Well, it’s over. After five years of de facto treason, Glenn Beck is leaving television. And I must say, it’s been one hell of a ride. Between his insistence of George Soros’ one-world government, countless liberal-Hitler analogies, and astronomical raising of the mean number of times a TV host cries on air, the people that actually like to keep their facts straight have had to work pretty hard to compete. There were good times, and there were bad times. I particularly enjoyed the Jon Stewart parodies and the various compilation videos of his 9-12 rallies. But of course, the good times were really just our desperate grasps at the silver lining, the silver lining of a terrifying cloud comprised of gullibility, hatred, fear, and religion all

Something tells me that the internet does not prefer this guy to "Nyan Cat".

blown along by Beck and those like him. Glenn Beck has provided the inspiration for attempted murderers. He’s fed thousands, maybe millions of people information that is simply not true. But worst of all, he’s made people love him for it. And who is the fool – the fool, those who follow him? Of course, a good deal of it has been aided by indoctrination. Young people raised in conservative homes essentially have no choice whether or not to listen or examine – they’re forced, trained into it. And the older people have learned that anything is alright, as long as it’s done in the name of the Christian god.

And I want to say, and I would be delighted to say, that this is the end. But it’s not. It’s not even close. Being on Fox news was and likely always will be the highlight of his career, but he’s not going to let it be the last chapter either. His daily program will continue online. For $5 a month (even more for a premium service), viewers will gain access to Beck’s continued daily broadcasts. And I, for one, think that this is great news. Because the internet, I believe, is not entirely for people in Beck’s demographic. Few die-hard Beck conservatives know their way around a computer. Even fewer will take the time and initiative to investigate his website. Fewer still will actually be will be willing to pay for and watch a man scream and cry at them for two hours a night. I am not happy, because Fox News still lives, and religion still kills. But I am happy, because unless he has invented and will perpetrate success for a rash new business model, Glenn Beck’s mainstream popularity is dead. Tonight, I can claim, and America can claim, a very small measure of victory. The true patriot is not a person that wants no change. The true patriot is the one who wishes for all Americans to be free and live life in the fair pursuit of happiness. And as a true patriot, tonight I rejoice. Congratulations, everyone.

-Quinn

In 2007, James O’Keefe made recordings under false pretenses, selected the few most favorable circumstances, and got black leaders to call Planned Parenthood a genocidal institution and call for defunding. In 2009, James O’Keefe made recordings under false pretenses while posing as a criminal (technically, he doesn’t have to pose at all), selected the few most favorable circumstances, made heavy and misleading edits, and singlehandedly disbanded one of the most influential humanitarian organizations in the United States. And now, in 2011, James O’Keefe and his friends broke the law to make a recording under false pretenses, selected the most favorable lines, edited the video to show them completely out of context, and it now looks like America’s most reputable, honorable, non-partisan news station might lose support of public funding. His patsy, Ron Schiller (NPR’s VP of fundraising) has now been forced out of a job.

James O’Keefe is a criminal. Unlike most things he’s said recently, that’s no lie -- it’s not even taken grossly out of context. Fraud, entrapment, slander, his list of crimes just keeps getting longer and longer. He was arrested in January 2010 trying to interfere with the phone lines of a U.S. Senator (wonder what he was going to do with those). In August, he lured a CNN reporter onto a boat filled with sex toys -- he’d told her he was going to give her an interview for her story on young conservative activists. O’Keefe is a bad man. He’s a criminal. He’s a liar, and he’ll do whatever he wants to get people to come to his way of thinking.

"James O'Keefe" is to "pimp" as "NPR" is to "partisan"

I’ve been caught in some interview situations before. I really want the other party to say certain things so that I can use it against them. But a lot of the time, it just doesn’t happen. I’m not going to force them into saying it, we call that entrapment and it completely invalidates my point. I’m not going to take something they say out of context, because that makes me look bad and thus they look better. And if I interview a hundred people and only one gives me something close to what I want, I might publish that. But I’m not going to call it the official stance of the organization, and I’m not going to assume that the other hundred I’ve already talked to hold the exact same opinions. Sadly, throughout his lengthy history of shady escapades, O’Keefe has managed to do the exact opposite of every single one of these things. What he’s done to NPR isn’t even the worst, if you ask me (I’m still pretty enraged about ACORN). It’s just the latest, and the one that people care about -- with no basis at all.

Some of the stretches of the truth in the tape are infuriating. The narrator, for example, says that the potential donor group Schiller is meeting with is a front for the Muslim Brotherhood. No matter which way you look at it, that’s an outright lie. Furthermore, Schiller had absolutely no way of knowing about any potential (false) Brotherhood ties. The organization was introduced to him as the “Muslim Education Action Center”. I don’t know about you, but to me that sounds entirely innocuous. At another point in the cut, Schiller is shown laughing jovially at MEAC’s mission statement of spreading acceptance of Sharia. Turns out the laughter was taken from elsewhere in the tape -- he was laughing at a restaurant mix-up.

The full, unedited, harmless tape can be found here:

http://www.theprojectveritas.com/nprjudge

O’Keefe’s edited video -- this will make you angry:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=xd9OYJMX9t4

I’ve seen comments comparing O’Keefe’s actions with Chris Hansen’s on “To Catch a Predator”. In that show, he lured in criminals under false pretenses and exposed their previously committed crimes. The NPR tape is not like that. Schiller, an innocent man with largely innocent opinions, was lured in under false circumstances. He was then taped making a lot more innocent statements (some I don’t agree with, but still nothing that should cause a sensation). And then, this innocent man with innocent opinions at an innocent organization was falsely made to look like a conservative-hating lunatic.

But honestly, I’ve spent enough time debunking Jim O’Keefe’s counterintuitive conservative lie-fest. By now, we’re used to conservatives slandering their opponents however they can to get what they want. It’s a disgusting practice, but it’s to the point where it doesn’t even surprise me anymore. What’s heartbreaking this time is that it may lead to the defunding of one of the world’s most important news sources and all-around fantastic in every way media outlets. In the unedited tape, Schiller made it very clear that any opinions he expressed were his own and absolutely not those of NPR. He was entitled to those opinions. I’m not saying that it was a good idea for him to express them, it wasn’t. It’s never a good idea for a high-ranking official to express opinions contrary to those of his organization, especially when that organization tries so hard to remain opinion-free. And whenever this kind of thing happens, history repeats itself and gets angry at the organization for the actions of the ill-advised official. So whether O’Keefe’s filthy edits had been made or not, Schiller was a bit of a fool.

A fool to bring about the most dire of consequences. If federal funding is pulled from NPR, tons of local stations will die. Talk radio may take decades to recover. And most of all, people will lose the most balanced source for news this side of the BBC. Conservatives seem to always have this idea of NPR being the left wing’s Fox News (and of Fox News being unbiased?). That’s not true. Like so many of their other opinions, they hear a sound bite, hear their favorite pundits railing against it, and assume this fraudulent idea that NPR is a bastion of socialism and baby-killing. It’s a lie.

Shirley Sher- oops, I mean Ron Schiller

Anybody who wants to challenge me, please, turn on NPR for two hours. When you’re not hearing a game show or comedy programming of some kind, you’re hearing the news -- as it is. They don’t spin it. They don’t even take a stance on it. They report it. As NPR’s Ira Glass put it, “Go through this morning’s ‘Morning Edition’ and find me even a sentence that smells like political bias to you. Like find one.” And I’m sorry, I truly am, if news without spin seems liberal. It’s called “truth”, and conservatives hate it. CNN has correspondents from both sides of the aisle, and I get sick of hearing them say things that don’t belong in with the news. MSNBC and Fox respectively have taken a definitive stance on one side of the aisle or another, and spin stories their own way or even lie (Ten lies at Fox for every one at MSNBC, of course).

But NPR, it doesn’t do that. Sometimes it pulls in an expert from one side or the other, but they just give their analyses of what’s going on. And if one story is analyzed by a conservative, you can bet the next one will be by a liberal. Even during their non-news programming, the network employees don’t take a stance. I’ve even heard Peter Sagal (Host of NPR’s ‘Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me’) making fun of the entire situation, calling Tea Partiers something along the lines of the most beautiful, educated people he’s ever met.

Federal funding for public radio allows local stations all around the nation to provide people with quality programming around the clock. Without NPR, we’re stuck listening to unprofessional broadcasters putting their uneducated comments on events that they’re probably uneducated about. We’re stuck with two-bit shock jocks and bad music stations where DJs experiment with the sound boards. I really, really don’t want any of those things.

But with NPR, people are exposed to such a wide variety of professional, quality programming that they’ll feel dirty ever going back. Non-partisan humor, talk, stories on every topic from a blind cyclist to Houston’s new girl band. They must have so many awards at this point that they need federal funding just to afford the warehouse in which to store them. In an age where every reporter influences the news, we cannot afford to lose one of the last bastions of truly honest reporting. We can’t afford liars like O’Keefe to leave hundreds or thousands out of a job and millions out of honest news. I don’t know what’s going to happen at this point, but you can be sure that it won’t be O’Keefe printing an NPR-style redaction of incorrect details.

"Ira Glass" is to "excellent reporting" as "Glenn Beck" is to "inflammatory falsifications"

Anyway, that’s just a lot of background information. What you came here looking for, of course, is information on Beck’s now infamous involvement in this whole thing. As many of you have probably heard by now, Beck’s website “The Blaze” has published an article completely debunking O’Keefe’s tape, meanwhile being quite easy in Schiller. The piece was NOT written by Beck himself, but by Scott Baker, the site’s editor-in-chief. He was working with an analysis of the edited tape done by Pam Key, another employee who often produces video for the site.

When I first heard what was going on, I assumed that someone at The Blaze had gone rogue. But then I heard Glenn accepting compliments for the work done, and I figured maybe he’s one of the conservatives that realizes that NPR isn’t partisan. They’d done a lot of unbiased coverage of his 8/28 rally, after all. But after discussion with colleagues and further thought, I realized that doesn’t seem right either. He’s railed against NPR before. He’s always complaining about taxpayer money going to things like this.

What an article on Beck’s site says is this: Scott Baker was suspicious of the edited tape. He called Glenn asking if he could examine and write about the raw tape. Glenn said yes because, and I quote, “We’re not going to Shirley Sherrod someone.” In the same breath he said that he hated NPR and had no agenda against O’Keefe, but it’s still something very interesting to think about.

Why? Why didn’t Glenn feel willing to “Shirley Sherrod” someone? If you’ll recall, back in July, he was actually defending her. Even saying that she may deserve her job back. I don’t know how his head works, but that’s the truth, that’s what happened. I HATE Glenn Beck. I wish nobody had ever heard of him. I wish he’d never made it farther in society beyond his little DeLoran crash. He’s caused irreparable harm to thousands, maybe millions of people. But I’m not going to lie about him. I don’t need to. The truth provides me with enough ammunition. And the truth, along with my very reluctant moral compass, tells me that in the case of Shirley Sherrod he… he did something kinda good.

Is this NPR scandal the same? Did he, along with the employees at The Blaze, do kinda good? I don’t want to be quick to make judgments, so until we observe further fallout from this story I’ll remain largely neutral on that one. What I can say is that a lot of people have seen the NPR video debunked because of The Blaze. I can also say that the Blaze article was completely partisan, and that’s absolutely not how it should have been. It wasn’t good reporting. It was downright bad reporting helmed by downright bad people. But sometimes, even good can come of evil. The slogan of The Blaze is “The truth has no agenda.” I don’t think that’s true, and we can see that The Blaze never cares about filling everything up with their agenda. But for some reason, they choose to report the truth now and again -- no matter what consequences it may have for conservatives. I’m even inclined to think that Beck lost a few raving fans over this one -- but gained a few as well. I’ll call it an even trade.

Aw, don't cry Glenn. All the educated people hate you and now Fox News does too, but Tea Baggers still love you. Right?

The truth is, as far as I’ve been able to tell, that Glenn Beck’s moral compass is completely broken. Not in the way that it always points south, but in the way that it points many ways for no apparent reason. He has no problem inspiring killers. He’ll lie about the fairly elected president. He’ll use racial and homophobic slurs, he’ll lie about the founding of this nation, he’ll lie about the constitution, he’ll disparage anybody with religious beliefs that don’t conform to his. But he’ll defend Shirley Sherrod. And he’ll post a debunking of James O’Keefe. Please, don’t be fooled by one good action in the midst of a thousand bad ones. See the forest -- and the trees.

What a lot of people find most interesting about this, of course, is his closeted disagreement with Fox News, which has had no problem accepting and embracing O’Keefe’s video. Many seem to take this as a sign that Beck will leave the network once his contract ends at the end of this year. But from where I stand, the NPR scandal has affected very little between Glenn and the network either way. He’s been hinting at a split for a long time, and just a few days ago he commented of their relationship that “the only thing certain in life is change.” If I were a betting man, I’d certainly put everything I had on Glenn going independent once his contract ended. It’s a poorly kept secret that even Fox has been considering not offering a renewal of his contract. His ratings have been dropping for months. In a disgusting, lying, extremist network, he’s the most disgusting, lying extremist sack of crap they have, and people are starting to notice.

The sad truth is that both Fox and Beck might be better for that split. Beck’s got a diehard core of fans that listen to every show he produces, watches every TV program he’s ranting on, reads his stupid little books and attends his stupid little movies. He’s built himself quite the little empire, and can only go so much farther while he’s tied to the network. And Fox News, as partisan as it is, needs to maintain a grain of sanity if they want to attract a large base of modern conservatives. They’re not going to hire a liberal to replace Glenn. They’ll just hire someone who spins and stretches the truth instead of lies, and who just raises their voice instead of yelling. It’s not a good change. The split will be bad for everyone -- except for Beck and his money, and except for the network and their ratings.

-Quinlan Ryan

Next up: Glenn Beck, Japan, and America’s shattered ethics

Not just about fresh-faced boys and a great choir

The Czars had a great choir, too.

I think the first exposure or awareness I had to the Mormons was just past the midpoint of the last century. My grandfather, retired from his job as county assessor, had taken a part-time job doing accounting work at a gas station in our little town. Our family didn’t have much money in those days so Gramps picked up a Christmas LP with a variety of artists singing Christmas carols. I think it was from Firestone tires and I think I may even still have it somewhere among my 1500 albums. If my memory serves me correctly, the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang ‘Adestes Fedeles’ (O Come All Ye Faithful). We listened to that record hundreds of times over the years.

So, growing up, the only thing I knew about the Mormons was that they had a great choir. We didn’t have a Mormon church in our city, and we were near the end of the line, so to speak, so perhaps the Mormons hadn’t gotten around to mapping out our community yet. If they ever showed up at our door, they never got through it. During this period of my life, I was very much interested in religion and was even considering a career as a pastor at one point, which amuses me now given my agnostic/atheist beliefs. During my second year of college, there was a Mormon in our dorm who happily gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon, which I prized and kept near my Bible and Satanic Bible. Back in those days, people used to sit around and have ‘bull sessions’ about various topics, and religion was a favorite as it always included plenty of semi-informed speculation about what this or that might mean.

It's no use trying to hide from them, they'll catch up with you anywhere you go.

Flash forward to a new century, in a quiet town in a quiet state. Our doorbell rang about every 6 months and my wife would coldly yet politely shag the two young ‘elder’ Mormon lads who rang it down the road. This happened several times before I decided to let them in, sit them down and give them hell, and THEN shag them down the road once and for all. They sat down and we chatted about normal stuff for a while and during that conversation I realized that I really liked these fresh-faced kids. They reminded me of me when I was about their age, earnestly and eagerly wanting to talk about their religious beliefs and proselytize if the opportunity presented itself. (Of course, in my day, I was all about LSD, not LDS). We began to talk about religion, and I gave them fair warning that we both have religious beliefs (my wife is Catholic) and on we went. There was slight pressure in the conversation towards the Mormon beliefs but it was subtle and respectful. After a while they said they had to go but they wanted to pray for me first. I thought that was sweet. I invited them to come back any time, adding that they were welcome to come in out of the rain or cold, to warm up, have some water, use the bathroom, or whatever.

I think we saw that pair of young men two more times. One of them was from Portland, Oregon, and his mission was almost over. A second pair came in once, and after that we haven’t seen any more Mormon missionaries. From what I know now, I expect that records of each contact were carefully noted and reported. I think we have used all of our allotted opportunities to become Mormons.

I wouldn’t have ever even thought of Mormons again, possibly, if it wasn’t for Glenn Beck. That would have been unfortunate, because despite being a political junkie I may have never bothered to notice them because they operate in such secrecy. If you’re not actually looking for Mormon political actions and history you won’t see it because they rarely allow themselves to be seen. That is, unless you’re one of the people who they screw, as they did in to LGBTs in California and Maine by pumping millions of dollars into a hate-filled smear campaign against the civil right of marriage for all. This one I find to be rather interesting given the role of the government in ending polygamy in 1890 and the struggle that the Mormons fought for 50 years to hold to it.

Left Coast cartoon sums it up pretty well.

A quick side note. I got an email just yesterday from Fred Karger of Californians Against Hate. The Mormons have come out publicly supporting Salt Lake City’s proposed ordinance which prohibits discrimination against LGBTs regarding employment and housing. The ordinance also protects those with disabilities. Fred is hopeful that this is an opening step in a LDS church that is more open to granting civil rights to LGBTs. I take a more cynical view. In the last days before the November 3^rd election in which Maine overturned their LGBT marriage law, there was a dispute between gay LGBT advocates and NOM (National Organization for Marriage) which pumped $1.6 million into overturning the marriage law in Maine. A federal court ruled that NOM must disclose its donors under Maine law; they still haven’t complied with the ruling and I believe that this latest news from the Mormons ‘supporting’ LGBT civil rights in Utah is pure PR. They know that they are about to be cold-busted in Maine as the primary donor to NOM’s campaign.

Mormon History: steeped in blood, fraud, racism, sexism and lawlessness

This section is not intended to be comprehensive nor is it a mini-course in comparative religion. The history of all religions could be written in the blood spilled by their adherents. In any religion there is an ‘in’ group and an ‘out’ group defined by a dogmatic set of rules and codes that the in group follows and the out group doesn’t. The history of early Christianity has been filtered through the ages, but Mormon history is relatively recent so we have modern accounts dating back to its very beginnings.

Fraud

This guy was a fraud, a cheat, a murderer, a charlatan, a polygamist, oh, and by the way, the founder of the Mormon church.

The Mormon faith is founded on documents supposedly found by Joseph Smith, a self-proclaimed ‘Glass looker’ (also known as ‘money digger’) who said he could see things that other people couldn’t see by looking into a glass or special stone. One of the things he looked for was buried treasure, which explains why he never had any money. In the 1820s phonies like Smith were commonplace. In 1826 Smith was hired by Josiah Stowell in New York to find what he thought was a Spanish treasure buried on his farm. Smith spent a month on the farm living off of his host’s hospitality, and came up empty handed. After that small fiasco Smith was brought up on charges by those close to Stowell; Arad Stowell, Josiah’s son, was one who testified at the trial that he had observed Smith’s operations and that he was a fraud. Smith was convicted of Disturbing the Peace. (An odd charge, I think).

There has been a lot of controversy about the Book of Mormon’s origins, authenticity, and even plagiarism. The story is that Joseph Smith was out money digging and was guided to a buried box of golden plates which were there under the protection of the angel named ‘Moroni’. This find supposedly took place September 22, 1823, near Manchester, New York. This Moroni was a “rules person”, and Smith was not allowed to have the plates until he followed a bunch of rules, including coming back to them every year for 4 years. Smith finally got the plates but was not allowed to show them to anyone (of course). The plates were written in a language Smith referred to as ‘reformed Egyptian’, which is a language that no linguist has ever seen. It has no trace of existence on this planet. Smith began translating the plates by looking at his seer stone in the bottom of his inverted stovepipe hat, dictating the English to several people who took turns writing it down.

The Golden Plates which contained the Book of Mormon written in "reformed Egyptian". Gimme a break.

Since there are but a few eyewitness accounts of the plates, and since the accounts of what they actually looked like don’t match, there is not even any usable circumstantial evidence that proves they existed. Therefore the Mormons accept their existence and the authenticity of their translation as an article of faith. Those of us who don’t believe in magic tricks would be more easily convinced if there was any tangible evidence besides a book that is full of contradictions, inaccuracies, and even some suspected plagiarism. Passages from the Book of Mormon are almost identical to passages in the KJV of the Bible, which is odd because the plates were alleged to be 1100 years old and therefore predate the King James Bible, which was written in 1611, creating a compelling point for calling the golden plates story nothing more than hokum and charlatanism.

There is another book of rules called the ‘Doctrines and Covenants’, originally published in 1833 as the ‘Book of Commandments’. In 1834 the book was pared down to what were considered the most significant ‘revelations’. There was another version printed in 1876 contains disputed material attributed by some as revelations of Joseph Smith. There are about 100 revelations and lectures in it. So here’s another opportunity for FRAUD.

If a church claims that one of its bedrock doctrines is the word of God through revelation, and that God speaks directly through the Apostles, then it’s fraudulent when the church changes its dogma as a matter of convenience. It provides a stark example of how the so-called God-given code is nothing more than a phony rule somebody made up that worked out for them at the time but became uncomfortable or inconvenient so it gets changed. This is not a ‘revelation’ of God’s will, it’s a cynical game of opportunism played by the church Leadership.

About Face on Polygamy

In the world of Mormonism, men have needs, too many to be met by a single wife.

Note: the information regarding Mormon polygamy below is largely sourced from what is considered to be an authoritative paper titled ‘LDS Church Authority and new Plural Marriages, 1890-1904 written by D. Michael Quinn. Quinn actually ran this by Mormon President Gordon Hinckley before publishing it. It’s available at http://www.lds-mormon.com/quinn_polygamy.shtml but I get spooky popups from the site, I will just warn you in advance.

The Mormons have taken a dogmatic U-turn at least twice. The first example occurred in 1890 when they suddenly renounced polygamy at the same time that Utah was being held up from statehood over the polygamy issue. The church leadership had been fighting a losing battle with various state and local governments over this issue since the church formed in 1830. They were hounded out of New York, Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois where Joe Smith was killed while in protective custody in Carthage. (Accounts say he killed two of his assailants with a pistol before they killed him). Brigham Young move the church to Utah starting in 1847 to avoid persecution for polygamy and other heresies.

It wasn’t until 1852 that the Mormons made official what was already known by every community within they had lived, namely that they practiced plural marriages. In February 1851, Mormon President Brigham Young announced to a meeting of the Utah territorial legislature that he had more than one wife. Then in August 1852, Young announced that ‘celestial marriage’ was a doctrine of the church.

The Mormon church and its leadership were willing to break local laws, lie to authorities, and even develop the posture that truth was relative, not absolute in order to hold on to polygamy. In 1890, a document called the ’1890 Manifesto’ (Czary, eh, Glenn?) surfaced which declared an end to polygamy but muddied the waters with a whole big lot of controversy as to its origins, its meaning, its scope of authority, and place in the church’s hierarchy of dogma. Was it a revelation? Was it part of the D&C?

The short answer is that there is no short answer. The US Supreme Court had just upheld anti-bigamy laws in 1879. The Mormon leadership was on the run in Mexico. Anti-Mormon forces in Utah were gaining more control; Mormons were denied voting rights and barred from public office. Church property was being seized. The church was in turmoil and confusion for decades over this issue. So- zing! Just declare the sacrament that is central to the faith, the practice that is the life of practicing Mormons, to be null and void! Afterwards, persecution tapers off, Mormons regain control of Utah, which becomes a state, and the rest is history.

Another U-Turn of Convenience: Wassup, bro?

For 150 years, the Mormons taught that all blacks are cursed by God. This is just a plain, ugly fact. It is documented in the D&C. It is reflected in church policies, and their official’s public statements. This is well-documented at the following link http://www.christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm where specific quotations from the Book of Mormon, the D&C, and church leadership spanning those 150 years can be found. The racial prejudice was founded on their interpretation of the Bible, no less, saying that all black people were descended from Cain and therefore were not only inferior beings but were also cursed by God to live lives of suffering and servitude.

Yo, my new brother, was HAAPENIN, come on in, ya'll are cursed but you know how to keep our shoes SHINED

But- wait! In case of emergency, break dogma. For 150 years the Mormons refused to allow black men into ‘the Priesthood’. But in 1978 the pressure mounted on the church to a point where the Apostles had another convenient ‘revelation’. It might have had something to do with Stanford University’s declaration that they were banning football games with BYU because of racism. Maybe it was the pending NAACP lawsuit filed on behalf of Byron Marchant, a black man denied the position of Scoutmaster because the church required all Scoutmasters to be members of ‘the Priesthood’. For whatever reason, there was another ‘revelation’ that blacks could now be received into ‘the Priesthood’. Strangely, the text of the ‘revelation’ has never actually been revealed. It’s only been included as an ‘Official Declaration’ in the D&C, which states that the ‘revelation’ occurred. However, although the policy has changed, the idea that black people are inferior and cursed has NOT changed. This dichotomy of practice vs dogma is a perfect example of the church adapting itself to the environment.

Please note carefully: although the church institutionalized racism, this is NOT a universally-accepted doctrine of all Mormons nor has it been over the last 150 years. Many Mormons have been outspoken challengers of this policy and have championed black civil rights.

Blood on the sand, blood on their hands

In 1857, the Mormons in Utah were in a state of rebellion against the US government over the polygamy issue and others as well. The Mormons had formed a militia named the Nauvoo Legion and loudly claimed that they would defend Utah from any invading force. President Buchanan was incensed by this and ordered a force of 2,500 regular army to Utah to restore order.

About 140 human beings, men, women, and children were murdered in cold blood at Mountain Meadows on 9/11/1857. Maybe Glenn Beck should start a 9/12 Project about THAT.

Against this backdrop, a wagon train originating from Arkansas called the Fancher-Baker party passed into Utah territory on its way to Oregon. Church leaders wanted to off the interlopers, but they didn’t want to have to take responsibility for killing them. Their Big Plan? They dressed up like Indians. WTF? The initial attack became a siege as the wagon train put up a fight. After some period of time, the Mormons persuaded the wagon train to surrender. What happened next was horrible.

On September 11, 1857, at Mountain Meadows, the members of the wagon train surrendered to the Mormons. Every man, woman, and child that was deemed old enough to recount what happened was executed in cold blood. The men were shot by the Mormons. The women and children were killed by Piaute Indians who were assisting in the siege. Approximately 18 children were spared execution but lost their families and were assimilated into the Mormon whack factory. All the possessions of the wagon train were stolen, including 800 head of cattle.

Brigham Young’s role in the slaughter of humans like animals is controversial. But we know a few things. First, he stated ‘If any miserable scoundrels come here, cut their throats‘ during a sermon he delivered under the subject ‘Red hot blood atonement’. Second, he orchestrated a coverup to blame the murder on the Indians. There is a theory that Young ordered the massacre personally, sending a message to the militia, ‘Brethren, do your duty.’

A woman is a wondrous thing to own

Ah, the good old days, when men were men and women knew their place.

The Mormon church is designed by men to serve men and keep women subordinate. Women are excluded from holding positions of authority but all women are subservient to that authority. Women are not only subordinate in this life, but in the Mormon afterlife as well where they will fulfill their ‘equal power’ by spitting out babies like a Tommy gun.

The male chauvinism of the Mormon church is codified by statements of Leadership and teaching documents such as ‘The Latter-day Saint Woman – Basic Manual for Women’. In these writings, women are not only ordered to embrace their inferiority to men by affirmation, they are to embrace it spiritually as well. Further, women have no control or say over the vast Mormon fortune; this is the provenance of men alone. Women are required to serve the church when called without pay.

The pervasive integration of Mormon church membership into family life guarantees that women will get no better treatment at home than they do within the church. Women are expected to obey their husbands, serve them, support them, and make babies for them, lots and lots of babies.

Is the Mormon Church a Cult?

Do Mormons worship a false god or even Satan?

I have tried to give a brief overview of events and people who have shaped the Mormons into what they are today. I have not yet addressed some of the dogma that separates them from Christians. The church uses the words ‘Jesus Christ’ in their official name; however, they hold beliefs that the Christian world consider to be heretical, non-Christian, and fraudulent. To make this concise I’m going to just list some of them, as I’m already up to 3000 words for this part of my article and I don’t want you to have to take a whole day to read it. The next 10 points are written from a Christian point of view, which I am not, but know quite a bit about.

Heretical views of the Mormon Church:

1. Mormons believe in polytheism, or multiple Gods. They believe that men can become God in their own universe.
2. Mormons believe that God is flesh and bones, just like humans.
3. Mormons believe that God is married and that all spirits of all people on earth were conceived through sex.
4. Mormons believe in polygamy, even though they have a ‘revelation’ to stop practicing it.
5. Mormons believe that God has evolved.
6. Mormons believe that Jesus is the ‘spirit brother’ of Satan and was not born of the Holy Spirit and Mary, but instead through physical incest.
7. Since 1830 the Book of Mormon, supposedly the scripture, has been changed 4000 times.
8. You will never see a cross, the symbol of Christianity, in a Mormon temple.
9. There is no corroboration with the Book of Mormon in history, archaeology, geography, linguistics, or anthropology.
10. The Bible has little use in the Mormon worship service and usually only appears in the temple for Easter and Christmas.

I thought it might be useful to take a quick trip through to the characteristics of cults. Here’s a ‘checklist’ I found that covers a lot of what I have been thinking about since I got interested in this topic.

Characteristics Associated with Cultic Groups – Revised

Janja Lalich, Ph.D. & Michael D. Langone, Ph.D.

http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Concerted efforts at influence and control lie at the core of cultic groups, programs, and relationships. Many members, former members, and supporters of cults are not fully aware of the extent to which members may have been manipulated, exploited, even abused. The following list of social-structural, social-psychological, and interpersonal behavioral patterns commonly found in cultic environments may be helpful in assessing a particular group or relationship.

Compare these patterns to the situation you were in (or in which you, a family member, or friend is currently involved). This list may help you determine if there is cause for concern. Bear in mind that this list is not meant to be a ‘cult scale’ or a definitive checklist to determine if a specific group is a cult. This is not so much a diagnostic instrument as it is an analytical tool.

‪ * The group displays excessively zealous and unquestioning commitment to its leader and (whether he is alive or dead) regards his belief system, ideology, and practices as the Truth, as law.

‪* Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

‪* Mind-altering practices (such as meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, denunciation sessions, and debilitating work routines) are used in excess and serve to suppress doubts about the group and its leader(s).

‪

Now we know. Briefs, sort of. What you have to wear to temple, under what you have to wear to temple.

* The leadership dictates, sometimes in great detail, how members should think, act, and feel (for example, members must get permission to date, change jobs, marry—or leaders prescribe what types of clothes to wear, where to live, whether or not to have children, how to discipline children, and so forth).

‪* The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s) and members (for example, the leader is considered the Messiah, a special being, an avatar—or the group and/or the leader is on a special mission to save humanity).

‪* The group has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, which may cause conflict with the wider society.

‪* The leader is not accountable to any authorities (unlike, for example, teachers, military commanders or ministers, priests, monks, and rabbis of mainstream religious denominations).

‪* The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify whatever means it deems necessary. This may result in members’ participating in behaviors or activities they would have considered reprehensible or unethical before joining the group (for example, lying to family or friends, or collecting money for bogus charities).

‪* The leadership induces feelings of shame and/or guilt iin order to influence and/or control members. Often, this is done through peer pressure and subtle forms of persuasion.

‪* Subservience to the leader or group requires members to cut ties with family and friends, and radically alter the personal goals and activities they had before joining the group.

‪* The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.

‪* The group is preoccupied with making money.

‪* Members are expected to devote inordinate amounts of time to the group and group-related activities.

‪* Members are encouraged or required to live and/or socialize only with other group members.

‪* The most loyal members (the ‘true believers’) feel there can be no life outside the context of the group. They believe there is no other way to be, and often fear reprisals to themselves or others if they leave (or even consider leaving) the group.

What it all boils down to is control. If you belong to an organization that controls a large part of your life, including the way you behave and the way you think, you may be a member of a cult. By my reckoning, the Mormons fit the definition “almost all of the above”. They control you, and if you try to get away from them they will make your life miserable.

Edit added 9/3/10… if you or someone you love is trying to escape from Mormonism and need some help, it’s available online. Please visit http://www.exmormon.org/.

NEXT: Glenn Beck, Mormon convert and de facto Teaparty Minister of Propaganda