in my thinking.
What I learned in high school geometry was called an
"Indirect Proof." We assumed the opposite of the conclusion. If that lead to a contradiction, then the original premise must be true.
That doesn't seem right to me now. While it might have worked in geometry, it tacitly assumes only two answers exist. Either a line bisects another line or it does not. ("either/or")
But when considering more philosophical matters, this can lead to the bifurcation fallacy.
That is, if evolution is not true, that doesn't necessarily imply that Creation is true. There could be another answer, although I don't see what it would be. (
Spontaneous Generation?)
Apparently, I've evolved to a better type of Indirect proof, called
reductio ad absurdum.
I like this way of defending the faith with unbelievers because, one, it keeps me humble. I mean, I could be wrong. By assuming they're right, I try to keep myself from being a "Santa Claus" christian. That is, a christian who believes just because I believe. That would be a blind faith, no better than the Mormon or Muslim. God doesn't teach a blind faith in the Bible. Even Jesus told the Jews that if they wouldn't believe His words, they should believe the miracles He did. (See
John 14:11) If I really have found the truth, then I should be able to show my acquaintance the error in what he says first. If they have the truth and I'm wrong, then I should admit it.
The other reason I like this method is that it keeps my acquaintance at ease, from going on the defense. You know, like watching either Hannity or Colmes resort to silly arguments, just to win the point. That's sophistry, not truth finding.
Putting on the Mormon garments
So let's assume that what the Mormon church teaches is true. That
ALL the other churches are wrong. That the Bible
is terribly corrupt. That things were so bad in the 1800's that God had
to send Joseph Smith to restore the true gospel. That among the elements of becoming a god was that
you must be a polygamist,
as practiced by Joseph Smith and his followers.
Including Mitt Romney's great grandfather,
Miles Park Romney.
I could probably stop here in looking for logical contradictions, because you know that Mitt Romney said
he couldn't think of anything more awful than polygamy.
Has he condemned the practice and left his church?
In some weird way, I think I can explain how Mitt Romney thinks here. I've never been Mormon, but you see, Mormons don't think of "polygamy" as polygamy. They think in terms of "plural marriage." While exactly the same thing, somehow, in the mind of the Mormon, they're different. Perhaps they figure, since they get married (and married) in their temple, it must be okay.
So in true double speak, Mitt Romney can say he finds "polygamy" awful. But "plural marriage" is okay. Otherwise, Joseph Smith would be awful... and for the Mormon, that would be awful.
I know this all sounds like one big contradiction. But stop thinking and "just pray about it to know if it's true."
Taking the Mormon church at its word
Let's also assume that the PR the Mormon church promulgates is true. That, per the above clipping from the Wall Street Journal, the Texas polygamist "sect" [a polite word for "cult"] is not Mormon. And that "the Mormon church excommunicates practitioners of polygamy."
The Mormon church PR machine is so powerful, it's gotten even the Liberal Associated Press, in their Stylebook, to swallow this garbage. (Hmmm... one wonders how many Mormons have infiltrated the Associated Press?) Here's the direct quote from the Mormon church:
When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc. are incorrect. The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other [Latter Day Saints] churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death."
Sadly, the Wall Street Journal decided to regurgitate this. As if the Salt Lake denomination of the Mormon church holds the trademark on who is, or who is not, Mormon.
But since it declares itself to be "the one true church"...
The funny thing is, the Texas polygamists (Warren Jeffs and Colorado City polygamists) are holding truer to Mormon teaching than the Salt Lake denomination. And they are suffering for their beliefs. THEY are the true Mormons! The Salt Lake church has gone soft. They are the liberal denomination of Mormonism!
Here's a graphic from the very funny salamander society web site (you have to know your Mormonism to get the joke in their name) making the point that, except for modern day open polygamy and a dispute over who's the true living prophet, there's really no difference between the Texas polygamists and the Salt Lake denomination. (Click on photo for larger image.) In fact, they both use
the same song book!
QED
Now, the Salt Lake church insists that it is incorrect to use the term "Mormon" to refer to people who practice polygamy.
Such people are in a "sect," which I think we all recognize is the politically correct word for "cult." (Funny how they can say others are in a cult.)
Therefore, Mitt Romney's great grandfather, not to mention
his great, great grandfather (12 wives) are NOT Mormon, but are in a cult.
But wait! The church didn't excommunicate Mitt Romney's polygamist grandfathers. So they are Mormon.
But wait! That's "incorrect" because they're polygamists. The Mormon church says polygamists aren't Mormon.
A contradiction.
Therefore, the Mormon church isn't true.
At least they got the cult part correct. That's consistent.
And if Mitt Romney's grandfathers were in a cult, then it stands to reason that Mitt Romney is in a cult.
A plug for good hair
Let's pray that Senator McCain chooses someone other than Mitt Romney for Vice President to head off Senator Biden. As long as Mitt Romney chooses to remain Mormon, the Mormonism problem isn't going to go away. Neither for those on the Left, or for those like me, Evangelicals on the Right.
For the shallow undecided, a few more plugs and Senator Biden's pompadour will be
as perfect as Mitt Romney's.
You though Kerry v. Bush and Gore v. Bush shouldn't have been close? If Senator McCain chooses Mitt Romney for a running mate, Senator Biden might win this one by a hair.
After numerous blocks of my email at yahoo and lycos, I'm trying this one. Mail me if you have a tip (don't forget the dots in the address)
le dot romney dot tips @t voila.fr
Want to follow my posts with RSS?
http://rss.townhall.com/userblogs/romneyforpresident
Do you laugh at my photos? Tell your friends!
Please copy and paste the following clip to your friends and in the comment field of pertinent blogs or news stories. (Copy it because the link needs http:// in the address, but not www.):
+++++++++++++++++++++++
Check this out:
http://romneyforpresident.blogtownhall.com/
Like Mormonism, the blog isn't what it seems.
(Funny photos too.)