QUOTING THE ARTICLE:
During the 2012 presidential campaign, that awesomely deep well of perpetual wisdom, Alec Baldwin, proclaimed that if Barack Obama were not black, his vote total would have been 20 percent higher.
People of real intelligence realize that the opposite was probably true: if he had been white, his vote total would have been 20 percent lower. The African-American voting bloc combined with enough whites suffering from liberal guilt guaranteed a higher vote total for Obama.
The truth of the matter is, if Mitt Romney had not been a Mormon, his vote total might very well have been significantly higher.
In fact, according to a Gallop poll released in June of last year, while 4 percent of people said they would not vote for a black president, a full 22 percent said they would not vote for a Mormon. In fact, only atheists and gays ranked higher.
So Baldwin probably had it backwards, which he usually does, so that comes as no surprise.
What did come as a surprise to me is why people would have such negative views of Mormons. I have known lots of them in my life, and in most cases they have been hard-working, kind, generous family-oriented people—just the kind of people this country used to value (and maybe that’s the problem right there.)
Mormons have intrigued me ever since Mike Huckabee back in 2007 claimed that Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers. With the recent election over, I decided to check out Mormons a bit more.
My hope in doing this was to explain to readers who Mormons are and whether or not 22 percent of the people were justified in opposing having a Mormon president.
But instead I’m going to share an intriguing bit of Mormon theology I learned that I think makes them perhaps the most politically wise human beings on the planet. Ironically, this story stems from that Huckabee quote about the relationship between Jesus and the devil, but the lesson to be learned is one that, regardless of our political or religious views, we would all be wise to consider.
So here’s what I learned: Mormons, unlike most other Christian sects, believe that all humans lived a life before mortality. They call this the pre-existence or pre-earth life. At birth a veil is placed over our minds so that we don’t remember it (you’ll see why in a minute).
In this pre-earth life, we were all in the presence of God as His spirit children. Jesus was there—the first-born of God’s spirit children, and a leader in the councils in Heaven. Lucifer was also there, and was another leader among the children of God. He was called a “son of the morning.”
At some point in this existence, the Father called all of His children together to explain how things worked. All of His children would have to leave His presence and come to earth for a period of testing. The goal was to see if we would live a righteous life even when we had to live by faith, as we would no longer be able to remember God or heaven (that’s the reason for the veil).
If we would live a righteous life, we would be given the opportunity to return and live with God forever. Otherwise we would forfeit that chance, because no unclean thing can live in God’s presence. However, God knew that we would all make mistakes, so he would provide a Savior for the world. This Savior would live a sinless life, and because of that, he would qualify to pay for the sins of the world through what would be called the “Atonement.” If people would sincerely repent of their sins, then the Atonement would essentially erase their sins, and they could still return and live with God. The Father called for volunteers to be this savior, and two stepped forward: Jesus and Lucifer.
Lucifer said that he would be the savior and he would force everybody to live righteously, thus guaranteeing that all of God’s spirit children would return to Him in heaven [and he, Lucifer would receive all the credit/glory]. Jesus said that He would follow the Father’s plan and allow God’s children their free agency [and all the glory would go to God]. They could choose for themselves whether to live righteously and take advantage of the Atonement or whether to live in sin and forfeit the opportunity to return and live with God.
God rejected Lucifer’s plan, causing Lucifer to rebel and declare war on God. One-third of God’s spirit children joined Lucifer in this rebellion. In the end, the rebellion failed and Lucifer and his followers were cast out of heaven. They came to earth without bodies and now, continuing the war they started in heaven, they tempt men to do evil to one another and lose out on the chance to return to God. [Luke 10:18; Revelation 12:9; Isaiah 14:12]
PAY ATTENTION HERE; THIS IS THE GOOD PART
Now, any traditional Christians reading this will see similarities to their own belief system. Most traditional Christians believe that Lucifer lived in heaven as an angel, but then declared war on God and was cast out. However, the causes for that war are not necessarily clear in traditional Christian theology.
That is where Mormon theology is so intriguing. For Mormons, the greatest of all battles, the war in heaven, was fought over LIBERTY—or as they call it, “free agency.”Lucifer wanted to take it away, while God demanded that humans have it.
Although a Mormon might balk at my making comparisons between their religious beliefs and modern politics (and as I said earlier, every Mormon I’ve ever known was a very good person, so I apologize to any I offend), I see a direct correlation here. For a Mormon, the battle for liberty is not unique to this life; it is the core battle of the ages. Lucifer lost the war in heaven (he really thought he could beat God?), but the war continues on earth. So seeing the government become more and more tyrannical is not just a political concern; it’s a fundamental, eternal concern.
I’m inspired by this Mormon theological idea: God intended for humans to be free to make our own choices and live with the consequences of those choices. The Founding Fathers of this country said essentially the same thing in the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evidence, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
My study of Mormonism has not only given me newfound respect for this people and their religion; it has also made me evaluate my own attitude towards the liberty that seems to be slipping through all of our fingers. Is this just something that is nice to have, and for which I thank the Founding Fathers? Or is it really something that is endowed by God, and that He expects me to fight for. According to Mormon theology, I already fought for this once. The fact that I’m here says that I was on God’s side in the war in heaven, and fought for liberty.
A Mormon might ask, why should any of us be less willing to fight for it here than we were there?
(END OF ARTICLE)
Reprinted from “SMART MORMONS,” By Mike Jensen, January 22, 2013
Readers of this story also find the following stories interesting:
The Tree of Liberty is Dying—Is Civil War Coming?
Is Obama Targeting LDS Canneries?
Mormons and Progressivism: United Order vs. Socialism
Mormon Mom Jailed in Mexico after Aunt’s Funeral
Mormon Bishop Protects Woman with a Samurai Sword
The Spirit of Antichrist Permeates Our Nation
A Failure to Excommunicate (Harry Reid)
Mormon Refuses to ‘Stomp Jesus’ – Governor Calls for Investigation of University
Easter Morning
The "white male club" runs deep. And the complete lie of "white privilege" is being burned into people in all segments of society, as if all white people should apologize for being white. The sinister side of this is that it's working, and empowering those who are not "privileged," but whose intention is to destroy the culture from the inside out. Islam is the destroyer, and when a black Islamic President is in power and can espouse the inferiority of minorities, the next stop is a totalitarian state.
Water rights are an interesting field of study because they are not absolute rights of control and usage. In fact they are pass through rights, that is to say you have a right to use them and then through either evaporation or discharge, or percolation they leave your control. A car, a piece of land, a house or an animal are not this way. You have absolute control and usage and may transfer said rights to another. Each year your water right must be renewed by purchase and according to the clouds. Other property rights are not like this. Which makes for an interesting conundrum. Just how much "contamination" does a water right confer upon the holder of that right? The supreme court has repeatedly said that unless all waters remain on your property in perpetuity, the EPA has a right to regulate those activities which affect the potability, swimability, and fishability of the waters of the United States, The end being that with the exception of the great basin, all waters of the U.S. drain to the ocean. Previous water law has held that a body of water is considered waters of the state if one can navigate down a stream or river, and became waters of the US when it was navigable by commercial vessels or was an interstate water body like the Columbia or the Colorado river. Yet it cannot be denied that all watersheds are affected by human activities.
The EPa's redefinition of waters of the US is a power grab from the states and from landowners, trashing over 225 years of water law precedent. They do not have this right and the every state should sue the EPA not just under the 10th amendment but under the commerce clause, which is what the EPA will use to justify their conduct. Scientifically all watersheds are connected but the EPA is to be a font of scientific knowledge to assist states in implementing the Clean Water Act. And the citizens of the state are supposed to hold those public officials accountable for having clean water with the boundaries of the state. If they don't want clean water then they pay the price, not every US taxpayer.
The question then becomes a matter of return on investment. Are we increasingly spending more and more money while getting less in return which is exactly what the new regulations seem to imply, or do we hit a limit at which we must say, we have done all we reasonably can and we must let nature finish cleaning up our mess. Under this administration the interpretation of the clean water act has come to mean that every vestige of human impact must be absolutely removed no matter what the cost to the taxpayer or the return on our investment.
To push farmers and near waterbody landowners into onerous regulatory environments is not the answer. I personally favor using the NRCS and local NR boards to educate landowners and land users on the best available practices to protect the resource. In my experience NRCS is the best and most knowledgable and best equipped agency to deal with the clean water acts requirements to address non point source water pollution. They are the ones who by their mandate must address the fundamental economics of resource conservation. The are the ones who over the last 80 years have done more for the conservation of agricultural, water and soil resources than all the other land management agencies combined. The forest service and BLM are making efforts and have made improvements as the science has improved but it has yet to be a steady progress. But with the NRCS being in the best position to work directly with landowners, to help finance multi year projects, and to show new landowners the success of their efforts. No other agency in the US government is so positioned. NRCS should have the authority over the non point source section of the clean water act, and this would eliminate the need for the above discussions. (END QUOTE)