Providing the most correct chronology of Mormon history in the world
Login or Register
Search
MZ Random Photos
Donations
To help MormonZeitgeist keep the site healthy, please give us a hand with a donation. Access to PayPal donation buttons denied
Who's new
- ElderLopez
- Dave Covington
- steveroswell
- ladiedaz
- aidanmc
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 2 guests online.
Social MZ Members
The Elohim War: Part 2
The Elohim War: Part 2
Just as Clark’s life was characterized as contradictory and conflicted, so might his presentation of “The Constitution” be characterized as well. Clark makes many statements that appear to both sustain and defend the Constitution; and, he presents important concepts that provide insights into the underlying spirit that guided the Founding Fathers as they sought to create the most effective form of government for our fledgling Country, and draft the Constitution. Not only is his presentation full of standard references to Mormon theology and prophecy, but by referencing Lincoln’s Lyceum Address, Clark even seems to provide a symbolic warning to anyone who might contemplate trying to seize control of the United States Government. Lincoln, in his 1838 Lyceum Address, presents this insightful comment on the Union, and it seems just a pertinent today:
Clark also provides a rather thorough explanation about how the Constitution doesn’t allow for “Kings”. A refresher in Mormon theology includes the knowledge that Joseph Smith was ordained “King of Zion” by his secret “Council of the Fifty” around 1843, which also signified that his Mormon “Kingdom of Zion” held dominion over the United States. It’s also alleged that Brigham Young was ordained “King of Zion” in Deseret, and that every President of the Mormon religion since has been ordained “King of Zion” as well. Remember, Clark himself is also quoted as saying:
To those who have a comprehensive understanding of Mormon theology, and who are aware of the extensive use symbology infused in the Mormon Culture, Clark’s presentation blossoms like a spring flower to reveal a masterpiece of allegorical and symbolic erudition. And, clearly these hidden messages were meant only for faithful subjects of Zion to recognize and understand, not the decadent gentile. While many such symbolic references are buried in Clark’s presentation, the most significant example of this is the seemingly innocuous last sentence of the section entitled, “Our Constitutional Destiny” wherein Clark references the wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ in leaving the constitution a “work in progress”, and then states:
Could Clark’s presentation really be an astounding admission, at the highest levels of the Church, of a conspiracy so dark, so evil and so incompressible that it’s almost incomprehensible to the mind? It has already been documented that “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days”, teaches that the “Mormon dispensation of religion” will result in the conquering of the kingdom of America. And, it’s been further established that the Mormon religion was at war with America, between 1830 and 1858. As a result of this pedigree, in order for Congress to grant Utah Statehood in 1896, which the Mormons were desperate for, the Mormons began an extensive public relations campaign around 1890 designed to prove to Congress they had forsaken their unsavory past, and were now model citizens. This period, between 1890 and 1957, represents the period in which the Mormons grew with the “tares” (the gentiles) and ostensibly adopted the Judeo-Christian cultural norms of America, which essentially allowed them to become “hidden” because Mormonism gradually became viewed more and more as a “mainstream Christian religion”. And, that was accomplished primarily via the Mormon religion’s vast media resources, and because their unsavory history was fading into the annals of history. Consequently, it doesn’t seem that far-fetched that Clark’s presentation may have actually been “an awakening” designed to re-direct the loyal subjects of Zion towards their prophetic political destiny.
If Clark’s presentation was indeed “an awakening”, then mission of the Mormon religion today wouldn’t really be any different from what it was between 1830 and 1858, and the 70-year period between 1890 and about 1957 would actually be part of a strategic plan to fulfill this prophetic Mormon destiny (Phase-1). It’s important to also remember that J. Reuben Clark was an expert in Constitutional Law, and wrote “Emergency Legislation and War Powers of the President” for the President of the United States during the 1920’s, which leads to another statement Clark made in the section entitled, “Preparation of Framers” wherein he states:
Interestingly enough, if anyone was despotic enough to actually try and seize control of the United States Government, the “Emergency Legislation and War Powers of the President” is exactly the vehicle needed to actually carry out such a plan. Such legislation does exist, can be invoked by a President during a time of national emergency and legally allows the President to gain complete control of the United States Government. However, the caveat is that only the President of the United States can invoke this legislation, and it can only be invoked during a time of national emergency. Consequently, if the “Elders of Zion” were desirous of attempting to effect such a plan, they would either need a proxy President under their complete control, or a Mormon President would need to be the sitting President during a time of national emergency. Coincidentally, during Dick Cheney's term as Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993, both Cheney, and his legal counsel David Addington, were intensely interested in the U.S. Continuity of Operations Plan (CO-OP), which could be invoked by a President in the event of a nuclear attack inside of America, and which was partially implemented during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. CO-OP provides for an "enduring Constitutional government" under a "paramount unitary executive" with "cooperation from Congress and several Courts”. In fact, Vice-President Cheney’s interest in CO-OP was so intense that prior to 9/11 he actually began practicing drills and spending his nights in an undisclosed bunker. Interestingly enough, Cheney’s wife is Mormon and his son works in Salt Lake City.
It seems quite feasible that between 1957 when Clark gave his stirring presentation and 2001, not only could such a plan have been formulated, but the basic framework needed to actually execute it could have already been implemented as well (Phase-2). Consequently, (Phase-1) of such a hypothetical plan would be for the Mormons to transform themselves from warring religious zealots into patriotic mainstream Christian Americans, who are trusted implicitly. (Phase-2) of such a plan would entail the need for the “Elders of Zion” to procure high-level appointments within the United States Government with the goal of eventually becoming either the President or Vice-President of the United States. Further, these individuals would primarily need to be made up of Mormons who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, are the progeny of the fourteen or so families that control the Mormon religion, have law degrees and have backgrounds in constitutional law. Obviously the Government wouldn’t allow radicals, terrorists, or members of a despotic cult that had been at war with the United States to obtain such high-level placements. So, the 70-year period (Phase-1) where Mormons were “hidden” was critical to any hypothetical master plan of seizing control of the United States. Once (Phase-1) and (Phase-2) were successfully implemented, the only thing remaining would be for the implementation of (Phase-3) and (Phase-4).
(Phase-3) is the requirement for an event to take place that creates a national emergency, and (Phase-4) is the actual invoking of the U.S. Continuity of Operations Plan by a sitting U.S. President who is Mormon or a Mormon proxy. At this point, it’s also important to understand that implementing (Phase-4) under a Mormon President is tantamount to the fulfillment of the Mormon prophecies of “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days,” and “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”, which prophecy that America will become a Mormon kingdom of Zion. Another presupposition is that whoever invokes the President’s Emergency War Powers Legislation would have no intention of ever returning the Government back to its original structure. Interestingly enough, (Phase-3) of such a hypothetical plan has taken place and it appears that (Phase-4) was very close to being implemented. Other chapters will explain more in-depth how Mormons and their proxies were involved in the recent terrorist events, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the events of September 11, 2001. At the same time, Mormons and their proxies within the Bush Administration were very close to implementing (Phase-4), which ironically was made necessary because of the terrorist events. What would the ramifications be if were to be revealed that members of the Mormon religion and their proxies were involved in both (Phase-3) and (Phase-4) of such a hypothetical plan?
The framework of the hypothetical plan being outlined here will be explained in much greater detail in later chapters. But, as incredible as it may seem, members of the Mormon religion not only drafted President Bush’s emergency war powers legislation and the Bush “torture policy”, but were intimately involved in all three terrorist events as well. Dick Cheney, David Addington, Karl Rove, Orin Hatch, Timothy Flanigan, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, D. Kyle Sampson were all Mormons or Mormon proxies in the Bush Administration who would make (Phase-4) possible. These individuals laid the foundation for a sitting President of the United States to circumvent the checks and balances of the Constitution of the United States and declare martial law as Joseph Smith did in 1844, and as Brigham Young did in 1857. But, Mormons and their proxies have also been intimately involved most of the terrorist events that have plagued America in the past 178-years, since the Mormon religion officially became a church in 1830. Virtually no one knows that Joseph Smith originally prophesied about September 11th in 1831 after the Mormons were forced from New York, that he wrote a letter to Lyman Wight during the “Missouri War” wherein he stated, September 11, 1836, “…is the appointed time for the redemption of Zion”. Further, Mormons dressed as Indians committed the heinous Mountain Meadows Massacre on September 11, 1857, and numerous Mormons were involved in Watergate, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001 as well.
In the section entitled, “My Witness”, in Clark’s presentation of “The Constitution”, Clark bears his testimony that “Mormonism is true”, and seems to issue a plea that the Mormon religion cannot hope to preserve its “political heritage” without God’s help:
Further, it appears that Clark is making also making an appeal that the time is now, to once again actively begin working towards fulfilling the “political heritage” of the Mormon religion. Notice that Clark specifically refers to “political heritage”. Further, he seems to be saying that the time is now because Mormons have been hidden for a time and are now viewed as trusted members in the “royal court of America”, as opposed to the warring religious zealots they once were. By now, it should be pretty clear that Clark’s message could easily be construed as a dark and foreboding “war-cry”. If it was indeed a “war-cry”, it was cleverly disguised as a patriotic message designed to further propagate the image that the Mormon religion is the veritable “poster-boy” for patriotism, while actually reinforcing the teachings of secret prophecies to its own citizenry. If this is true, it’s likely that that the Mormon religion’s revere for the Constitution may be based more on its view that the Constitution is merely a tool to be used in fulfilling Mormon prophecy rather than on its other merits. Coincidentally, when Joseph Smith was actively attempting to seize control of the U.S. Government around 1843, he also described himself as "…the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth” (14). So, in accordance with the definition the “Latter-days” of Mormon theology, is it possible that the United States Government might be seized, and the Constitution further modified to benefit of the “Elders of Zion”?The Constitution Hanging by a Thread
Understanding that the Mormon religion has been a separatist organization ever since it was formally organized as “The Church of Christ” in 1830, and that it was at war with the United States between 1830 and 1858, may be indication enough that the Mormon religion isn’t actually the “beacon of patriotism” it portrays itself as. Further, regardless any other evidence that might be presented, Mormons may always brand those who seek to truthfully disclose the true history of their religion simply as “anti-Mormon”. But, why would anyone go through such rigorous historical research and analysis to simply to tarnish the image of the Mormon religion? And, what really is an “anti-Mormon”, and what does it mean to be one? Admittedly, the word sounds strange and is reminiscent of the word “anti-matter”, which instantly annihilates upon contact with regular matter because the laws of physics don’t allow matter and anti-matter to exist together in time and space. It turns out just as Mormonism has borrowed much of its religious symbology from other religions, the word “anti-Mormon” is borrowed from the Jewish religion and its roots are derived from word “anti-Semite”. But, somehow the word “anti-Mormon” just doesn’t seem to conjure up the same depth of meaning. After doing additional research, this contemporary definition of the word “anti-Mormon” was found:
Mormons and their apologists might say that an assessment of the Mormon religion’s true sentiment about America and the Constitution, based only on Clark’s presentation, is not a good indication of how they really feel. But, the reader should also be aware that only a tiny fraction of the true history of the Mormon religion has been revealed in this chapter. It should also be pointed out that mainstream Americans view America and the Constitution as being one and the same, while Mormon subjects seem to make a distinguish between the Constitution and Judeo-Christian American culture. Unfortunately for the Mormon religion, there are countless well-documented examples of the truth that reflect the Mormon religion’s true sentiment. Strangely, these icons of Mormonism are not trumpeted in the same manner that they publicly trumpet their patriotism. Just a few iconic examples of this sentiment that seems to be representative of this true sentiment are “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days”, “The White Horse Prophesy” and “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”. FAIR, an acronym for the Mormon Church owned Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, comically makes this statement regarding the “The White Horse Prophesy ”:
“The White Horse Prophesy” is not discussed here primarily because it’s not the best example of canonized Mormon theology. But, “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days”, which forms one of the key theological foundations of Mormon theology is. This virtually unknown prophecy teaches that that the “Church” that was originally founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles, or the “Christian Church”, is not really the fulfillment of Daniel’s great prophecy of the true Kingdom of God, which God promised to restore in the last days. It also teaches that there will be another “dispensation” of the “Church”, which will come after the “dispensation” of the Christian religion, it also teaches that this new dispensation of religion will culminate in the, “conquering of the Kingdom of America and all the other kingdoms of the World”. This prophecy also helps explain why Joseph Smith may have proclaimed himself “King of Zion” around 1843 as he plotted to seize control of the U.S. Government. Former President Gordon B. Hinckley made this reference to “Daniel” in October of 1999:
While “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days” is virtually unknown, “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread” is only largely unknown. It was prophesied by Joseph Smith around 1843 during the same time he began forming his “Council of the Fifty”, and actively attempted to seize control of the United States Government. The original version of his prophecy states:
Presented with this additional information, Mormons and their apologists might still try and offer-up some kind of excuse that might mitigate such a nefarious analysis, which only an “anti-Mormon” would do, right? Or, perhaps they might use another standard deflection that is typically used when they are presented with irrefutable facts, “perhaps a rogue group of Mormons operating without the sanction of the Church were responsible for that”. That’s what a Bishop of the Mormon Church actually said to me when the Church attempted to bribe me, and keep me in the Church to better shut me up and control me after I accidentally discovered the truth. Lets choose one, or even all, of these apologies just to be viewed as being ultra-tolerant and to give Mormon religion the benefit of the doubt. Why then, would the Mormon religion itself continue propagating such a prophecy for over 178 years, even after becoming a self-professed model citizen? This brings us to the Mormon religion’s continued reference to Mormondom’s “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”. Presented below are numerous later references of this prophecy, propagated by none other than Church itself, in 1884, 1912, 1946, 1952, 1966, 1988 and 1995, and by esteemed Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch in 1999:
Foot Notes & Bibliographies:
Also imbedded in Clark’s presentation are many other innocuous references that may actually point to the darker and more sinister side of the Mormon religion. First, is the section entitled “Preparation of Framers”, wherein Clark references Moses training in the “royal court of the Egyptians”, which ultimately helped Moses to lead his people out of bondage. One can’t help but think this might actually be a veiled reference to Clark’s own training in the “royal court of America”. After all, Clark was the very first Mormon to ever attain such high-level positions within the United States Government. It also seems possible that Clark’s presentation could be an allegorical “call” to the would-be “Stripling Warriors” in the audience who view themselves as “The One” who will finally lead the Mormon’s out of bondage."At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us, it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time, or die by suicide."
Clark also provides a rather thorough explanation about how the Constitution doesn’t allow for “Kings”. A refresher in Mormon theology includes the knowledge that Joseph Smith was ordained “King of Zion” by his secret “Council of the Fifty” around 1843, which also signified that his Mormon “Kingdom of Zion” held dominion over the United States. It’s also alleged that Brigham Young was ordained “King of Zion” in Deseret, and that every President of the Mormon religion since has been ordained “King of Zion” as well. Remember, Clark himself is also quoted as saying:
"We are democratic in our concepts of the Church, but we are not a democracy; we are a kingdom, the Church and kingdom of God on earth (2)".
Clark also made the following statement:
Consequently, it seems a bit odd that in one instance Clark seems to eloquently sustain and defend the constitution, but in another secretly seem to refute it. But, those familiar with Mormonism are already aware that such duplicity and “doublespeak” is a common hallmark of the Mormon religion and its hierarchy. Consequently, it shouldn’t seem much of a stretch of logical to assume the future of America as envisioned by the Mormon hierarchy is that of a theocratic “Mormon Kingdom of Zion” with a Mormon King sitting at the head of the United States Government."I hope Brother [Mark E.] Petersen will pardon me, but this is not a democracy; this is not a republic; this is a kingdom of God. The President of the Church is his premier, if you will, his agent, his possessor of the keys. Our free agency, which we have, does not make us any more nor less than subjects of the Kingdom and subjects we are, not citizens, Brother Mark” (3).
To those who have a comprehensive understanding of Mormon theology, and who are aware of the extensive use symbology infused in the Mormon Culture, Clark’s presentation blossoms like a spring flower to reveal a masterpiece of allegorical and symbolic erudition. And, clearly these hidden messages were meant only for faithful subjects of Zion to recognize and understand, not the decadent gentile. While many such symbolic references are buried in Clark’s presentation, the most significant example of this is the seemingly innocuous last sentence of the section entitled, “Our Constitutional Destiny” wherein Clark references the wisdom of the Founding Fathers’ in leaving the constitution a “work in progress”, and then states:
Clark was well aware that the Founding Fathers, in their infinite wisdom, left the Constitution as a “work-in-progress”, which might need to be modified in the future because of changing times or other unforeseen situations that they couldn’t anticipate. The gentile neophyte reading this comment may think it’s simply a “mainstream” religious sentiment directed at Clark’s audience because the Mormons are “mainstream”, right? In actuality, this comment is a veiled reference to the dark and ominous Mormon parable of the “Wheat and the Tares”, which Joseph Smith wrote into the Doctrine and Covenants on December 6th, 1832, when being forced out of New York was still fresh in his mind. This Mormon parable is revealed in its entirety below:“…and the final adoption of the wisest and best of it all I see the winnowing of the wheat, the blowing away of the chaff”
After dissecting and analyzing the parable of the “Wheat and the Tares”, comprehending its symbolic meaning and integrating it with the rest of Clark’s presentation, the full implication of Clark’s entire presentation becomes staggering to the mind. The last line of the parable reads, “For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God”. This line seems to reference the end of the Mormon religion’s 70-year period of “individual freedom”, between 1890 and 1957, which was characterized by an extensive revamping of the Church’s image via its Church-controlled media, and the ostensible adoption of Christian cultural norms. This period was also instrumental in allowed Mormons to live in peace, and grow with the gentiles, which eventually made them appear to be hidden as well. When this concept is combined with Clark’s comment, “…and the final adoption of the wisest and best of it all I see the winnowing of the wheat, the blowing away of the chaff”, Clark seems to create an inference that a final modification of the Constitution might result in one that ratifies the political beliefs of the Mormons, who are really the “lawful heirs” of the Constitution. The 6th paragraph of “Wheat and the Tares” also seems to make an allegorically reference to this, “Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe”. Remember, 1957 not only marks the year that Clark gave his stirring presentation, it marks the end of the Mormon religion’s 70-year period of “individual freedom” as well.The Parable Wheat and the Tares “Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servants, concerning the parable of the wheat and of the tares: Behold, verily I say, the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed;
And after they have fallen asleep the great persecutor of the church, the apostate, the whore, even Babylon, that maketh all nations to drink of her cup, in whose hearts the enemy, even Satan, sitteth to reign, behold he soweth the tares; wherefore, the tares choke the wheat and drive the church into the wilderness.
But behold, in the last days, even now while the Lord is beginning to bring forth the word, and the blade is springing up and is yet tender.
Behold, verily I say unto you, the angels are crying unto the Lord day and night, who are ready and waiting to be sent forth to reap down the fields;
But the Lord saith unto them, pluck not up the tares while the blade is yet tender (for verily your faith is weak), lest you destroy the wheat also.
Therefore, let the wheat and the tares grow together until the harvest is fully ripe; then ye shall first gather out the wheat from among the tares, and after the gathering of the wheat, behold and lo, the tares are bound in bundles, and the field remaineth to be burned.
Therefore, thus saith the Lord unto you, with whom the priesthood hath continued through the lineage of your fathers.”
For ye are lawful heirs, according to the flesh, and have been hid from the world with Christ in God.” (15)
Could Clark’s presentation really be an astounding admission, at the highest levels of the Church, of a conspiracy so dark, so evil and so incompressible that it’s almost incomprehensible to the mind? It has already been documented that “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days”, teaches that the “Mormon dispensation of religion” will result in the conquering of the kingdom of America. And, it’s been further established that the Mormon religion was at war with America, between 1830 and 1858. As a result of this pedigree, in order for Congress to grant Utah Statehood in 1896, which the Mormons were desperate for, the Mormons began an extensive public relations campaign around 1890 designed to prove to Congress they had forsaken their unsavory past, and were now model citizens. This period, between 1890 and 1957, represents the period in which the Mormons grew with the “tares” (the gentiles) and ostensibly adopted the Judeo-Christian cultural norms of America, which essentially allowed them to become “hidden” because Mormonism gradually became viewed more and more as a “mainstream Christian religion”. And, that was accomplished primarily via the Mormon religion’s vast media resources, and because their unsavory history was fading into the annals of history. Consequently, it doesn’t seem that far-fetched that Clark’s presentation may have actually been “an awakening” designed to re-direct the loyal subjects of Zion towards their prophetic political destiny.
If Clark’s presentation was indeed “an awakening”, then mission of the Mormon religion today wouldn’t really be any different from what it was between 1830 and 1858, and the 70-year period between 1890 and about 1957 would actually be part of a strategic plan to fulfill this prophetic Mormon destiny (Phase-1). It’s important to also remember that J. Reuben Clark was an expert in Constitutional Law, and wrote “Emergency Legislation and War Powers of the President” for the President of the United States during the 1920’s, which leads to another statement Clark made in the section entitled, “Preparation of Framers” wherein he states:
So, it seems this comment might actually be a veiled reference to Clark’s own training in the “royal court of Judeo-Christian America”. Clark worked for both the Justice and State Departments, but even more importantly Clark may be referencing the important loophole he discovered in the U.S. Government as he drafted “Emergency Legislation and War Powers of the President”, which allows for the checks and balances of the Constitution to be circumvented by a President during a time of national emergency. Such legislation also allows for the complete control of the United States Government by a President who invokes this legislation during a national emergency. Significantly, Clark also refers to the powers of the Chief Executive, and mentions that the delegates were fearful about delegating too much power to the President.No more clearly does it appear that Moses was so trained in the royal Egyptian courts that he could lead ancient Israel out of bondage, or that Brother Brigham was so trained, in directing the exodus of the Saints from Missouri to Nauvoo, that he could lead modern Israel from the mobbings and persecutions of the East to the freedom of the mountain fastnesses of the West;
Interestingly enough, if anyone was despotic enough to actually try and seize control of the United States Government, the “Emergency Legislation and War Powers of the President” is exactly the vehicle needed to actually carry out such a plan. Such legislation does exist, can be invoked by a President during a time of national emergency and legally allows the President to gain complete control of the United States Government. However, the caveat is that only the President of the United States can invoke this legislation, and it can only be invoked during a time of national emergency. Consequently, if the “Elders of Zion” were desirous of attempting to effect such a plan, they would either need a proxy President under their complete control, or a Mormon President would need to be the sitting President during a time of national emergency. Coincidentally, during Dick Cheney's term as Secretary of Defense from 1989 to 1993, both Cheney, and his legal counsel David Addington, were intensely interested in the U.S. Continuity of Operations Plan (CO-OP), which could be invoked by a President in the event of a nuclear attack inside of America, and which was partially implemented during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. CO-OP provides for an "enduring Constitutional government" under a "paramount unitary executive" with "cooperation from Congress and several Courts”. In fact, Vice-President Cheney’s interest in CO-OP was so intense that prior to 9/11 he actually began practicing drills and spending his nights in an undisclosed bunker. Interestingly enough, Cheney’s wife is Mormon and his son works in Salt Lake City.
It seems quite feasible that between 1957 when Clark gave his stirring presentation and 2001, not only could such a plan have been formulated, but the basic framework needed to actually execute it could have already been implemented as well (Phase-2). Consequently, (Phase-1) of such a hypothetical plan would be for the Mormons to transform themselves from warring religious zealots into patriotic mainstream Christian Americans, who are trusted implicitly. (Phase-2) of such a plan would entail the need for the “Elders of Zion” to procure high-level appointments within the United States Government with the goal of eventually becoming either the President or Vice-President of the United States. Further, these individuals would primarily need to be made up of Mormons who hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, are the progeny of the fourteen or so families that control the Mormon religion, have law degrees and have backgrounds in constitutional law. Obviously the Government wouldn’t allow radicals, terrorists, or members of a despotic cult that had been at war with the United States to obtain such high-level placements. So, the 70-year period (Phase-1) where Mormons were “hidden” was critical to any hypothetical master plan of seizing control of the United States. Once (Phase-1) and (Phase-2) were successfully implemented, the only thing remaining would be for the implementation of (Phase-3) and (Phase-4).
(Phase-3) is the requirement for an event to take place that creates a national emergency, and (Phase-4) is the actual invoking of the U.S. Continuity of Operations Plan by a sitting U.S. President who is Mormon or a Mormon proxy. At this point, it’s also important to understand that implementing (Phase-4) under a Mormon President is tantamount to the fulfillment of the Mormon prophecies of “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days,” and “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”, which prophecy that America will become a Mormon kingdom of Zion. Another presupposition is that whoever invokes the President’s Emergency War Powers Legislation would have no intention of ever returning the Government back to its original structure. Interestingly enough, (Phase-3) of such a hypothetical plan has taken place and it appears that (Phase-4) was very close to being implemented. Other chapters will explain more in-depth how Mormons and their proxies were involved in the recent terrorist events, including the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and the events of September 11, 2001. At the same time, Mormons and their proxies within the Bush Administration were very close to implementing (Phase-4), which ironically was made necessary because of the terrorist events. What would the ramifications be if were to be revealed that members of the Mormon religion and their proxies were involved in both (Phase-3) and (Phase-4) of such a hypothetical plan?
The framework of the hypothetical plan being outlined here will be explained in much greater detail in later chapters. But, as incredible as it may seem, members of the Mormon religion not only drafted President Bush’s emergency war powers legislation and the Bush “torture policy”, but were intimately involved in all three terrorist events as well. Dick Cheney, David Addington, Karl Rove, Orin Hatch, Timothy Flanigan, John Yoo, Jay Bybee, D. Kyle Sampson were all Mormons or Mormon proxies in the Bush Administration who would make (Phase-4) possible. These individuals laid the foundation for a sitting President of the United States to circumvent the checks and balances of the Constitution of the United States and declare martial law as Joseph Smith did in 1844, and as Brigham Young did in 1857. But, Mormons and their proxies have also been intimately involved most of the terrorist events that have plagued America in the past 178-years, since the Mormon religion officially became a church in 1830. Virtually no one knows that Joseph Smith originally prophesied about September 11th in 1831 after the Mormons were forced from New York, that he wrote a letter to Lyman Wight during the “Missouri War” wherein he stated, September 11, 1836, “…is the appointed time for the redemption of Zion”. Further, Mormons dressed as Indians committed the heinous Mountain Meadows Massacre on September 11, 1857, and numerous Mormons were involved in Watergate, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, 9/11 and the anthrax attacks of 2001 as well.
In the section entitled, “My Witness”, in Clark’s presentation of “The Constitution”, Clark bears his testimony that “Mormonism is true”, and seems to issue a plea that the Mormon religion cannot hope to preserve its “political heritage” without God’s help:
At this point, the reader should be reminded that Mormon theology teaches a number of different things that most Christians would find completely foreign. One of the fundamental notions about Mormon theology is that the Mormon God is different from the Christian’s God. Further, Mormonism is polytheistic, which means there are actually many Gods. And, all Mormon males over the age of eighteen, who have been endowed with the Melchizedek Priesthood, are Gods in their own right and are allowed to circumvent the laws of Man, and Moses, as they deem necessary. Clark is well aware that Mormon theology prophecies about the “Strippling Warrior” who is “The One” who will rise up and lead the Mormons out of bondage. Consequently, it’s not out of the bounds of reasoning to infer that Clark might have been referencing the Mormon God rather then the Christian God, and that he was issuing a plea to all of the would-be “Strippling-warriors”, in the audience who are also Gods in the eyes of Mormon religion.I bear my testimony that without God's aid, we shall not preserve our political heritage neither to our own blessing, nor to the blessing of our posterity, nor to the blessing of the downtrodden peoples of the world.
In broad outline, the Lord has declared through our Constitution his form for human government. Our Own prophets have declared in our day the responsibility of the Elders of Zion in the preservation of the Constitution. We cannot, guiltless, escape that responsibility. We cannot be laggards, nor can we be deserters.
Further, it appears that Clark is making also making an appeal that the time is now, to once again actively begin working towards fulfilling the “political heritage” of the Mormon religion. Notice that Clark specifically refers to “political heritage”. Further, he seems to be saying that the time is now because Mormons have been hidden for a time and are now viewed as trusted members in the “royal court of America”, as opposed to the warring religious zealots they once were. By now, it should be pretty clear that Clark’s message could easily be construed as a dark and foreboding “war-cry”. If it was indeed a “war-cry”, it was cleverly disguised as a patriotic message designed to further propagate the image that the Mormon religion is the veritable “poster-boy” for patriotism, while actually reinforcing the teachings of secret prophecies to its own citizenry. If this is true, it’s likely that that the Mormon religion’s revere for the Constitution may be based more on its view that the Constitution is merely a tool to be used in fulfilling Mormon prophecy rather than on its other merits. Coincidentally, when Joseph Smith was actively attempting to seize control of the U.S. Government around 1843, he also described himself as "…the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth” (14). So, in accordance with the definition the “Latter-days” of Mormon theology, is it possible that the United States Government might be seized, and the Constitution further modified to benefit of the “Elders of Zion”?
Understanding that the Mormon religion has been a separatist organization ever since it was formally organized as “The Church of Christ” in 1830, and that it was at war with the United States between 1830 and 1858, may be indication enough that the Mormon religion isn’t actually the “beacon of patriotism” it portrays itself as. Further, regardless any other evidence that might be presented, Mormons may always brand those who seek to truthfully disclose the true history of their religion simply as “anti-Mormon”. But, why would anyone go through such rigorous historical research and analysis to simply to tarnish the image of the Mormon religion? And, what really is an “anti-Mormon”, and what does it mean to be one? Admittedly, the word sounds strange and is reminiscent of the word “anti-matter”, which instantly annihilates upon contact with regular matter because the laws of physics don’t allow matter and anti-matter to exist together in time and space. It turns out just as Mormonism has borrowed much of its religious symbology from other religions, the word “anti-Mormon” is borrowed from the Jewish religion and its roots are derived from word “anti-Semite”. But, somehow the word “anti-Mormon” just doesn’t seem to conjure up the same depth of meaning. After doing additional research, this contemporary definition of the word “anti-Mormon” was found:
I certainly don’t want to be perceived as “anti-Mormon”, and I was quite relieved when I realized I didn’t meet any of the criteria contained in this definition. I don’t hate the Mormon’s, I never have and I’ve never attacked the Church out of contention or hatred. I have never distorted the teachings of the Church to make it look bad. And, I would never lie, nor do I need to. I would never say anything to bring the Church down and I’m not bitter. I was a member of this religion, for about 6-months, before I accidentally found out the incredible truth that the Mormons seem to want to hide. And, I left the Church to live in peace, not in misery or jealousy. And, ironically it was the Mormon Church that wouldn’t leave me alone, and they continually stalked me because I wouldn’t do what the Church commanded me to do, which seem to be the Church’s real commandments. I know the Church is not true, and I’m not infected with any kind of jealous spirit. So, in accordance with this sophomoric definition of “anti-Mormon”, I’m not “anti-Mormon”. Conversely, one could say the Mormon religion is “anti-Lyle” because I happen to know the incredible truth. Hence, my definition of the word “anti-Mormon” is anyone who knows the truth about the Mormon religion, knows the Constitution of the United States is true and has faith that it will protect the Constitutional rights of all American citizens from the un-American oppression that is dispensed so generously by the Mormon religion."An anti-Mormon is someone who hates Mormons or the Mormon Church, attacks it out of anger, contention, or hate, and distorts the teachings of the church to make it sound bad. They lie, and will say anything to bring the church down. Most often, they are bitter ex-members who could not keep the commandants, or were offended by someone in the church and left only to live in misery and jealousy. They either know the church is still true and are not good enough to live it, or they have been infected with an evil spirit telling them that the church is not true, when it is (10)."
Mormons and their apologists might say that an assessment of the Mormon religion’s true sentiment about America and the Constitution, based only on Clark’s presentation, is not a good indication of how they really feel. But, the reader should also be aware that only a tiny fraction of the true history of the Mormon religion has been revealed in this chapter. It should also be pointed out that mainstream Americans view America and the Constitution as being one and the same, while Mormon subjects seem to make a distinguish between the Constitution and Judeo-Christian American culture. Unfortunately for the Mormon religion, there are countless well-documented examples of the truth that reflect the Mormon religion’s true sentiment. Strangely, these icons of Mormonism are not trumpeted in the same manner that they publicly trumpet their patriotism. Just a few iconic examples of this sentiment that seems to be representative of this true sentiment are “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days”, “The White Horse Prophesy” and “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”. FAIR, an acronym for the Mormon Church owned Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, comically makes this statement regarding the “The White Horse Prophesy ”:
Ironically, the very existence of FAIR begs why an entire Church owned media entity, whose sole mission is to sanitize an unsavory history and provide “damage control”, even exists. Perhaps it’s because of what former President Hinckley coquettishly liked to refer to as the Church’s “little flecks of history”.“…Cobabe also looks at charges made by anti-Mormons that the LDS Church believes that it will some day assume control of the United States government”
“The White Horse Prophesy” is not discussed here primarily because it’s not the best example of canonized Mormon theology. But, “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days”, which forms one of the key theological foundations of Mormon theology is. This virtually unknown prophecy teaches that that the “Church” that was originally founded by Jesus Christ and his apostles, or the “Christian Church”, is not really the fulfillment of Daniel’s great prophecy of the true Kingdom of God, which God promised to restore in the last days. It also teaches that there will be another “dispensation” of the “Church”, which will come after the “dispensation” of the Christian religion, it also teaches that this new dispensation of religion will culminate in the, “conquering of the Kingdom of America and all the other kingdoms of the World”. This prophecy also helps explain why Joseph Smith may have proclaimed himself “King of Zion” around 1843 as he plotted to seize control of the U.S. Government. Former President Gordon B. Hinckley made this reference to “Daniel” in October of 1999:
Hinckley also stated in November of 2001, just after 9/11, “Those who observe us say that we are moving into the mainstream of religion. We are not changing. The world's perception of us is changing. We teach the same doctrine".“All of the history of the past had pointed to this season. The centuries with all of their suffering and all their hope had come and gone. The Almighty Judge of the nations, the Living God, determined that the times of which the prophets had spoken had arrived. Daniel had foreseen a stone which was cut out of the mountain without hands and which became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.”
While “Daniel’s Prophecy of the Rise of the Kingdom of God in the Last Days” is virtually unknown, “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread” is only largely unknown. It was prophesied by Joseph Smith around 1843 during the same time he began forming his “Council of the Fifty”, and actively attempted to seize control of the United States Government. The original version of his prophecy states:
One of the most interesting things about Smith’s original version of this prophecy is his reference to “gathering up the honest in heart”. This is because the Mormons had, and still do have, many non-Mormon sympathizers who are not actually members of the Mormon religion but work with them to help them achieve their goals. Consequently, when I previously named the people who were responsible for drafting Bush’s Emergency War Powers Legislation and the Bush “torture policy”, I mentioned Mormon proxies were involved as well. Everyone I previously mentioned is Mormon except for Yoo and Addington, who don’t appear to be Mormon, Karl Rove who isn’t Mormon, but grew up in Salt Lake City and Cheney. But, all have close associations with the Mormon religion, and played key roles in creating an environment where a Mormon or Mormon proxy could invoke the U.S. Continuity of Operations Plan (Phase-4).“You will see the constitution of the United States almost destroyed. It will hang like a thread.... A terrible revolution will take place in the land of America.... [T]he land will be left without a Supreme Government,... [Mormonism] will have gathered strength, sending out Elders to gather the honest in heart... to stand by the Constitution of the United States.... In these days... God will set up a Kingdom, never to be thrown down.... [T]he whole of America will be made the Zion of God (11).”
Presented with this additional information, Mormons and their apologists might still try and offer-up some kind of excuse that might mitigate such a nefarious analysis, which only an “anti-Mormon” would do, right? Or, perhaps they might use another standard deflection that is typically used when they are presented with irrefutable facts, “perhaps a rogue group of Mormons operating without the sanction of the Church were responsible for that”. That’s what a Bishop of the Mormon Church actually said to me when the Church attempted to bribe me, and keep me in the Church to better shut me up and control me after I accidentally discovered the truth. Lets choose one, or even all, of these apologies just to be viewed as being ultra-tolerant and to give Mormon religion the benefit of the doubt. Why then, would the Mormon religion itself continue propagating such a prophecy for over 178 years, even after becoming a self-professed model citizen? This brings us to the Mormon religion’s continued reference to Mormondom’s “The Doctrine of the Constitution Hanging by a Thread”. Presented below are numerous later references of this prophecy, propagated by none other than Church itself, in 1884, 1912, 1946, 1952, 1966, 1988 and 1995, and by esteemed Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch in 1999:
Former Mormon President Harold B. Lee’s interpretation of this iconic prophecy in 1952 is particularly disturbing:1884: Church President John Taylor seemed to go further when he prophesied, "When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men" – Journal of Discourses 21:8.
1912: “Joseph F. Smith...predicted that the time would come, “when the Constitution of our country would hang as it were by a thread, and that the Latter-day Saints above all other people in the world would come to the rescue” – LDS President, Joseph F Smith. Conference Report, October 1912.
1946: “[Joseph Smith] said if the Constitution of the United States were saved at all it must be done by this people. It will not be many years before these words come to pass. When the Constitution of the United States hangs, as it were, upon a single thread, they will have to call for the “Mormon Elders to save it from utter destruction; and they will step forth and do it”” – Mark E. Peterson, LDS apostle. Conference Report, April 1946.
1952: “Joseph Smith...[said] the time would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread and at that time when it was thus in jeopardy, the elders of this Church would step forth and save it from destruction. Why the elders of this Church? “We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation” – Harold B. Lee, LDS apostle and future Mormon President. Conference Report, October 1952.
1966: “I gave the language and sources of the prophetic utterance made by the Prophet Joseph that the Constitution of the United States would hang by a single thread, but be saved by the elders of Israel. I hope you will read those sources so you will be well-informed as to this prophecy and be prepared to do your part in its fulfillment” – Ernest L Wilkinson, BYU President [1951-1971. BYU Speeches, April 21, 1966.
1988: ”Joseph Smith predicted that the time would come when the Constitution would hang, as it were, by a thread, and at that time “this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction”” – Ezra Taft Benson, LDS President. Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1988), 619. Benson also quoted the White Horse Prophecy in numerous lectures and publications that he gave.
1995: “LDS attachment to the Constitution has been further encouraged by an important oral tradition deriving from a statement attributed to Joseph Smith, according to which the Constitution would ‘hang by a thread and be rescued, if at all, only with the help of the Saints. Church President John Taylor seemed to go further when he prophesied, “When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel (Mormons) will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth”” – Daniel H. Ludlow, ed., Selections from Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1995, “The Church and Society,” p. 122.
1999: “They tolerate everything that's bad, and they're intolerant of everything that's good. Religious freedom is going to go down the drain, too. I’ve never seen it worse than this, where the Constitution literally is hanging by a thread.” – Orrin Hatch, Republican Mormon Senator of Utah. “The Doug Wright Show,” (KSL) November 9, 1999.
“We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation”. Are you kidding me? What about the Founding Fathers? None of them were Mormon, and they wrote it! And, what might the real destiny of this nation be? Perhaps it’s the one I have been alluding to in this chapter, which the Mormons seem to be denying. The Salt Lake Tribune printed an article on June 4, 2007 that was also printed in The Wall Street Journal on June 4, 2007, and provides an excellent example of the type of doublespeak Mormons are famous for. The article below describes the sentiments of numerous Mormons who actually seem to know the “The White Horse Prophesy”, but put no stock in it. How many non-Mormons do you think have even ever heard of this prophecy, much less know anything about it? When Mitt Romney was asked about it he responded, “There are a lot of things that are speculation and discussion by church members and even church leaders that aren't official church doctrine”. I don’t know about you, but this sounds very much like the standard “rogue Mormon theory” to me. The entire article is reprinted below in order for the readers to draw their own conclusion:“Joseph Smith...[said] the time would come when the Constitution would hang as by a thread and at that time when it was thus in jeopardy, the elders of this Church would step forth and save it from destruction. Why the elders of this Church? “We alone know by revelation as to how the Constitution came into being, and we, alone, know by revelation the destiny of this nation” – Harold B. Lee, LDS apostle and future Mormon President. Conference Report, October 1952.
Mitt Romney is a scion of one of one of the fourteen or so families that run the Mormon Church, and his second cousin was President Marion G. Romney. Further, Romney’s Father, George, was born in the polygamous community of Colonia Juarez, Mexico, where Mormon polygamists in Utah escaped to during the “1890 Manifesto” which banned polygamy outright. It is virtually impossible that Romney does not know the truth behind this prophecy. Consequently, he may either be complicit with its meaning and doesn’t want to be associated with it, or he’s too fearful to speak out against it. Either way, this attitude doesn’t bode well for someone who wants to be President of the United States. At the same time, the Church continually persecutes those who dare to reveal the truth about the Mormon religion. And, those who make an honest effort to study Mormon history know the Church largely bastardizes or attempts to hide any history that is available. Dallin Oaks, a former professor of law at the University of Chicago, former president of BYU and former justice of the Utah Supreme Court speaks eloquently about criticizing the Church and the altering of Church history:Is Romney the stuff of Mormon legend?
Alleged Smith prophecy says a Mormon will save the U.S. Constitution
By Thomas Burr - The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune Article Last Updated:06/04/2007 12:49:40 AM MDTWASHINGTON - It's Mormon lore, a story passed along by some old-timers about the importance of their faith and their country.
In the latter days, the story goes, the U.S. Constitution will hang by a thread and a Mormon will ride in on a metaphorical white horse to save it. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not accept the legend - commonly referred to as the "White Horse Prophecy" - as doctrine. The issue, however, has been raised on those occasions when Mormons have sought the Oval Office: George Romney was asked about it during his bid in 1968, Sen. Orrin Hatch discussed it when he ran in 2000, and now Mitt Romney. "It is being raised," says Phil Barlow, a professor of Mormon history and culture at Utah State University. "I've heard it a bit lately."
Romney says he doesn't believe in the supposed prophecy, nor did his father when he ran.
"I haven't heard my name associated with it or anything of that nature," Mitt Romney told The Salt Lake Tribune during an interview earlier this year. "That's not official church doctrine. There are a lot of things that are speculation and discussion by church members and even church leaders that aren't official church doctrine. I don't put that at the heart of my religious belief." The disputed prophecy was recorded in a diary entry of a Mormon who had heard the tale from two men who were with Joseph Smith in Nauvoo, Ill. when he supposedly declared the prophecy. "You will see the Constitution of the United States almost destroyed," the diary entry quotes Smith as saying. "It will hang like a thread as fine as a silk fiber."
Not only will the Mormons save the Constitution, under the prediction, but the prophecy goes further, insinuating that Mormons will control the government. "Power will be given to the White Horse to rebuke the nations afar off, and you obey it, for the laws go forth from Zion," the prophecy says. The LDS Church denounces the premonition, which was recorded 10 years after Smith's death. A church spokesman pointed to a quote from the faith's sixth president, Joseph F. Smith, who called the prophecy "ridiculous."
"It is simply false; that is all there is to it," the church prophet was quoted saying. Joseph Smith, who Mormons believe found ancient gold plates and transcribed them into the Book of Mormon, ran for president in 1844, a year after he supposedly told of the White Horse Prophecy. Smith was murdered by a mob shortly thereafter.
So far, it hasn't been overtly discussed in reference to Romney's bid, but he told The Tribune previously that it was raised in the 1968 presidential run of his father, George Romney. "It came up in the race, but he didn't believe in it," the younger Romney said in 1999. In fact, George Romney said there are different interpretations of what Smith and Brigham Young, another Mormon prophet, were saying, according to a 1967 edition of Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought:
"I have always felt that they meant that sometime the question of whether we are going to proceed on the basis of the Constitution would arise and at this point government leaders who were Mormons would be involved in answering that question," George Romney was quoted as saying.
In the 2000 presidential race, the prophecy again made news during Hatch's failed bid for the White House. The Utah Republican and Mormon commented on the Constitution hanging by a thread during a radio interview, fanning thoughts of whether he was referring to the prophecy. Hatch says he was not referencing the premonition.
Mitt Romney has faced a barrage of questions about his religion from the news media but few in public from voters. One man in New Hampshire last week told Romney he wouldn't vote for him because Romney's a Mormon. But the guy added that he was a liberal and voting for Hillary Clinton.
On the trail, Romney talks generally about his belief in God but does not engage in doctrinal debate over details of his faith. He declines often to go into the specific tenets of the Mormon religion, saying that he is not a spokesperson for his church.
Ann Marie Curling, a Mormon in Kentucky who backs Romney, knows of the prophecy but puts no stock in it. "It's definitely not playing into why I support him," says Curling, who runs a pro-Romney blog. She says the few who believe in the prophecy are in the "extreme" fringes of the faith. "I don't see it being the reason everyday LDS persons are supporting him."
While the LDS Church does not accept the White Horse Prophecy as doctrine, several former leaders of the faith have spoken of the threat to the Constitution at various times, according to research by George Cobabe, who studied the prophecy's origins for the Foundation for Apologetic Information & Research. The group's mission is to defend the church and correct misunderstandings.
He says the concept of religious people saving the Constitution in the last days is a common theme for many faiths, but adds the White Horse Prophecy is bunk. "I don't think the White Horse Prophecy is fair to bring up at all," he says. "It's been rejected by every church leader that has talked about it. It has nothing to do with anything."
Barlow, the Utah State University professor, says probably 10 percent to 20 percent of Mormons in America have heard of the prophecy by name but that many more have likely heard bits and pieces of it. "It's dubious whether this originated with Joseph Smith but it seems to have a life of its own," Barlow says. "While most Mormons may not have heard of it, there are some themes that have some currency."
The main theme is the apocalyptic end of the world and the phrase that the Constitution - which Mormons believe was divinely inspired - will "hang by a thread."
Still, Barlow says it's doubtful the so-called prophecy will make a big splash during the campaign. "It's too esoteric than bigger things like polygamy that will get brought up," he says, referring to the practice of marrying multiple wives that the church officially denounced in 1890 (16).
In this case, altering Church history would entail negating the false, incomplete and inaccurate history that is knowingly and strategically propagated by the Mormon religion, bringing to cessation the false and misleading propaganda strategically disseminated by the Mormon media machine, openly disclosing the real theology and history of the Mormon religion and assuming responsibility for the myriad of atrocious acts that the Mormon religion has perpetrated against “Gentile America”, which are hypocritically and fallaciously referred to as “religious persecution” and the “intolerance of the gentile”. Such a policy of openness and honesty may finally result in a true awakening that maybe Mormonism really is a great world religion after all. Think of the cost savings in propaganda, and the elimination of the ridiculous “doublespeak”. Most Mormon subjects are decent hard-working Americans who are completely unaware of Mormonism’s dark side, and they’re also tired of being lied to and subjugated; perhaps that’s what the Mormon hierarchy is really worried about. Wait until these subjects realize the Constitution of the United States already grants them the freedoms and rights that are not actually granted by the Mormon religion. As Dallin Oaks stated so eloquently, “Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies", or was that doublespeak?"Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward church authorities, general or local…It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true…Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies." – Dallin H. Oaks, "Elder Decries Criticism of LDS Leaders," quoted in The Salt Lake Tribune, Sunday August 18, 1985, p. 2B.
Foot Notes & Bibliographies:
- Illustration of Deseret. Strange Maps.com
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1N-B_mtdPiYJ:strangemaps.wordpress.... - LDS Conference, Apr. 1945.
See hyperlink at fn (5) - LDS Missionary meeting, Apr. 1960.
See hyperlink at fn (5) - LDS Conference, Apr. 1952.
See hyperlink at fn (5) - LDS Conference, Apr. 1949.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:5P-hXIzl830J:www.signaturebooks.com... - Quinn, Michael. Elder Statesmen: A Biography of J. Reuben Clark. Signature Books, 2002
http://www.signaturebooks.com/elder.htm - Snapp, Martin. 01/19/08. “Impeach Jay Bybee.” Contra Costa Times
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:DZ1dzrvA8XkJ:origin.contracostatime... - Lewis and Clark Law School. Biography of J. Reuben Clark
http://www.lclark.edu/org/jrcls/biography.html - LDS Conference, Apr. 1957.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:C7wbC_XCjfsJ:members.tripod.com/~ru... - Definition of anti-Mormon
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:1eMeudM4w9IJ:www.gospelhelp.com/ale... - Prophet Joseph Smith, Jr., May 6, 1843, in Roberts, Journal of John J. Roberts
- Joseph Smith. History of the Church.
- Revelation through Joseph Smith, Kirtland, Ohio, December 6, 1832. History of the Church 1:300. Revelation No. 3.
- Wall Street Journal article about Romney and the White Horse Prophesy
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/06/giuliani-campaign-hits-the-mo... - Senator Orrin Hatch. Senate Judiciary Hearing on the confirmation of Jay Bybee.
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:TgC2aFZojLMJ:judiciary.senate.gov/o... - Jay Bybee. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Bybee - Lipton, Eric. Fast Risers High Hopes and Sudden Fall: New York Times, March 13, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/13/washington/13sampson.html?_r=1&oref=sl... - Kiel, Paul. Sampson: It’s a Date: PTM Muckraker, March 23, 2007
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:HoE7AJXJBQYJ:www.tpmmuckraker.com/a... - Paul Charlton. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissed_U.S._attorneys_summary
- Add new comment
- 3643 reads
