The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    Oh Come All You UNFaithful – It’s Judgment Day!

         In the movie, ‘Indecent Proposal’, a rich man offers a husband $1,000,000.00 to bed his wife.  After initial resistance by the couple, the prompt cashing of his check was all the foreplay required. Although with the dawn came seller’s remorse, what was lost could never truly be regained.

        This film created many a conversation, oft rowdy discussions, about various topics focusing on the queries of ‘what would it take for you to ‘(fill in the blank)’.  Today, when applied to the political arena, at least in the hypothetical, it seems many would rather pimp out their spouse than vote for a candidate who doesn’t share their base political ideology.  

        Selling out one’s core paradigms when casting a ballot may not be in the same emotional and moral arena as desecrating our marital vows, but how we choose to vote does employ the same process we use when making any decision.  In the end, it always comes down to our own priorities and judgment.



    A test or criterion for the qualities of a thing.


    1.  standard, measure, model, pattern, heart, substance,  mainstay, principal


         We all have touchstones that motivates and nourishes our convictions as to what’s right or wrong, good or bad, of import or not. These deliver both justification and reference for our convictions.  We access these when feeling the need to qualify the basis for our opinions and stances on issues.  Yet, while we may avow with passion our commitment to these core beliefs, there are always moments when we are not only tempted, but even all too willing to abandon them.  People yield to the ‘end justifies the means’ rationale every second of every day.  

         The basis for our personal touchstones are not always birthed and/or mired in religious dogma as many may assert, but rather a result of one’s path most traveled, echoing our experiences from ‘all we need to know, learned in kindergarten’ years, the influences/bonds of family and friends, geography, socio-economic station and accessed brain matter. 

          As the merry-go-round of the GOP presidential election primaries takes its’ last turn, we will soon be giddy, and no doubt a bit nauseous, from the exhilarating roller coaster ride of the general election.  More so than most political farces, this is the event when many of us relinquish our proclaimed principles with a wink and a nod of submission to the political realities that has, sadly, become the foundation of our government’s electoral processes.   The push, pull crowds of unwitting voters will be teeming with those who seemingly surrender their touchstones for the perceived ‘greater good’ and ‘gain more than lose perception’ justifications.  

        In the swamp that is now America’s political arena, the most enduring ‘standard’ is no longer political party affiliation.  The staunch party membership identifier is not as viable a gage of one’s political doctrine in this political climate.  Now it’s conservatives v. liberals branding (which for some will vacillate between the two, depending on if the issue is societal, financial and/or government operations) that has become the marker of note.  (No group is comprised of all saints or all sinners.)

        Even some of the most steadfast members within the GOP base acknowledge the lingering stench from the plethora of polluted political and personal tenets discarded along the campaign trail by the GOP’s POTUS candidates. Too many only shrug as they give credence to the ‘win at all costs’ adage.  It’s understood and accepted that a candidate’s victory no longer equates to survival of the fittest, but to the richest and the glibbest.  Never more apt is the Republican based quote, ‘To the victor belongs the spoils’.

         The Declaration of Independence states ‘that all men are created equal…’, ratified in the fourteenth amendment of our Constitution.  Yet, the definition of equality differs greatly among the candidates for POTUS.  For the majority of the primary candidates, their equivocations relating to, or at least their defining of equality, follows the same qualifier as, ‘depends on what is, is’.  Too often, these candidates disregard the fact that We, The People, embraces all our citizenry and visitors, without exception, including, but not limited to - ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, religion and political affiliations.

          Thus, if any voter, when declaring their core beliefs, embraces the meme that we all are entitled to enjoy the same ‘degrees of equality’, then any who vote for a GOP primary candidate disowns this touchstone.

         Many who bellow out their allegiance to conservative fiscal processes will face the reality that if having cast a vote for a candidate, proffered from the GOP roster, more than one of their tenets needed to be sacrificed.  A genuine conservative fiscal process represents a ledger sheet not only balanced by financial debits and credits, but also is not influenced and implemented by the politico’s need to repay debts owed to their patrons.

         Supporting a candidate who endorses tax loopholes for the richest is not truly a fiscally conservative (or responsive) choice as this practice ensures less revenue for our public coffers and likely will only aggravate our nation’s wounds; another example of continuing to give preference to the greed of the few over the needs of the masses. And yet……

        History and present day reality provides all the data needed to substantiate the fact that it hasn’t been, and never will be, the rich who truly nourishes and sustains America and Americans.   The 1% and their minions may continue to invoke their ‘let them eat cake’ philosophies, but for the 99%, the proof is in the pudding.

          Of the Tea Partiers who initially embraced their authoritarian purist stances with verve and passion, vowing to only support those who shared their ultra conservative based mandates, few have kept this resolute stance. 

         Rather than sustaining the core of their avowed convictions and implementing a ‘third party’ that is not tethered to an organizational base which does not share and/or support their same dogmas, they parley their touchstones as if they are poker chips.   As with any campaign, the principles of their cause are only as viable and enduring as are the principals of their crusade.  Much of which what was so fervently embraced by this group has been and will be aborted in this election. 

         Religion and Politics, not at all compatible and yet irrevocably interlinked in the 2012 campaigns!  As always, when these are enjoined, all Hell breaks loose.  This combo evokes robust interactions, encompassing highly charged discussions that too often evolve into orgies of rough and tumble disputes without end; or if on a blog site, frantic fingers create a torrent of commentaries, some profound, others profane.

         (For people who are agnostic, proclaimed atheists and/or practice the ‘yeah, I believe there’s a supreme being out there but it’s all about love and peace’ – it is difficult to understand the resoluteness which most experience when closely affiliated with a religious doctrine.)

          The separation of church and state edict impacts all fiscal, societal and constitutional processes.  Non-adherence certainly means more government abuses, not less.  Invoking the rights and rites of religious creed in our nation’s laws translates into maintaining and implementing laws which take away individual’s rights to make personal choices without giving credence to a religious deity that many don’t even acknowledge.  It also promotes the application of distorted religious canons embedded in legislation, resulting in ongoing discrimination of women and minorities as well as any with different or no religious bonds. Not abiding by the partition will culminate in delivering undue entitlements to only certain segments of our society.  It’s impossible to pay homage to the constitution and at the same time support any who proclaim their intent is to integrate, not separate, the two. 

        For those who broadcast their allegiance to what is recorded within the ‘Holy Bible’ (first and/or second testament), there’s much to support the fact that adherence to several commandments are being if not abandoned, then at the least momentarily ignored by most (candidates and voters). 

         There appears to be, for some, a type of graduated scale for the holy commandments, small sins/big sins assessment.  Abortion is a big no-no, quoting ‘thou shalt not kill’ (but children and adults dying from abuse, neglect, poverty and no access to quality healthcare isn’t ‘a sin’ and this group will assert their hands are clean in these deaths). Yes, it’s really bad to commit murder, but telling, even living a lie – not so much.  Obviously, they subscribe to the theory that the commandments are flexible, with options to subscribe only to their selective commandment de jour.

        Most secular religions have supplemented their ‘bible’s’ proclamations with addendums that support their own specific religious/church’s creed.   How quickly and easily will/do avowed conservatives turn away from their chosen religion’s doctrine just to obtain a political victory? 

          There’s always been competing theologies among organized religions.  Aside from the various interpretations of the bible itself, ‘Christian’ churches that base their dogma on additional theories put forth in their own documents, arouse the most fervent advocates and antagonists. Protestants seem to be less rigid, their precepts and decrees based on their ‘translation’ of the actual bible.  While at odds with the rituals and varied non-mainstream ‘beliefs’ of other churches, most Protestants do not exhibit the same level of antipathy in their objections to a candidate of another church’s credos as do (i.e.) the Evangelicals, Catholics and Mormons.

         Non-Mormons take issue that Mormons believe God had sex with Mary while she was engaged to Joseph to conceive Jesus as well as that God was a man at one time and man can become a god.  Women (even agnostics, atheists and non-Christians) object to Mormon doctrine declaring that females only get to heaven if their husband or bishop calls them up, where they are blessed to be eternally pregnant making more "spirit babies" to be born on earth. (Many still remember that until the IRS threatened to take away the tax exempt status of Brigham Young University, African Americans were cursed by god and that’s why they had dark skin.) For some, one of the most objectionable Mormon practices is they preach that working their way to heaven is not just by the blood of Jesus Christ but the free gift of salvation He offers – but, not to worry about your friends, family and others too much, because they can be baptized after death, without regard to their family’s objections or their religion/wishes declared when they were alive.

         To Catholics, Evangelicals and stalwart bible believing Christians, much of the Mormon teachings is sacrilege and violates their own religion’s canons. 

         Catholics also engage in practices and beliefs that are anathema to many other organized religions.   The Pope’s authority and status, bequeathing of ‘sainthood’ status and practicing the rites of confession where a priest delivers absolution from sins are widely disdained. These actions, in other church’s domains, violate the decrees that only God is to possess these powers.  Like the Mormon Church, Catholics have their own ‘mini-bible’, veiled processes and stand-alone doctrines.  Of course, there’s that pesky problem of pedophilia and the church, from the very top level, not only covering it up, but enabling ongoing abuses against thousands of children.  Divorce is a sin, but if you have enough clout with the Vatican, you just get your marriage annulled and bestow the label of bastard on your progeny.  Other religions believe that to sanction the Catholic’s mode of worship counters their God’s commands.

           Evangelicals and other organized religions also have their own manner of classification of ‘sins’, but many organized religions do seem to share the datum that women are not entitled to the same stature and rights, within both the church and societal hierarchies, that the males of their flock enjoy. 

           And yet, Catholics, Evangelicals and other church members vote for a Mormon.  Evangelicals and even some Mormons, along with others, have and will vote for a Catholic or Protestant.  This action, some assert, is violating their own church’s sacraments, what they proclaim to be the core of their touchstones.

           Does this translate into hordes of voters discarding their religions and personal beliefs for perceived political gain?  Does the motif of a political party/candidate supersede the icons of their church?  Has ‘let us prey’ supplanted ‘let us pray’?   

          Some assert our electoral processes have become akin to street corner hawkers selling their counterfeit wares, complete with side show carny con front men and ‘which shell hides the nut’ games.  And just as the hawker’s customers too late discover a Rolax isn’t a Rolex and the gold necklace is electroplated 10kt. that only temporarily glitters like 24kt., voters who irrationally buy the politico’s wares, will also suffer the consequences of forsaken touchstones and skewed judgments.

             Indecent proposals and shameless pandering in this election season begs the query, Pimp or Whore?    I doubt most can claim neither and too many embody both.  Can what has been lost ever truly be regained? 

             Are we applying different standards to our politicos than we do to ourselves?  Are we faithful to our own touchstones when it comes to our own roles in our political processes?  

         Are We, The People, good stewards of our nation’s proclaimed touchstones?  Are we too quick to issue judgments of others and too slow to judge our own actions/inactions?   

    The reality is - Every day is Judgment Day!

     ‘A renewed commitment to the freedom and opportunity of our people is the touchstone of our time. In this new century, where tests are many and challenges change with the shifting of the wind, we must hold fast to the principles that have made our nation the envy of the world.’

                                                                             Bill Owens




    Very good, Auntie. Very good. Thank you.

    The separation between church and state and the desire to erase the line seems to have reached critical mass this election season. Serving two masters never turns out all that great and this isn't a time for being kinda sorta half-assed about anything. There is way too much at stake, in the whole wide world as well as here at home.

    I think we are holding our political class to a different standard. I also think we are forced into this behavior because the candidates we choose from while in the voting booth are often times barely above pond sludge in intellect and character.

    It would be fantastic if this election season voters would keep in mind that while voting is an individual responsibility and should reflect their touchstone, their vote has a consequence beyond the end of their nose.                                                                                                                                                                                          

    I have heard better conversation about politics here in Florida the past few months then I have heard in 20 years. After the state found themselves with a governor like Rick Scott, it dawned on people they better start paying attention to how they vote and make it a priority to vote. Your neighbors just might vote in a nut case.

    Hey Flower,

           I agree with you.  What most don't seem to grasp is that to allow the integration of religious dogma in our legislative actions will not be limited to one religion's doctrine.  As noted in post, there are definitive differences in core beliefs of the various churches.   

       Your statement below is something too many seem to ignore:

       It would be fantastic if this election season voters would keep in mind that while voting is an individual responsibility and should reflect their touchstone, their vote has a consequence beyond the end of their nose. 

       As always, appreciate your response.


    But I must render unto you the Dayly Line of the Day Award for this here Dagblog Site given to all of you from all of me for this here gem:

    Even some of the most steadfast members within the GOP base acknowledge the lingering stench from the plethora of polluted political and personal tenets discarded along the campaign trail by the GOP’s POTUS candidates

    I mean this is damn good alliteration. hahahahaha

    Ah dd,


         We've heard and read many times the equivalent of voters stating they just had to 'hold their nose' when voting to avoid sniffing the foul fumes being emitted by the candidate they 'had to' vote for in this election.  (Of course, perhaps they are refusing to accept the possibility they are responsible for some of the odor.)

    As the merry-go-round of the GOP presidential election primaries takes its’ last turn, we will soon be giddy, and no doubt a bit nauseous, from the exhilarating roller coaster ride of the general election.

    I'm expecting a relatively, peaceful, boring and ignorable presidential race.

    Anyway, I don't expect really important issues to be debated.  Now that Romney's the nominee, he'll go right to the center where Obama is.  So there won't be a lot of substantive policy difference, although there will be a fair amount of cultural button-pushing.


       Am surprised by your comment:

    I'm expecting a relatively, peaceful, boring and ignorable presidential race.

        I hope you are correct, but pretty sure it will be the opposite.  Interested in a placing a wager?  


    Seems to me like Clinton-Dole all over again Aunt Sam.  I can't remember much about that race.

    No wager, because I'm morally opposed to gambling :)

     And after the election, in the lame duck, when "taxamageddon" (as the pundits would have it) looms...(I think the debt limit too, maybe, if the feds can slow-pay every vendor between now and november...)?

    I seriously can't decide if I fear Obama more as a re-elected quisling or a lame duck quisling.


    What about and why do you 'fear' Obama in either category?

    He has previously engineered a cash crunch mainly to get leverage to sell out progressive goals 


    Ryan</a> has passed a reconciliation clause in his budget the only possible use of which is to pre empt a Dem senate filibuster, and I figure he did it at Boehner's request.


    I don't trust him if he's lost, and I don't trust him if he's won.


    I think that re-elected Prez is probably a little less dangerous than lame duck Prez

    Yet, while we may avow with passion our commitment to these core beliefs, there are always moments when we are not only tempted, but even all too willing to abandon them.  People yield to the ‘end justifies the means’ rationale every second of every day.

    There is a lot of good truth in this blog.  But I would add to it the problem that many times it isn't about whether we stay committed to our core beliefs or abandon them.  Sometimes it is an issue of cornerstones colliding. 

    The ends may be so immensely aligned with one's cornerstones, that one consciously choose a means that undermines some deeply held cornerstone(s).  The notion of the "greater good" is something that arises often in such dilemmas. 

    The debate on torture is centered on it.  There are few of those who support what amounts to torture, who also claim they believe torture is in and of itself a good thing.  They felt to not torture the suspects and allow a great number of innocent civilians to be killed was the greater evil.  Opponents on the other hand believe that committing torture is such a heinous act which undermines all of our cornerstones that there is no ends which justifies it.

    Obama is not the ideal politician from the liberal or progressive perspective.  Voting for him is to affirm policies and actions with which one cannot in and of themselves accept. 

    Voting for him in 2012 gets reduced down "voting for the lesser evil" and a number of people will vote for third party candidates or not vote at all to affirming those policies and actions.  Some of these people will claim that a vote for Obama is selling out, and an abandonment of progressive / liberal ideals.

    The counter is that if the country is going to move in a direction that will eventually be aligned with those ideals, one must first keep Obama in the White House.  A Romney administration will move the country in the other direction.

    The same debate will be happening among those who give their pledge to the conservative ideals.

    Does the ends justify the means?  Is doing something in the here and now that goes against one's sense of right in order to achieve what one believes needs to be achieved ever the right way?

    Was killing those who would deny the colonial Americans their independence (as they understood it) justified?  The scenarios are endless. 

    This is why the debates between the two sides in this country go on and on.  Those conservatives who try to stop anything they believe to be "socialism" is driven in part (they would like to believe wholly) by the notion that the free market eventually leads to the least amount of suffering.  There always be winners and losers, but which path minimizes the number losers best.  The conservatives claim they have the path which leads to the greater good in this regard.  The "socialists" want to take people down a path of greater suffering.  The conservatives will claim what suffering there is, is the price that needs to be paid in order to achieve this greater good (one only has to look at Romney's perspective of the auto industry bailout to see this view in all of its glory.)

    In other words, you will hear the private property rights people and the hardcore capitalists and libertarians shouting from the mountaintops "Now is the time for a renewed commitment to the freedom and opportunity!"

    Hi 'A T' -

    Sometimes it is an issue of cornerstones colliding.

    This happens often, but that is when we need to prioritize and make the difficult judgments.

    There never will be any one who embodies all the traits any individual desires in a candidate. That is why we must not allow the quest for perfect to overcome the positive attributes of the best choice proffered. The 'lesser of two evils' isn't in play for me this election - thank goodness.

    IMO, we all need to review our touchstones and decide which ones are the most important and needed (not just for own goals, but to ensure a better future for our nation). Our priorities will be the ones we will not/cannot ignore and/or abandon no matter the rationale or situation.

    I agree.

    It seems hard enough just to get people to review their touchstones, but we also need them to reflect on them in real case scenarios.  It is one thing to say "it is better 10 guilty men go free than for one innocent man to be imprisoned," and another thing to see these technicalities allow murders, etc go free because of this principle.  Individuals one can pretty well guess will commit future illegal acts.

    The conservatives have made some significant headway on the "law and order" platform.  Underneath it is the principle, "it is better one innocent man is imprisoned if we can ensure 10 guilty men are locked up for good, then allow those 10 to commit further heinous acts."

    One of the key reasons folks like Hannity are able to keep their audience is that they can always find the Willie Horton of the month to point their finger at and blame the liberal mindset. Most people will react to the situation in front of them and ignore the deeper issues beneath. 

    Nothing gets an argument going than to debate Bundy should not have been put to death because the death penalty is wrong.

    But if there is any issue that highlights the struggle in this regard it is the abortion issue.

    Once and for all, please get this down and stop hitting Conservatives over the head with the Willy Horton episode. Willy Horton was first discovered by Democratic researchers working for the primary opponent of Dukakis. Liberals keep retelling the lie that Republican's brought this up. Please, look it up and drop the tired old brickbat because it is false.

    I've said this here before but my feeling is... vote strategically, but always speak your mind.  I have little sympathy for the argument that one shouldn't criticize their party's candidate.  But short-sighted voting is still short-sighted voting. 

    I expect that Romney will lose and that some hard core right wingers will say, "See!  He lost because he was a moderate!"  Republicans said that about George HW Bush (they claim he lost because he raised taxes) and they said it about Bob Dole, too.  Now that George W. Bush doesn't have much of a legacy, they say he's "not a real conservative."  When Romney loses, these folks will claim it's because they ran a moderate.  But, seriously... could you imagine the result of Obama v. Santorum?

    But, seriously... could you imagine the result of Obama v. Santorum?

    I like to imagine it quite frequently…

    Personally I like to imagine Obama vs. Santorum vs. third-party Paul.  Now that would one heck of a presidential debate.  Pay-per-view smackdown entertainment.

    I would like you to provide some support for your allegation that BYU was threatened by the IRS because of their racial policies. I mean specifics--date, copy of a letter, newspaper reports, anything.


    I've always wanted to know this, too.  Yet, no one has, as yet, been able to come up with the goods.

    As you and TEIden probably already know, below is what the LDS Church itself has to say:

    It's one thing to distort history, quite another to invent it. Kathy Erickson (Forum, March 11) claims that the federal government threatened The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with its tax-exempt status in 1978 because of the church's position regarding blacks and the priesthood.

    We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson is seriously mistaken.

    I found another site, blacklds, that gives a timeline regarding African Americans and the Mormon Church. It also makes no claims about the IRS explicitly threatening the LDS church (although one can imagine that the LDS were concerned by discriminating private schools losing their tax exempt status).

    But, BYU, to my knowledge, never discriminated against any race. The ONLY thing that people had a problem with was that we did not extend our priesthood to our black members, until June of 1978. And since it's not a job, it didn't fall under the EEOC or anything like that. 

    I just wish that these people who keep saying we were threatened, would either stop with the lies, or admit that they are lying. They can't verify their accusations, so they just let them stand. Some people seem to believe that if you say something over and over and over, pretty soon it becomes truth, even if it's not. 

    Not extending the priesthood to black members is discrimination, whether or not it falls under the EEOC. It's good you fixed it, and apparently without duress.

    In case my previous statement was unclear, I agree with you that it seems that the claims that you were (directly) threatened are unfounded. The most someone could claim is that the church might have felt threatened due to actions taken on other non-profits, but that's not the same thing as explicitly being threatened. I suspect the meme morphed from feeling threatened to being threatened, in the same way that the story about Newt Gingrich signing divorce papers from his first wife while she was in the hospital being treated for cancer (and she might have asked him to sign them) morphed into him divorcing her while she was on her deathbed. (Although he's on wife #3 by now, his first wife is still very much alive.)

    After the LDS built their prominent temple along the DC Beltway in Kensington, I read that they gave tours to non-Mormons, then refurbished the place. I also read that there was a controversy because they gave tours to Boy Scouts, but only the white scouts. It was a knotty problem because a lot of Mormons go into scouting, but the BSA didn't want to condone racial discrimination.

    According to this, the problem extended beyond tours and was settled under the threat of court action.

    The temples always give tours to non-members when they are built, but before they are dedicated. Right now, the Kansas City temple is having an open house.

    The thing with the scouts was that the LDS troops were not letting the black scouts hold positions of leadership, since they could not hold the priesthood. But that changed with the threat of a law suit. That's probably where the rumor of THE CHURCH being threatened came from. 

    Well, as a Mormon, what can I say?  Evangelicals, as well as many other so-called Christians, are just ignorant.  I will only address one point the article brings out with the hope that they may be able to understand this simpler one.  First of all, the common scripture which is quoted to defend the fairy tale "virgin birth" is from the 7th chapter of Isaiah which states that a virgin will conceive.  In the first place, that is a wrong translation.  The Hebrew word in question is "almah," and it means young woman, not virgin.  Secondly, of course, Mary was a virgin, but how does a virgin conceive or become pregnant, by herself, how dumb!?  The NT states it as nicely as it could be.  She was OVERSHADOWED by the Most High.  He is the Father, and not the Holy Ghost.  The Holy Ghost just made the conception possible.  As far as the sign which Isaiah mentions; that is not referring to virginity.  How could one tell by looking at a young woman if she were a virgin or not, how dumb!  The sign, as Isaiah goes on to state, is that the land would be void of it's two kings.

    "For the time will come when they will not endure sound {logical} doctrine.......and they will turn their ears away from the truth and shall be turned unto fables."

    I quit reading your comment after:

    Evangelicals, as well as many other so-called Christians, are just ignorant.

    There is no place here for disrespecting or denigrating any based on their chosen religion.  It is not welcomed or condoned on this blog site (and not what any of the Mormons I know would support).  Shame on you.

    I haven't laughed so hard in many months. Nor have I read such a condensed version of TRASH as you described Mormon theology.

    About the only truth in your description of Mormon beliefs was in the words "the" and "Mormon." Every other word is pretty well being tied to something completely fictitious. The author has the right to print whatever they wish to imagine or create, I suppose. No point in being truthful when truth would prove you had nothing worthwhile to say when some phony story can be used to back up your point to people who are ignorant of the facts you choose not to provide and don't know that what you are writing is fiction.

    I would like to see some verifiable evidence that any of what is described as Mormon beliefs comes from things the Mormons actually teach. I don't believe any of it does.

    I challenge you to PROVE IT from any teachings the church has actually taught instead of some phony quote somebody else made up and that you quoted.


    I suggest you do your own research.  It's not that difficult and you will learn what's fact and what's fiction for yourself. 

    I joined the LDS church over 30 years ago. We do not believe that God had sex with Mary. We do not believe that women can only get into heaven if their husbands allow it. We do not believe women will be eternally pregnant, popping out spirit BABIES. And the IRS cannot take away the school's tax exempt status, since our priesthood is not about jobs. Telling us how we must believe goes directly against the First Amendment. All this stuff comes directly from Ed Decker's "The Godmakers", which is the basis of all anti-Mormon propaganda. You might have done some research, but you didn't get any of this from the LDS church. 

    Vicarious baptisms are done so that the person being baptized can have the choice they might not have had in life. We do not believe that the person being baptized automatically becomes a "Mormon". 


    The post does not state that those 'baptized' after death becomes Mormons.

    I've never read the Godmakers.  The tax exempt issue was due to discrimination based issues well documented and no one's telling anyone how they must believe.  Freedom of religion is a right we all are entitled to in this country.  

    I stand by the facts represented.  I have many Mormon friends who gave me research materials and have no problem declaring the facts.  If you have valid and documented cites that disprove any representations, then publish them here.


    Certainly.  Except it won't let me post web sites. 

    mormon dot org, jeff lindsay dot com, and fairlds dot org are good ones. 


    If you register, that shouldn't be a problem. We do get a fair amount of spam here, so I'm sure you can understand the reason for the filter. (I think even links might get in eventually, but I'm not sure…)

    My two cents is that, just like with every other faith with a sizable population, you can find Mormons who believe some things that others don't. I don't find the Mormon beliefs really that more outlandish than those of the Methodists (what I was raised in), Catholics, Jews, Muslims, etc. Every faith has some aspects that can be ridiculed (cf., Bill Maher and the talking snake).

    My experience with Mormons has been entirely positive, although I know others have had different experiences. I've used LDS records to research my genealogy and staffers at the LDS church were very friendly and helpful.

    >>you can find Mormons who believe some things that others don't<<

    This is true. 

    The problem I have is with those who are not members of our church telling us what we believe. Then when you try to set them straight, they all but accuse you of lying. Which is stupid, why would we lie? 

    I can only speculate on why they lie about us. 

    For former members, it's because if they can get someone else to leave the church, or keep someone from joining, it validates their choice to leave the church. They need this validation so they don't have to fear that they might have made the biggest mistake of their lives.

    For non-members, I think that some of them like the thought that there are people who look totally normal, but behind closed doors, they believe things that are so weird that they can't even imagine. 

    Oh, and it doesn't matter if you have never read the Godmakers, because everyone else has, and like I said, it's the basis for every anti-Mormon book or web site or video on you tube. So, you got it from someone who got it from the Godmakers. There are tell-tale signs, like the God having sex stuff, and spirit BABIES and eternally pregnant and all that crap. I defy anyone to go thru our manuals and our scriptures, and find where we teach or believe that. 

    Linda,  This blog has little to do with Mormons and all to do with our individual and nation's touchstones in our political arena.

    I stand by my research and facts - found nothing that proved them to be without merit.  (The IRS advises any entity that has been engaged in discriminatory - allegations are investigated - they can lose their non-profit status. That was the basis for the warning.) 

    I strongly urge you to create a blog with your stance on Mormons with cites, etc.

    As to the Mormons I know, the majority are kind, generous and warm people. 

    God Bless.

    I doubt that time or space will permit to completely deal with all the tongue in cheek Mormon mythology engaged in by the author. There are several ideas the writer spews off as solid facts that are better characterized as warmed over Anti Mormon mythology than actual Mormon beliefs. How many times do we Mormons have to restate the fact that we believe in the virgin birth of Jesus for example? The idea of a Mormon hereafter where the exalted females are perpetually pregnant is another howler. Mormons do not pretend to know about how Spirits are brought forth, so why do silly writers put words in our mouths? Once again, I have still never seen my faith accurately portrayed by a writer. Especially not one writing for effect rather than accuracy. It is a shame some readers will think the writer has hit it spot on, but be assured the writer has done no such thing.

    Once again, I have still never seen my faith accurately portrayed by a writer.

    Then here's your chance, educate us with the truth and accuracy you claim to possess. Please.  


    How convenient.  You can make unsubstantiated claims, misrepresent beliefs, and then, rather than having any personal responsibility for fairness or accuracy, challenge others to "educate us with the truth and accuracy you claim to possess."  To what point?  Are you going to read it and respond with a less jaded mind?  Will your civility suddenly emerge?  It is sad to see how thoughtlessly you scratch, mar, and trample others' pearls.  

    It's so interesting that all of a sudden a few 'different' individuals converge here to be hostile and attack regarding Mormon dogma.  And all write surprisingly the same way, tempo and with same gist, but none 'are verified' or proffer fact of their assertions.  (My research is based on personal interviews, research of easily accessed public records.)

    These comments beg the question - when are six (or more) equal to one? Enough said.

    The LDS doctrine regarding the virgin birth is exactly what the bible and Book of Mormon states. All other comments by members of the church beyond that are speculating which causes controversy at times. The Book of Mormon says: "...Behold the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh. And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms...Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father"

    Women do NOT have to be married or given some kind of approval from a man to enter the highest degree of glory. I've seen this heresy quoted a bit lately and it is simply untrue. Your "LDS" friends are either former LDS with an axe to grind or very uninformed.

    What about the hat?

    A compendium of rimor. You ought to go to and to learn about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, not the Mormon bashets who are full of hate and bigotry. I was a law student in Utah when the policy on ordaining African Americans was changed. There was NO action by the government yhreatening the tax rxempt status of BYU. BYU did NOT discriminate against blacks, and during the 1970s a black Mormon studentbwas elected president of the student.body! The Mor,ons have always had.integrated congregations. I grew.up in one in Salt Lake in the 1950s, whete several black members were Sunday School teachers. Mormons have actively tecruited Japanese and Haeaiians and American Indians and Mexicans for over a 100 years. That is teflected in current Mormon membership. Some 400,000 Mormons are citizens of Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda and other cpuntries in Africa. Amazing how much time peopke will invest in AVOIDING accurate information about Mormons, as opposed to gossip that teinforces their prejudices. Oh, and that guy claiming to be a Mormon but denying Mary was a virgin is clearly NOT a teal Mormon. The Book of Mormon is explicit in teaching she was a virgin, chosen by God. People like him lie about being Mormons in orderbto spread false information about us. He is scamming you.

    This text looks like it was mangled by OCR software, but I imagine it's just some weird keyboarding issue…

    Latest Comments