Click on picture to enlarge.
"Whenever a person affiliates with an
organization that commands its adherents to believe that some
people inherently have more rights than others, we should
be alarmed. This alone
constitutes sufficient grounds to distrust that
candidate's ability to represent our
interests and to protect the rights of the Sovereign Man."
Summary: Voters question Republican
presidential candidate Mitt Romney on two fronts: (1) his
flip-flopping on issues such as abortion, and (2) whether his
affiliation with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day
Saints (Mormons) affects his ability to put America's
interests first. This article demonstrates why both of
these concerns are valid, and why Romney is unfit for any
Read the EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(1 page .pdf)
1. Romney's 2006 Abortion Expansion
2. Being "Subject to Kings"
Rejecting the American
What Should We Reasonably
3. Infallibility Under A Different Banner
Obedience to Church
Absolute Obedience to Prophet
Wrong Equals Right
Religious Thought Crimes
Formula for Disaster
4. Conspiring to Weaken Freedom
Most Favored Nation
Status for China
Mormon Leaders Schmooze East German Dictator
Door for Illegal Aliens
Thought Crimes, Gun
Control, & Political Appointments
Federal HHS Director
Utah Governor Jon
5. Problems Not Unique to Romney
Appendix 1: Romney on Gun
Control & Taxes
Guns, He Likes Them Not...
that Sound Better
Appendix 2: Mormon
Territorial Legislature Enacts Slavery
Appendix 3: Details of
Romney's Abortion Expansion
Abortions Before the Plan
Increased Access to Taxpayer-Funded Abortions
Increased Taxpayer-Funding Toward Abortions
2006 Abortion Expansion
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
recently stated that:
"I am pro-life… In my 1994 debate with
Senator Kennedy he said that I was 'multiple choice' for
which he got a good laugh because I would not say I was
pro-choice. I said what I would do if I were elected
senator, the same thing I said when I was running for
governor. As governor, I indicated that I would not change
the law as it related to abortion. I would keep it the same.
I have had roughly four provisions that have reached my desk
which would have changed the laws as they relate to
abortion, all of which would have expanded abortion rights.
I vetoed each of those. My record as governor has been very
clearly a pro-life record."
Mormon in the White House?" Hugh Hewitt, p.110 Mar 12,
Let's examine these claims. In 2006, Romney
signed a socialized health care bill that established
universal health care coverage. Included was a "Payment Policy Advisory Board"
"1 member appointed by Planned Parenthood
League of Massachusetts".
58 of the Acts of 2006: AN ACT PROVIDING ACCESS TO
AFFORDABLE, QUALITY, ACCOUNTABLE HEALTH CARE," Section
More significantly, the bill vastly expanded
taxpayer funding of abortions. As described by Community
Resources, Inc., an IRS 501(c)(3)
tax-exempt organization in Massachusetts:
"Commonwealth Care is a health insurance
program for low and moderate-income Massachusetts residents
who don't have health insurance. Commonwealth Care members
get free or low cost health services through managed care
health plans. There are several health plans to choose from.
The plans are offered by private health insurance companies.
"Commonwealth Care is run by the Commonwealth
Health Insurance Connector Authority and funded by the
state. The Connector Authority was created as part of the
Health Care Reform Act of 2006. The Connector helps
Massachusetts residents and businesses find and pay for
health insurance… All Commonwealth Care health plans
include: outpatient medical care (doctor's visits, surgery,
radiology and lab, abortion, community health center
visits)[;]… wellness care (family planning, nutrition,
prenatal and nurse midwife)"
Massresources.org, under the heading, "Commonwealth
Care," bold added.
First, let's start with the less obvious
phrase: "family planning." This is a celebrated,
backdoor term for all sorts of contraception methods,
including abortifacent birth control pills such as the RU-486. What makes this particularly duplicitous
is that Romney vetoed such taxpayer-funded contraception for
rape victims in 2005, and continues to brag about it. In 2006,
however, he signed a bill that offers abortifacents to the masses
— and forces taxpayers to pay for it.
Source: Associated Press on NewsMax.com,
Ontheissues.org, Jul 27, 2005.
Next, consider that, no matter what
Commonwealth Care program participants might choose, it
includes abortion coverage. How is this not an expansion —
even a vast expansion — of abortion in Massachusetts?
Perhaps someone should stand up at the Romney campaign's next
"Ask Mitt Anything" event and inquire.
In response, the Romney campaign might claim that the federal Medicaid program requires that abortions be
funded by taxpayer dollars; therefore they were forced to
expand abortion services in order to pass universal,
socialized health care (and continue to participate in the
Medicaid program). That would not be valid. For information on
actual Medicaid funding restrictions, see Appendix
3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion.
It is important to note that voters of the State of Colorado outlawed
all direct and indirect public funding of abortions in 1984.
The courts later required them to allow abortion funding in
cases of rape or incest in order to continue to participate in
the Medicaid program, but this has been the only court
restriction upheld against that 1984 law.
Why, then, did Romney's "pro-life" personality fail to
pursue an end to federally-mandated requirement for taxpayers
to fund frivolous abortions? He had an entire gubernatorial
career at his disposal to push Massachusetts to follow Colorado's suit.
At the very least, he could have pressured the federal
government to allow states more latitude to freely decide abortion policies,
which he has previously expressed support for. The
answer is that Romney's "pro-choice" personality dominated his
actions as long as he was operating in pro-choice
Note: Were the above analysis of Colorado's taxpayer-funded
abortion ban wrong (which it is not), Romney could have pressed the federal
government to change its Medicaid abortion mandates. He could
have even solicited support from his federal Health and Human
Services Director, Michael O. Leavitt, a fellow Mormon who
served as Utah Governor during Romney's 2002 Salt Lake City
Olympics shindig. We will later touch on Leavitt's duplicitous
nature as well, as part of a broader argument. For more
information on Romney's abortion quotes, see
Romney might retort that:
"I've always been personally pro-life, but
for me, it was a great question about whether or not
government should intrude in that decision. And when I ran
for office, I said I'd protect the law as it was, which is
effectively a pro-choice position."
Source: Mitt Romney, 2007 GOP primary debate, at
the Reagan library, hosted by MSNBC, May 3, 2007. See
Well, which is it? Was Romney a pro-life
governor with a "pro-life record," or a protector of the "pro-choice" position? More importantly, what does this
portend regarding Romney's character and future political
For more information on this much-touted 2006
universal health care plan, see Appendix
3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion.
Note: Abortion is one of many issues that
demonstrate Romney's lack of character. The
1 below provides additional research on Romney's recent
pandering to the self-defense lobby, contrasted with his support
of gun control initiatives, and his claim to have not raised taxes, contrasted
with his record of increasing hundreds of "fees" (which is
official-speak lingo for taxes).
"Subject to Kings"
King George III, an advocate for the
"divine right of kings."
Now that we have addressed Romney's gymnastic
ability to waffle, let's discuss the more sensitive criticism:
his allegiance to the Mormon Church. Is the Mormon Church
benign and harmless? Or are there facets of Romney's belief
system, and relationships within that belief system, that
constitute cause for alarm?
Let us begin with the belief system. The Mormon
12th Article of Faith, purportedly written by founder and
organizational prophet, Joseph Smith, is contained alongside
the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Coventants, Pearl of Great
Price, and Bible in their canonized scriptures. It states:
"We believe in being subject to kings,
presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring,
and sustaining the law."
Being "subject to kings" is not a new concept,
and, in ages past, went hand-in-glove with the "divine right
of kings" philosophy. According to Judeo-Christian tradition,
Deity periodically endowed certain mortals and their posterity
with authority and power to rule over other mortals. Moreover,
those who were not "chosen" by Deity to rule were obligated to
serve as slaves to these mortals.
Sources: "But I have chosen Jerusalem, that my name
might be there; and have chosen David to be over my people
2 Chronicles 6:6, Old Testament; "Then thou spakest in vision to thy holy one,
and saidst, I have laid help upon one that is mighty; I have
exalted one chosen out of the people." —
Psalms 89:19, Old Testament; "I EXHORT therefore, that, first of all,
supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks,
be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in
authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in
all godliness and honesty." —
1 Timothy 2:1-2, New Testament; "PUT them in mind to be subject to
principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready
to every good work…" —
Titus 3:1, New Testament; "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man
for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the
punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do
1 Peter 2:13-14, New Testament
Astonishingly, the Mormon Doctrine & Covenants
further asserts that:
"We believe it just to preach the gospel to
the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save
themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do not
believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither
preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will
and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence
them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with
their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the
lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful
and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government
allowing human beings to be held in servitude."
Doctrine & Covenants, Section 134, Verse 12.
Is it unlawful and unjust to disturb
governments that hold other human beings in slavery and
bondage? What if the soldiers and people of France had followed Mormon
doctrine and had refused to support the American Revolution
for fear of disturbing the "…peace of every government
allowing human beings to be held in servitude"? American Mormons would
likely not have the freedom to worship today were it not for
those meddling Frenchmen.
Over 200 years ago, many Americans began to see
through the fog of this philosophy and assert their self-evident
freedom against their oppressors. They came to detest the
notion of being "subject to kings" so completely, they bled
and died in a revolutionary upheaval. Their
Independence in 1776 shook the halls of kings and tyrants
throughout the world with a bold, new way of viewing the
individual and his, or her, relationship to Deity:
"We hold these Truths to be self-evident,
that all Men are created equal and endowed by their Creator
with certain unalienable Rights..."
These words, and the conflict that followed,
was the opening salvo in leveling the haughty status enjoyed
by pompous monarchs for many hundreds of years. In one explosion
of Enlightenment, our ancestors set all men back upon equal
grounds; giving them equal say — as individual sovereigns — in
the agreements that comprise a government. The idea of the
worth of the individual swept the nation until revolutionary
firebrand, Thomas Paine, explained in his publication,
"If I ask a man in America, if he wants a
King? he retorts, and asks me if I take him for an ideot?"
Americans fought to free man from subjection to
any mortal, be he a king, president, ruler, or magistrate.
This nation was originally founded to subject our government
"Those who are not in the representation,
know as much of the nature of business as those who are…
Every man is a proprietor in government, and considers it a
necessary part of his business to understand. It concerns
his interest, because it affects his property. He examines
the cost, and compares it with the advantages; and above
all, he does not adopt the slavish custom of following what
in other governments are called LEADERS…"
Source: Thomas Paine,
In an article by the watchdog group,
Accountability Utah, "How Citizens Enable Political
Corruption," this way of viewing government is further
"Representative government is unique in that
certain individuals are elected to represent the interests
of constituents. Elected officials surrender their equal
status to a degree, and assume the role of servants and
subordinates — literally 'at will employees' for those who
"The sovereign citizen, having other
responsibilities to attend to, directs his elected servant
to represent his interests and to perform the administrative
functions required to protect his inalienable rights. The
sovereign citizen does not surrender his power or status to
the politician, any more than the trustee of a company
surrenders power or status to his subordinate employee."
Unfortunately, while Mormon leaders have
periodically rendered lip service to the virtues of the
American Revolution, their core doctrine contradicts the very
essence of revolution by commanding men to be slaves, and by
supporting governments that practice slavery. Their
doctrine rejects the self-evident truth that all men are
created equal and are in nowise subject to the oppression of
kings and other forms of tyranny.
This begs the question: How can freedom be important
enough to Mormons for their non-Mormon American ancestors to
have fought and won it for them, but not important enough to actively resist kings
and tyrants in other countries?
would Mormons have behaved had they existed during the
Revolutionary War? Would they have participated on the side of
the revolutionaries? Or would they have preached their
doctrine of "being subject to kings" as did the Quakers and
other pro-British religious sects? How would the Mormon-owned
and –operated Deseret News, for instance, have responded to
the freedom fighters who resisted gun confiscators in
Lexington and Concord, or to the sufferings of the rebel army in
What Should We
Reasonably Expect Today?
The infinitely more important question, of
course, is where Mormon allegiances lie today. Are they at all
inclined to "buck the system"? Would they ever disobey an
unjust statute? Would they
ever rebel against the corporations and individuals who have
corrupted our institutions of government? Or are they
inclined to be subjects, to go along and get along, regardless
of the cost to the freedoms of their fellow man?
Unfortunately, Mormon scriptural commands
reflect not only the "divine right of kings" doctrine, but the
belief that such kings make only divine laws. In a revelation
from the Mormon Deity:
"Let no man break the laws of the land, for
he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the
laws of the land. Wherefore, be subject to the powers that
be, until he reigns whose right it is to reign, and subdues
all enemies under his feet."
Doctrine & Covenants,
Section 58, Verses 21-22.
Oh, really? Then abolitionists living at the
time this section was written (1831) were apparently not in
line with the laws of God to hide slaves from their masters
(see "Appendix 2: Mormon Territorial
Legislature Enacts Slavery").
According to Romney's scriptures, any civil disobedience conducted during the civil rights
era, or in our day for that matter, are offenses against
Deity. The moral ramifications of such presumptions, if
followed, would reverse the entire progress of man since the
Infallibility Under A Different Banner
Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte, an advocate for the
"divine right of kings."
In addition to core Mormon doctrines, does
Romney have potential relationships within the Mormon Church
that might negatively influence his ability to function with
integrity? Specifically, are there those within the Mormon
Church leadership who are likely to attempt to exert their
influence over Romney? Most importantly, how is Romney likely
to respond to those exertions?
Some might reject this line of discussion on
the basis that we can merely speculate without relevant facts. Therefore, we will first consider how
faithful, active Mormons, which Romney claims to be,
are expected to view their own organization and religious
Obedience to Church
Current Mormon president and organizational
prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley, stated in an official Mormon
"The strength of this cause and kingdom is
not found in its temporal assets, impressive as they may be.
Faith underlies loyalty to the Church."
Source: "The Miracle of
Faith," Ensign, May 2001, bold added.
"Now, brothers and sisters, let us go forth
from this conference with a stronger resolve to live the
gospel, to be more faithful, to be better fathers and
mothers and sons and daughters, to be absolutely loyal to
one another as families, and absolutely loyal to the Church
Source: "Good-bye for Another Season,"
2001, bold added.
The April 2002 Mormon General Conference
provides another example:
"One of the sneaky ploys of the adversary is
to have us believe that unquestioning obedience to the
principles and commandments of God is blind obedience. His
goal is to have us believe that we should be following our
own worldly ways and selfish ambitions. This he does by
persuading us that 'blindly' following the prophets and
obeying the commandments is not thinking for ourselves. He
teaches that it is not intelligent to do something just
because we are told to do so by a living prophet or by
prophets who speak to us from the scriptures.
"Our unquestioning obedience to the Lord's
commandments is not blind obedience. President Boyd K.
Packer in the April conference of 1983 taught us about this:
'Latter-day Saints are not obedient because they are
compelled to be obedient. They are obedient because they
know certain spiritual truths and have decided, as an
expression of their own individual agency, to obey the
commandments of God.... We are not obedient because we are
blind, we are obedient because we can see.'"
Source: organizational apostle Boyd K. Packer, "Agency and
Control," Ensign, May 1983, 66.
Obedience to Prophet
What is required to be absolutely loyal to an
organization? From many other teachings of various prominent
Mormon leaders, it appears the same subjection that is
required to serve a king. One must surrender his conscience
and place all hopes and trust upon certain mortals.
Wilford Woodruff, the third President of the
Mormon Church, stated, for instance, that:
"The Lord will never permit me or any other
man who stands as President of this Church to lead you
astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of
God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out
of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to
lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and
from their duty."
Source: Excerpts from Three Addresses by
President Wilford Woodruff Regarding the Manifesto, Doctrine
& Covenants, under
This counsel continued into the 1990s:
"There is a question that each
of us must deal with in a most solemn and serious way if our
lives are to be what the Father of us all would have them
be: 'What is our response when the living prophets declare
the mind and the will of the Lord?' This is the test of
mankind in every dispensation.
"I sat in this tabernacle some
years ago as President Joseph Fielding Smith stood at this
pulpit. It was the general priesthood meeting of April 1972,
the last general conference before President Smith passed
away. He said: 'There is one thing which we should have
exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the
Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of
the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the
Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is
contrary to the mind and will of the Lord.'"
Revelations of Heaven," Elder L. Aldin Porter of the
Presidency of the First Quorum of Seventies, Ensign,
Nov. 1994, p. 63. The quote by Smith was in Conference
Report for April 1972, p. 99.
Here is another quote:
"Follow your leaders who have been duly
ordained and have been publicly sustained, and you will not
be led astray."
Be Learned Is Good If…" organizational apostle Boyd K.
Packer, Sunday Afternoon Session, 4 October 1992, found in
General Conference, October 1992; Ensign, November
And the wordplay from a Mormon Conference in
"We might call this 'faith obedience.' With
faith, Abraham was obedient in preparing Isaac for
sacrifice; with faith, Nephi was obedient in obtaining the
brass plates; with faith, a little child obediently jumps
from a height into the strong arms of his father. 'Faith
obedience' is a matter of trust. The question is simple: Do
we trust our Heavenly Father? Do we trust our prophets?"
Source: Elder R. Conrad Schultz, "Faith
Obedience," April 2002 General Conference Report,
And what happens if a Mormon prophet were to
ask a Mormon to do something immoral? Mormon president Ezra Taft Benson
explained this scenario in a blunt and frightening manner:
"President Marion G. Romney tells of this
incident, which happened to him: I remember years ago when I
was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our
ward. After the meeting I drove him home... Standing by me,
he put his arm over my shoulder and said: 'My boy, you
always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if
he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you
do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle
in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord
will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.'"
Source: Elder Ezra Taft Benson, "Fourteen Fundamentals in
Following a Prophet," given at the Marriott Center at
Brigham Young University, February 6, 1980; see also Ensign
Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78, bold added.
And, Heber C. Kimball, an organizational apostle in the early Mormon Church,
"In regard to our situation and circumstances
in these valleys, brethren WAKE UP! WAKE UP, YE ELDERS OF
ISRAEL, AND LIVE TO GOD and none else; and learn to do as
you are told, both old and young: learn to do as you are
told for the future, And when you are taking a position, if
you do not know that you are right, do not take it [—] I
mean independently. But if you are told by your leader to do
a thing, do it. None of your business whether it is right or
wrong... you and I want to live our religion and do as we
are told, not questioning a word for a moment. You have got
to stop that. It is enough for others to do that, without
our meddling with those things. I am speaking to the Elders
Source: Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, pp.
32-33, bold added.
Under this can-do-no-wrong doctrine, all contrary thoughts and
opinions are evil, and grounds for losing one's eternal
salvation. The Mormon-owned and -operated Deseret News
newspaper and Improvement Era magazine relayed the
"NO Latter-day Saint is compelled to sustain
the General Authorities of the Church. When given the
opportunity to vote on the proposition in any of the several
conferences held throughout the Church, he may indicate his
willingness to sustain them by raising his right hand; he
may manifest his opposition in like manner; or he may ignore
the opportunity entirely. There is no element of coercion or
force in this or any other Church procedure.
"However, there is the principle of honor
involved in the member's choice. When a person raises his
hand to sustain Church leaders as 'prophets, seers, and
revelators,' it is the same as a promise and a covenant to
follow their leadership and to abide by their counsel as the
living oracles of God. Consequently, any subsequent act
or word of mouth which is at variance with the will of the
Lord as taught by the leaders of the Church places the
sincerity of such person in serious doubt. One could
scarcely have claim upon complete integrity, if he raises
his hand to sustain the Authorities of the Church and then
proceeds in opposition to their counsel.
"Any Latter-day Saint who denounces or
opposes, whether actively or otherwise, any plan or doctrine
advocated by the 'prophets, seers, and revelators' of the
Church is cultivating the spirit of apostasy. One cannot
speak evil of the Lord's anointed and retain the Holy Spirit
in his heart...
"When our leaders speak, the thinking has
been done. When they propose a plan — it is God's
plan. When they point the way, there is no other which is
safe. When they give direction, it should mark the end of
controversy. God works in no other way. To think
otherwise, without immediate repentance, may cost one his
faith, may destroy his testimony, and leave him a stranger
to the kingdom of God.
"It should be remembered that Lucifer has a
very cunning way of convincing unsuspecting souls that the
General Authorities of the Church are as likely to be wrong
as they are to be right. This sort of game is Satan's
favorite pastime, and he has practiced it on believing souls
since Adam. He wins a great victory when he can get
members of the Church to speak against their leaders and to
'do their own thinking.' He specializes in suggesting
that our leaders are in error while he plays the blinding
rays of apostasy in the eyes of those whom he thus beguiles.
What cunning! And to think that some of our members are
deceived by this trickery."
Source: Ward Teachers Message, Deseret News, Church Section
p. 5, May 26, 1945; also included in the Improvement Era,
June 1945, bold added.
During the Dark Ages, notions like
"unquestioning obedience," "faith obedience," being blessed by God even when doing wrong,
and, "When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done,"
were associated with the "doctrine of infallibility." In
essence, God granted special power to certain men to never
significantly lead His people astray from His religious
directives and purposes.
The "doctrine of infallibility" worked in tandem
with the "divine right" for certain men (i.e. the infallible
ones) to rule over the people. These twin demons became the
trademarks of all oppressive religions and governments.
Applied to our day, if Mitt Romney, or any
other Mormon candidate or politician, believes that Mormon
leaders are inspired teachers of God, what might that say
about their potential character as political office holders?
How will they view their status as compared with the people
who elected them, for instance? Is it reasonable to assume that they will
suddenly reject the influence of their religious leaders? Can
they be trusted to represent the affairs of non-Mormons?
If a Mormon political candidate only believed
half-heartedly in his religion, then perhaps the concerns
expressed above could be overlooked. The Catholic Church, for
example, likewise teaches the doctrine of the Pope's
infallibility. Yet most Catholics will prefer to follow their own
beliefs when the Pope "pontificates" something they don't
Of course, half-hearted religious adherence
highlights other valid concerns, such as whether such a person
will be half-hearted with regard to important political
matters. It is unknown whether Mitt Romney is half-hearted
with regard to his religious beliefs, but we have established
that he is less-than-stellar on political issues that literally mean
life and death for other human beings.
There is a crucial difference between the
Mormon and Catholic cultures, however. Catholics need only attend Mass a couple times a year
to be saved in decent heavenly standing. In order for a Mormon to
be an "active member" and "in good standing" with God,
however, he or
she must, among other requirements:
Make a sincere effort to faithfully and
Pay at least ten percent of his/her gross or
net income to the church; and
Privately and publicly sustain Mormon leaders
as "prophets, seers, and revelators."
Note: The question asked during
periodic temple recommend interviews for faithful Mormons is
the following: "Do you sustain the President of the Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer,
and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who
possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
Do you sustain members of the First Presidency and the
Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and
revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and
local authorities of the Church?"
Conspiring to Weaken Freedom
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, an advocate for the
"divine right of kings."
One typical rationalization Mormons give for
their support of governmental tyranny is that the Mormon
Church must walk a fine political line in order to be able to
do missionary work, or even exist, globally. In
other words, in order to proselyte and expand, the Mormon
Church must appear very neutral with regards to the dictates
of tyrannical governments.
This rationalization presupposes the notion
that other Mormon teachings somehow compensate for teaching
people to be subservient to oppression. It also supposes that
Mormon Church neutrality is consistent, which
supposition we will now confront and refute from an American
perspective. Consider the
Nation Status for China
In order to increase their influence and
opportunity for growth in other countries, Mormon leaders use
their political and corporate influence in America to
undermine our moral ideals and national sovereignty.
During the debates over whether the U.S.
government should grant permanent Most Favored Nation Status
to China, a horrific abuser of human rights, Mormon Seventy
Donald L. Staheli, lobbied and pressured Mormon congressmen to
vote in China's favor.
When Staheli's activities were leaked to the
press, Mormon church officials claimed ignorance. This
plausible deniability is a key component in the Mormon
Church's efforts to maintain an air of neutrality (or indifference). See "Sidestepping Accountability via
Corporate Affiliates," of the article, "Identifying Political
Popery: A Decade of Reflection".
Staheli had unique qualifications to involve
himself in this issue. The Mormon magazine, the Ensign,
glowingly portrayed him:
"In 1977 he moved to New Canaan, Connecticut,
to accept a position as executive vice president and
director with Continental Grain Co., a large, private
multinational agribusiness and financial services firm
headquartered in New York City. In 1984 he became president
and chief operating officer and in 1988 was named CEO,
eventually becoming chairman of the board. He has served on
several corporate boards.
"He is currently chairman of the U.S.-China
Business Council and a director of the National Committee on
U.S.-China Relations and the U.S.-China Society. He served
as chairman of an international business leaders advisory
council for the mayor of Shanghai. He is a member of
the council on foreign relations and is chairman of the Points of Light
Foundation, a national organization that encourages
of the Church," Ensign, May 1997, p. 107. In the
Advanced Search, type "Donald Staheli council foreign
relations points light".
Note: The Continental Grain Co. mentioned is known by many farmers as
the monopolistic, global grain cartel that has crushed many
independent small farming ventures. The Council on Foreign
Relations mentioned is an organization dedicated
to destroying the national sovereignty of all nations,
including America. Staheli possessed the Chinese and
globalist experience required to pressure LDS congressman to
support tariffs that favor China over all other nations.
Was Staheli disciplined or shunned after his
supposedly-unsanctioned efforts to reward communist China with
exclusive trade tariff breaks were revealed? Hardly. The Mormon-owned and
-operated Brigham Young University now proudly offers a Donald L. Staheli award at the Marriott School of BYU. Should Americans
feel comfortable that a college on American soil emulates a politician
Leaders Schmooze East German Dictator
Mormon leaders also directly undermine freedom
efforts in other countries. In October 1988, more than a
year before the collapse of the Berlin Wall (the following
November), and during the Cold War, Mormon organizational
apostle and Second Counselor in the First Presidency, Thomas
Monson, organizational apostle Russell Nelson, First Quorum of
the Seventy member and counselor in the Europe Area
presidency, Hans Ringger, and other local Mormon officers,
held meetings with Chairman Erich Honecker and other state
officials of East Germany.
Current Mormon president Gordon Hinckley
described Erich Honecker at the funeral of former president
Ezra Benson, after praising Benson's staunch opposition to
"I cannot imagine two men [Honecker and
Benson] so different in the causes they espoused, in what
they did for mankind, and in the philosophies by which they
guided their lives.
"Erich Honecker was the iron-fisted communist
ruler of East Germany, the feared and despised builder of
the Berlin Wall, the practitioner of the godless dogma of
oppression and slavery to the state. He died a refugee from
his native land. He was able to leave his country and thus
escape prosecution and possible execution because of the
serious condition of his health.
"On the other hand, Ezra Taft Benson was the
fearless and outspoken enemy of communism, a man who with
eloquence and conviction preached the cause of human
freedom, one who loved and worshipped the Prince of Peace,
the Redeemer of mankind. He died in the love of people
across the world, a man respected and reverenced, a man for
whose well-being millions constantly prayed."
to a Prophet," Gordon B. Hinckley, Ensign, July
1994, p. 39.
It is significant to note that, at the time of
the Mormon meetings with Honecker in 1988, Benson was the
president of the Mormon Church (his term running from 1985 to
his death in 1994). Hinckley was then an organizational
apostle and Benson's First Counselor in the First Presidency.
And Monson was Benson's Second Counselor in the First
During the meeting, the Mormon Ensign
reported on East German state secretary for Religious Affairs,
Kurt Loeffler, as follows:
"Mr. Loeffler said that Latter-day Saints
[i.e. Mormons] in the DDR have the government's respect
because they are law-abiding, loyal citizens who believe in
strong families, have a strong work ethic, and desire world
Democratic Republic to Welcome Missionary Work,"
Ensign, Jan. 1989, pp. 74–75.
Loeffler believed Mormons are "law-abiding,
loyal citizens" to a communist dictatorship? And the Mormon
Ensign reports this as though it were a compliment?
Years later, Monson stated in a Mormon
Conference that he told Honecker the following:
"We would like to tell them that we believe
in honoring and obeying and sustaining the law of the land."
Be to God," Thomas Monson, Second Counselor in the First
Presidency, Ensign, May 1989, p. 50 (talk given in
Honecker apparently replied:
"We know you. We trust you. We have had
experience with you. Your missionary request is approved."
Mormons believe in "honoring and obeying and
sustaining the law of the land" where people are imprisoned
and tortured for speaking out against oppression, attempting
to leave the country, etc.? Honecker, a murdering dictator,
whose ruthless regime oversaw the terrorization of millions of
innocent Germans, trusted the Mormons?
What did this message say to the thousands of
East Germans who courageously defied Honecker's rule of terror
and immoral statutes and dictates. It is an insult to all that
they fought and suffered for.
Thankfully, most East Germans were not faithful
Mormons and refused to be "subject to kings," or the Berlin
Wall might still be standing today. It took mass
demonstrations by law-breaking, disloyal patriots to pressure
Honecker to resign and to tear down that wall.
On a personal note, I had relatives on both
sides of the Berlin Wall. I remember visiting the wall on many
occasions, and seeing spray-painted marks on the wall
supposedly representing an East German freedom-lover who had
attempted to cross the wall and escape, but had been killed by
Any organization that commands human beings to
be subject and loyal to injustice is dangerous to the future
Back Door for
Immigration reformer, Congressman Tom Tancredo,
more recently exposed a plot by Mormon Church paid lobbyists
and Mormon Senator Bob Bennett to worm a provision into an
unrelated agricultural bill that allows religious leaders to
escape liability from harboring — whether knowingly or
unknowingly — illegal aliens. Rather than rehash the details,
Operatives Conspiring with Politicians," as part of the
article, "Identifying Political Popery: A Decade of
Gun Control, & Political Appointments
Mormon Church leadership cleverly flexes its
muscle in local politics as well.
Addendum 1 and
Addendum 2 of the above cited article discuss the
Mormon Church's not-so-behind-the-scenes efforts to enact
thought crimes legislation and gun control via the
Mormon-dominated Utah legislature and press.
Consistent with the experiences documented in
these addenda, a non-Mormon television news station recently
"According to several well placed sources, the
LDS Church is advising Governor Jon Huntsman [Jr.] on the
appointment of state liquor commissioners. These sources tell
ABC 4 News that the Church has suggested several names to the
Governor and one of those has been appointed. The State Liquor
Commission is made up of five members all appointed by the
Governor. Among other things, these commissioners oversee
state liquor stores, private clubs and alcohol enforcement.
The LDS Church declined to comment on this matter."
Church advises Governor on liquor commission appointments,"
Chris Vanocur, ABC 4, July 19, 2007.
Director Michael Leavitt
Mormon politicians also receive public
endorsements from Mormon Leadership when they do damage to
American freedom. Rejecting any political neutrality theory, Church president and
organizational prophet Gordon B. Hinckley publicly lauded
the former Utah governor (and Mormon), Michael O. Leavitt, on
more than one occasion. For example:
"Well, the governor is a native of Utah, young
man, part of the economy in the insurance business, other
things, grew up there. I know his father and mother well, know
him well. I regard him as a good man doing a good job."
Source: Larry King Live, "Gordon Hinckley: Distinguished
Religious Leader of the Mormons," aired September 8,
9:00 p.m. ET, bold added.
Michael O. Leavitt's
era of indecency and
corruption was amply documented by a local Utah watchdog
organization, Accountability Utah. Among other injustices,
Aided and abetted the taxpayer-funded slaughter of unborn
Refused to sign a pledge of support for the
religious freedoms of the Falon Gong faith, who are — by the
thousands — imprisoned, drugged, barbarically tortured,
raped, brainwashed, and murdered by the Chinese government;
Promoted gun control;
Destroyed parental and property rights;
Grew government through the roof;
Condoned government abuse and neglect; and
Lied about not running for more than two
Source: "Michael O. Leavitt's Pink
Slip Report," Accountability Utah.
Leavitt resigned as governor to pursue
president Bush's appointment as director of the federal Health
& Human Services agency. In his new position, he has failed to
take any meaningful action to prevent the
taxpayer funds the federal government annually gives out to
subsidize abortions on demand.
Are these good acts that we should all emulate
or appreciate? If this is a "good job," then what could
possibly constitute a bad job? Despite Leavitt's abysmal
record, thanks to the support of enablers like Hinckley, he
remains a prominent Mormon political figure.
One typical assertion is that the Mormon church
does not officially get involved in political races, and
directs its members to research and prayerfully select their
political leaders. This assertion falls apart under scrutiny
however, based upon our previous revelations regarding the
veritable infallibility of Mormon leaders. The power of
even an implied endorsement of character by a leader such as
Hinckley is immense under the Mormon philosophy. If the Mormon
prophet thinks Leavitt, or Romney, is a good man, then perhaps
"the thinking has been done."
Jon Huntsman, Jr.
Hinckley has also publicly praised current Utah
governor and Mormon, Jon Huntsman, Jr., in the Mormon-owned
and -operated Deseret News:
"King, whose wife is a member of the LDS
Church, asked President Hinckley an array of questions, from
life after death to how he feels about Utah Gov.-elect Jon
Huntsman Jr. ('I think he's a good man,' President Hinckley
Source: "Pres. Hinckley optimistic LDS
leader offers views on variety of subjects on 'Larry King
Live'," Jennifer Toomer-Cook, Deseret News, 12/27/2004
Huntsman served for several years as the chair
of Envision Utah, an environmental organization, funded by
millions of tax dollars, that promotes unaccountable regional
government and the weakening of property rights — reducing
human beings to bicycles, light rail, and yard-less, cramped
apartments. Huntsman does not follow the lofty goals of
Envision Utah himself, as
this flier demonstrates.
Huntsman's unique distinction is having the
fifth-lowest score on liberty and human rights in the "2005
Legislative Performance Report" (published by the local watchdog
organization Accountability Utah). In just one year, Huntsman:
Forced taxpayers to pay for abortions on
Attacked innocent parents in parental rights
Nominated a vicious, incompetent judge to the
Expanded Soviet-style "drug courts";
Vetoed a bill to protect the rights of parents who refuse to
subject their children to psychotropic drugs.
In summary, the Mormon Church has a track
record of asserting its influence — either publicly or behind
the scenes — to promote politicians and policies of the worst
Not Unique to Mitt Romney
England's Queen Elizabeth II, an advocate for the
"divine right of kings" (and queens).
Do these concerns and arguments imply that no
Mormon can be trusted to fill any political office? Will they
all flip-flop? Are they all subject to being manipulated by
the Mormon hierarchy?
Not necessarily. Some Mormons may remain
consistent on some, or all, of their core political positions.
Given the theological obstacles they have adopted by becoming
active members in good standing, it is extremely optimistic and risky to expect them to be capable of
doing so without some demonstration of character. At the
very least, we must expect them to publicly assert that many
of their church's positions on government and slavery do not
coincide with their personal beliefs, and to demonstrate a
track record of following their convictions regardless of
theological pressure to do otherwise.
It is obvious that Mitt Romney does not possess
such an independent, consistent character. In assessing
candidates, we would be foolish
and reckless to ignore past political behavior.
There will be those who claim that not all
Mormons believe in the dominant teachings expressed by the
Mormon sources cited above, and are therefore immune to much
(or all) of these criticisms. If they are members "in good
standing," however, they must make oaths to support the
expansion of the Mormon organization and must fund its policies
through financial "tithes" and "offerings."
participation makes a donor fully culpable in all the political
activities of the Mormon Church, and therefore the concerns
described above must still apply. If individuals ceased
funding, and giving their unquestioning allegiance to, the
Mormon Church, its power (and perhaps inclination) to rekindle
the "divine right of kings" and the "doctrine of
infallibility" would diminish.
A few will undoubtedly claim that some, or all,
of the above citations were taken out of context, or in some
way misinterpreted. Organized religions eagerly employ a
myriad of rationalizations for every statement, fact, and
scripture that might highlight the warts in their history. Let the reader judge for
himself as to the meaning and context.
Some may complain that the above information is
prejudiced because it singles out Mormons over other religious
adherents. This complaint is valid in that the doctrines and
political practices described above can apply to political candidates who profess belief in most
organized religions — including Christians, Muslims, and Jews.
Nearly all organized religions proclaim, or
imply, that, as George Orwell put it in Animal Farm, "All
animals are equal, but some are more equal than
others." They weave this doctrine under many guises, but the
gist is always the same: some people are more "choice" or "special" than are others. Look and listen for loaded terms
like "chosen people," "infidel," or "goyem."
Whenever a person affiliates with an
organization that commands its adherents to believe that some
people inherently have more rights than others, we should
be alarmed. This alone
constitutes sufficient grounds to distrust that candidate's ability to represent our
interests and to protect the rights of the Sovereign Man.
Appendix 1: Romney on Gun
Control & Taxes
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney
has also been less-than-candid about his record on gun control
and taxes. As you review the information below, ask
yourself whether these kinds of representations are reasonable
and worthy of your support. You are encouraged to
conduct additional research on your own, not just of Romney's
track record, but of every person who desires to represent
He Likes Guns, He
Likes Them Not...
In 2002, during Romney's campaign for governor,
"We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts;
I support them. I won't chip away at them; I believe they
protect us and provide for our safety."
vs. Romney," Scot Lehigh, The
Boston Globe, January 19, 2007.
Read more about Massachusetts gun laws.
Romney has repeatedly and publicly expressed
his support for the
1994 federal Brady Bill, which required American citizens
to, among other things, seek government permission in order to
buy or sell handguns, and banned so-called "assault weapons."
This is a couched term for semi-automatic rifles (automatic
rifles have long been banned or heavily regulated by federal
statute) that may include features
such as higher-bullet-capacity magazines, shock suppressors,
and stocks with pistol grips.
Romney signed a state-version of the federal
Brady Bill before
it expired in 2004. From
"[Massachusetts] State law restricts the sale
of a list of semiautomatic assault weapons and their copies,
based on weapons restricted by the 1994 federal assault
weapon ban. State law also restricts the sale of rapid-fire
ammunition magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. State
law establishes a licensing system that controls who may
obtain assault weapons, large capacity firearms and
rapid-fire ammunition magazines...
"State law requires gun buyers to go through
a state-based criminal background check to get a permit
prior to buying a gun. At the time of purchasing the
firearm, gun buyers go through an additional federal NICS
check. This is a good system since it includes checking both
state and federal records to prevent criminals and other
prohibited people from buying guns."
But, oh, how tunes can change based upon the
political objective! Of late,
Romney has been gallivanting to gun shows and other gun
enthusiast gatherings, proclaiming his love of, and devotion
for, the Second
Amendment. His public relations campaign is in full
swing, as evidenced by his answer to the following question:
"Q: As governor you signed into law one of
the toughest restrictions on assault weapons in the country.
"A: Let's get the record straight. First of
all, there's no question that I support 2nd Amendment
rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban. Look, I've
been governor in a pretty tough state. You've heard of blue
states. In the toughest of blue states, I made the toughest
decisions and did what was right for America. I have
Source: 2007 Republican Debate in
South Carolina May 15, 2007, see
If Romney has conservative values, does this
mean that conservative values incorporates the "tough gun laws
in Massachusetts" that he supports and refused to "chip away" at?
Was it the color blue that rendered the governor unable to
read and understand critical statutes that affect vital
Romney's comprehension of the word "rights" is
also indicative of our previous discussion on being "subject"
to mortals and to organizations. If we must seek
government permission in order to buy or sell firearms, then
owning and using firearms is not a right at all, but rather a
privilege that governments grant — and therefore can take away
at any time.
Contrary to government-centric proponents like
Romney, we each have an inalienable right to defend ourselves.
This right is self-evident to any thinking person and existed
prior to the establishment of our government. The
federal Second Amendment only reiterated that right on paper.
Were Romney a Second Amendment supporter, he
would demonstrate this understanding. He would also
understand that guns are not just about sport hunting or
defending ourselves from attackers (though Massachusetts
statutes make that difficult to do as well).
The paramount purpose of the Second Amendment
was to preserve the ability, and power, of citizens to protect
themselves from governments that might become too oppressive.
When British soldiers came to Lexington and Concord to
confiscate weapons, the colonists did not resist them
because they feared they would no longer be able to
hunt for sport. They understood that their weapons
were their last means of defending themselves against the
tyranny of the British government.
As we demonstrated in previous topics, however, this is
something that Romney's religion would likely never condone or
appreciate, and something that Romney himself does not
Finally, on the lighter side of lying, consider
this press report:
"Officials in the four states where Mitt
Romney has lived say the Republican presidential contender,
who calls himself a lifelong hunter, never took out a
license. Romney says that's because he has seldom hunted
where he needed one.
"Questions about his hunting activities
trailed Romney this week after he remarked at a campaign
stop that he has been a hunter nearly all his life. The next
day, his campaign said Romney had been hunting only twice,
once as a teenager in Idaho and again last year with GOP
donors in Georgia.
"That was wrong, Romney said the day after
that, adding that he had hunted rabbits and other small
animals for many years, mainly in Utah. Hunting certain
small game there doesn't require a license…
"…His staff refused Friday to provide details
about his hunting history, including whose gun he used, with
whom he hunted and whether he hunted in Utah as a college
student or as an adult. He does not own a firearm, despite
claiming to earlier this year.
Shoots Self in Foot in Pandering to Gun Crowd, AP's Hunt
Shows," Associated Press, April 07, 2007.
Huh? Romney has seldom hunted where he needed a
hunting license? Does this mean that he only
occasionally poaches? Is he referring to fox hunting on
an elitist, private estate? Or is this the new Republican
version of Bill Clinton's, "I never inhaled"?
Taxes that Sound
During the May 15, 2007, Republican
presidential debate, Mitt Romney made the following statement:
"I want to make it very clear that I'm not
going to raise taxes. As governor of Massachusetts, I made
it very clear there, and I did not raise taxes."
Source: 2007 Republican presidential
nomination debate, sponsored by the Fox News Network at the
University of South Carolina in Columbia, S.C., see
Factcheck.org for more information.
Let's see how clear he really is. As
Massachusetts governor, Romney signed bills raising hundreds
of taxes, which brought in hundreds of millions of additional
government revenues in 2003 alone. The catch is that
Romney doesn't call these additional government revenues
taxes. He refers to them as "fees."
Race42008.com (see "Budget Balancing" topic) and "GOP
Candidates Debate, Round 2," by
Factcheck.org, May 16, 2007.
Big government politicians and bureaucrats
frequently argue that government fees are not equivalent to
taxes. Fortunately, their creative definitions are not yet
accepted by most academic standards of proper English language
Consider the following definitions taken from
The American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition, for
"Fee n. 1. A fixed sum charged, as by
an institution or by law, for a privilege: tuition fees. 2.
A charge for professional services: a surgeon's fee. 3. A
tip; a gratuity. 4. Law. An inherited or heritable
estate in land. 5.a. In feudal law, an estate in land
granted by a lord to his vassal on condition of homage and
service." (Bold added)
"Tax n. 1. A contribution for the
support of a government required of persons, groups, or
businesses within the domain of that government. 2. A fee
or dues levied on the members of an organization to meet its
expenses. 3. A burdensome or excessive demand; a
strain." (Bold added; please note the word "fee").
Fees are taxes. Fees and taxes both raise
additional funds for the operation of government. Raising
a tax and calling it a "fee" is still raising taxes.
"Fees" may be appropriately referred to as "hidden
taxes," because they are more difficult to recognize than
more obvious taxes. This is precisely why raising "fees"
preferable to disingenuous, duplicitous politicians like Romney.
Appendix 2: Mormon Territorial Legislature Enacts Slavery
Mormon prophet & first Territorial
Governor, Brigham Young, an advocate for the
"divine right of kings."
Several persons have responded to the main
article asserting that Mormons have been staunch opponents of
slavery throughout their history, and were in favor of the
I had purposely avoided much of early Mormon
history, on the basis that people, and even institutions, can
change over time. I included a few early Mormon writings
either because they are currently considered part of the
Church's official scriptures, or because they help demonstrate
the dominant historical trend with regard to current Church positions.
As this approach appears to be inadequate for
some, we will consider the Mormon record on slavery during
their trek West and after settling the Utah area. Quoting from
the Utah State Government website:
"Slavery was legal in Utah as a result of the
Compromise of 1850, which brought California into the Union
as a free state while allowing Utah and New Mexico
territories the option of deciding the issue by 'popular
sovereignty.' Some Mormon pioneers from the South had
brought African-American slaves with them when they migrated
west. Some freed their slaves in Utah; others who went on to
California had to emancipate them there.
"The Mormon church had no official doctrine
for or against slaveholding, and leaders were ambivalent. In
1836 Joseph Smith wrote that masters should treat slaves
humanely and that slaves owed their owners obedience. During
his presidential campaign in 1844, however, he came out for
abolition. Brigham Young tacitly supported slaveholding,
declaring that although Utah was not suited for slavery the
practice was ordained by God. In 1851 Apostle Orson Hyde
said the church would not interfere in relations between
master and slave.
"The Legislature formally sanctioned
slaveholding in 1852 but cautioned against inhumane
treatment and stipulated that slaves could be declared free
if their masters abused them. Records document the sale of a
number of slaves in Utah."
in Utah," Jeffrey D. Nichols, History Blazer, April
1995, shown at Historytogo.utah.gov.
In case it is not clear, the legislature was
elected by an almost-exclusively Mormon populace. Not
mentioned in this story is that Brigham Young, the second
Mormon prophet and territorial governor at the time, requested
that the Mormon-dominated territorial legislature legalize
slavery throughout the territory.
Source: "The Mormons and Slavery: A
Closer Look," Newell G. Bringhurst, The Pacific Historical
Review, Vol. 50, No. 3 (Aug., 1981), pp. 329.
Because of their actions, Utah held the unique
distinction of being the only western territory that
statutorily allowed blacks to be held as slaves. It was also
one of few territories that allowed slavery of both blacks and
Source: "Negro Slavery in the Utah
Territory," James B. Christensen, The Phylon Quarterly, Vol.
18, No. 3 (3rd Qtr., 1957), pp. 298.
On February 5, 1852, Brigham Young stated the
following in a Joint Session of the territorial legislature
(spelling errors included):
"I am as much oposed to the principle of
slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of
the term, it is abused. I am opposed to abuseing that which
God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it.
It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the
seed of Cain for servants, but those they serve should
use them with all the heart and feeling, as they
would use their own children, and their compassion should
reach over them, and round about them, and treat them as
kindly, and with that humane feeling necessary to be shown
to mortall beings of the human species. Under these
sercumstances there blessings in life are greater in
proportion than those who have to provide the bread and
dinner for them…
Source: Brigham Young addresses, Ms d
1234, Box 48, folder 3, dated Feb. 5, 1852, located in the
LDS Church Historical Department, Salt Lake City, Utah.
A "great blessing" to "use" other human beings
as slaves? The slaves are "blessed in life" for the
opportunity to be subservient to their masters? Remember
from Topic 2 that the "divine right of kings"
has traditionally been accompanied by the notion that those
who are not "chosen" by Deity to rule are obligated to serve
as slaves to these mortals.
Here is an exchange between editor (and
abolitionist proponent) Horace Greeley (HG) and Brigham Young
(BY) in an interview for The New York Tribune in 1859:
HG: What is the position of your church with
respect to slavery?
BY: We consider it of divine institution and not to be
abolished until the curse pronounced on Ham shall have been
removed from his descendants.
HG: Are there any slaves now held in this territory?
BY: There are.
HG: Do your territorial laws uphold slavery?
BY: Those laws are printed – you can read for yourself.
If slaves are brought here by those who owned them in the
States, we do not favor their escape from their owners.
HG: Am I to infer that Utah, if admitted as a member of the
Federal Union, will be a slave state?
BY: No, she will be a free state. Slavery here would prove
useless and unprofitable. I regard it generally as a curse
to the master. I myself hire many laborers and pay them fair
wages. I could not afford to own them. I can do better than
subject myself to an obligation to feed and clothe their
families, to provide and care for them in sickness and
health. Utah is not adapted to slave labor.
with Brigham Young," Horace Greeley, The New York
Tribune, August 20, 1859.
Slavery as a "divine institution" sounds
awfully close to the "divine right of kings" doesn't it?
Given this information, that some early Mormons
advocated the abolishment of slavery in word, or even in deed,
is interesting, but not generally persuasive. Early Mormon
institutional history is full of compromises on slavery.
Slavery in the Utah territory was only abolished in 1862 — by
the federal government.
More importantly, current Mormon doctrines
still direct individuals to be slaves, as outlined in previous
topics. With regard to candidates like Romney, voters
must judge how such philosophies might affect political
Appendix 3: Details of Romney's Abortion Expansion
Some have wondered whether Massachusetts'
much-touted universal health care plan for Massachusetts
actually increases abortion access and funding. We will
discuss access and funding prior to the plan, and then after
the plan was enacted.