At the moment the 2012 US presidential campaign has begun in full swing. The Republican National Convention just nominated Mitt Romney, sinister and robotic, woman and minority-hating Mormon that he is, as their official candidate. They balanced the ticket with some flaming young Irish Catholic from Wisconsin who used to drive the Oscar Meyer Weiner Mobile. Well, the world is surely coming to an end if these two get into office: One guy who’s made a ton of his own money and is known as a "fixer" of bankrupt operations, and another guy from the working classes known for crafting very clear, concise and effective budgets. I guess the Leftist, Democrat fight is going to eventually have to center around claims of the Romney/Ryan ticket’s combined religious intolerance and backwardness. Waiting for the October surprise…
In light of this development I thought it wise to review or peruse or re-peruse a number of alleged and actual LDS doctrines the media, the public, and particularly the Leftist media and the Rightist public, seem to be just fixated upon. On with it then.
First up: Magic Underwear.
Now, some jackass indeed staged a one-dickweed protest at the RNC by standing outside waving around some Mormon underpants. The man was clearly a Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist determined to shock his fellow Republicans into not voting for Mitt, based primarily upon the style of his drawers. And yes, official Mormon "garments" are for the most part droopy and frumpy looking. But then again, underclothes are worn under your clothes. So basically, you’d never see them. Mormons therefore, ought to be free to choose whatever drawers they find comfortable and appropriate. The fact that this "garment" is a vestment religiously representing the clothing God fabricated for Adam and Eve when they discovered themselves naked in the garden, is pretty much irrelevant to how well a Mormon digs ditches, paints houses, or runs the Oval Office. The exception to that however, is that invariably, and in essentially all styles, Mormon underwear stretches out, gets floppy, starts creeping up the crack of your backside, or in some styles, splits in two and the pants head for the knees while the top blooms out of the trousers and hangs out from behind or out from under your belly. It is rather unlikely on the other hand, that a Mormon president would find himself irresistibly yanking a wad of his Union Suit-like, bunched-up LDS long johns out of his arse in such a way as to significantly prevent his response to a sudden alert of foreign invasion.
The only shocking thing about the particular example shown above, revealing a half-naked Brother and Sister Romney in the more “modern” two-piece LDS garments, is Mitt’s apparent use of a dance-belt, nut-cup, codpiece or some other form of enhancement in the groinal regions. Either that are these photo-shop craftsmen are simply paying him a great complement.
Utahns are a simple and superstitious people. (And never very fashionable or stylish obviously.) Unfortunately Mormonism developed in Utah and in its history Utah Mormons have embellished the "protective" properties of the "garment" into actual physical protection from bullets, bombs, fire and sword. In actual fact, the "garment" is only officially billed as a spiritual protector inasmuch as it is a constant reminder that it is God who clothed and protected us from our own ignorance and nakedness after we fell from innocence in the Garden of Eden. It is a reminder that God covers and protects us from the harsh environs of His Creation and the hopelessly inadequate covering of fig leaves we fashioned for ourselves is pathetic in comparison to the protection of God. Now, there will come in response a thousand anecdotal tales of WWII sailors burnt to a crisp in fuel explosions–burnt everywhere but where covered by their "garments." Rather than debate each and every one, it should suffice to say that no Latter-day Saint is obliged to believe any of them. And no Latter-day Saint is specifically promised any sort of physical or "magical" protection from said garment. It’s a symbolic, purely religious vestment not unlike any of the other “Christian” vestments worn by “Christian” clergy all over the globe.
There are "Born Again" Christians all over the globe, Roman Catholics and others, sporting crucifixes around their necks, Saint Christopher medallions and a multitude of other "Christian" good-luck and protection charms. They all believe in the “protection” of such tokens of their faith in God’s guiding hand. Why then, does both the Christian and Godless-Leftist world, so vapidly obsess over Mormon underwear? You don’t even see that. After all, there is nothing fashionable or "magical" about the average gang-banger’s underpants, but for some reason the “Liberals” and other “Enlightened Ones” who constantly criticize Mormon underwear, on the Right and Left alike, seem far less curious about the symbolic prison and gang origins of saggy-assed trousers. They seem far less obssessive about the whole look of banger-chic for stylistic reasons–even given the fact that their shorts are constantly on public display.
Next on the list of troubling Mormon doctrines, would be Plural Marriage. I’ll match your two Gays and raise you three or four additional wives. The truth is, the US Constitution doesn’t really support the notion of allowing the State to define the nature of marriage. The Christian anti-Mormon crusaders who spun a patriarchy clearly outlined by ancient prophets in a book they consider the Word of God into a vile sexual orgy of craven Mormon lust, found they could not do so based upon appeals to either the Holy Bible or the Constitution, because both leaned entirely in the direction of leaving Mormons alone to marry whom they felt God had ordained them to marry. Christian America chose to exploit popular suspicion and often the disgust of highly ranked but sexually repressed Christian zealots into a mandate for Mormon eradication anyway. Now they’re paying for their eagerness to throttle the Mormons by having thus removed from their arsenal, any legal or Constitutional rationale for denying Gay Marriage. If the State has a compelling interest in maintaining a "social order" merely based upon tradition and public opinion, as the Supreme Court reasoned in Reynolds v US, the case that legalized the persecution and near dissolution of the LDS church based upon their belief in a Biblically sound basis for taking more than one wife just as the Old Testament prophets all clearly did, then all the modern Leftist or radical Gay activist has to do is show that denying Gay Marriage will create a massive public outcry and the breakdown of civil order. Or more simply put, the Christian controlled Supreme Court, in order to skewer Mormons, ruled that a Darwinian Democracy, basically a cultural lynch mob, could simply define Marriage any way it saw fit, and persecute, limit, regulate, or disincorporation anyone or any institution that said otherwise. Christian America, to get Mormonism, handed the entire matter of regulating Holy Matrimony over to the State. Because this reasoning was so selfish, so myopic and egocentric, while it hounded Mormonism out of the polygamy business more or less permanently, it also set the stage for any combination of gay, lesbian, bi-Sexual, transgendered, cross-gendered, or bi-gendered, in any number or arrangement, to appeal to the same precedent and civil government and judiciary in these more “enlightened” times, and grant themselves by popular acclaim, the right to define or re-define Marriage as they see fit. It’s just a question now of compelling cultural force of numbers and social pressure.
Mormonism on the other hand, has so stigmatized itself over the generations because of an abusive and violently repressive beating it has been given by Christian American the practice of, even just the sanction of, or even just the suspicion of polygamy, that the LDS church today is probably the most active anti-polygamist organization on the face of the earth. It’s a bit like "Stockholm Syndrome," where the kidnapped and abused begin to identify with their captors. The LDS church today doesn’t allow plural marriage even in countries and cultures in which this is the standard arrangement. The church has moved full-speed into the isles of the Pacific and other foreign, exotic cultures, where plural marriage has always been the normal social arrangement. Yet, even in these places, modern Mormon leadership demands that investigators in such countries cast off a few wives and narrow it down to one as a contingency for baptism. Apart from being a pretty asinine, Utah-culture-based policy–in a church rife with similarly Utah-culture-based asinine policies–it puts the church in a position of denying both the Bible and the pronouncements of previous modern prophets at a time and place and under conditions where there is no reason whatsoever to compromise what it still openly acknowledges as the "New and Everlasting Covenant."
The LDS church issued an official “policy” statement in 1995 it called a “Proclamation to the World.” It’s also known as the LDS “Proclamation” or “Statement” on the family. It arrived at the moment the church first began to make a serious effort to become a world religion and crawl out of hiding along the canyons and valleys of the Wastach Front. It came after the GI/Big Blue fashionistas in Salt Lake discovered that they’d uniformed and groomed their sexy young elders of the missionary effort in San Francisco’s official togs and butch-hairdoes of the rising young Gay professional community. It sought to explain the church’s position on gender roles and marriage at least to its own—as there was a growing internal, closeted Gay Mormon lobby foolish enough to think they could win out that argument against the Brethren if they just made their case well enough in the scriptures. They failed of course, as had the feminist movement of the previous two decades failed to make any dent in the notion that Mormonism was a patriarchy and a male priesthood was a permanent fixture.
All these several internal movements did was encourage the elderly leadership of the church to so soften the look and feel of the patriarchal nature of the priesthood, with its Divine Right to lead, administer, and preside not only over church organizations but the basic family unit, that presently the modern, caring LDS male is so empathic with the womenfolk of the church, so in touch with his nurturing side, that he in many cases might just as well be Gay. But that’s another doctrine to explore later.
The culmination of this “Proclamation” put Mormonism at the forefront of California’s Proposition 8, Gay marriage battle. Mormonism essentially kicked off the entire “Defense of Marriage Act” movement:
WE, THE FIRST PRESIDENCY and the Council of the Twelve
Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,
solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a
woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to
the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.
ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the
image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of
heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and
destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual
premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose….
In the process of clarifying its gender role and same-sex policies however, the LDS church practically precluded itself from ever defending its previous support of a plural-marriage patriarchy on any rational grounds by seeming to be deferring to the Christian social consensus that one man and one wife is God’s specific formula. The wording of the “Proclamation” one might suppose, is sufficiently lenient to have not specified one single union of one single couple. I wouldn’t read anything into that however. And apparently the church has not taken a clear stance upon how many times you get to re-do and re-try this current model of “marriage for time and all eternity” in the “new and everlasting covenant.”
The LDS church was correct both Biblically and Constitutionally in professing the right to both believe and practice plural marriage. A modern argument that plural marriage as practiced by early Mormons is barbaric and misogynist, would of necessity also make the same charges against the Holy Bible and its authors. No Bible-believing Christian however, can truthfully say that plural marriage, or the general principle of ecclesiastical and familial patriarchy that practiced it both in New and Old Testament times, was condemned or proscribed anywhere within its pages. Since neither can the Mormon hierarchy, it seems almost cowardly that the LDS church would withhold "blessings" from new members not held captive in Utah and Idaho–the two states that at used to have federally mandated test oaths that disenfranchised anyone who is a member of an organization that teaches plural marriage to be a correct Biblical principle, (these oaths are now incorporated into their state constitutions via specific provisions banning plural marriage) and laws with the power to seize all the property and funds of any organization that promotes it–whether it is actually practiced or not. In that context, no doubt, the fear is that the church would be crucified in Utah and Idaho, for what its members do or preach in Africa, Eastern Europe, or the Middle East.
Nevertheless, what the Church, Historic Christianity, Roman tradition or social custom has to say about Biblical marriage practices, the US Constitution pretty much grants any religious order 1st Amendment rights to interpret the Bible or any other Holy writ or tradition, and decide what God sanctions and what He doesn’t in their own terms, barring a “compelling” national or at least public interest in restricting it. The only “compelling” national or public interest the Supreme Court ever produced in its meddling with Mormon plural marriage ordinances, was a vague allusion to "civilized," meaning "Christian" tradition and the fear that allowing Mormons to breed like rats in the desert would allow them to home-grow a political base of voters that would prevent the Christian movers and shakers that ran America in the day, move in as usual, after the Mormons had done all the hard work of trailblazing the wilderness, and through one more new pretext, take all the Mormons’ stuff away again. But more to the point, when the federal government was oppressing Mormonism and writing Orthodox Christian dogma into federal law in its attempt to take control over Mormon occupied Mexican territory now called "Utah," the whore-mongering US Senators, Congressmen, army officers, judicial appointees, and other invading and then occupying forces that crafted and refined these anti-Mormon statutes and eventual state constitutional demands, took great care to insure that the anti-bigamy, anti-co-habitation laws were written in such a way as to allow the occupiers, the army, the federally appointed judiciary, governors and administrators, the ability to hump their brains out with whomever and however they wanted to, as long as they did not legitimize it by setting up housekeeping, gathered up their things, and buggered off later in the evening, after having their way with the woman in question. Now, I say these federally mandated legal requirements were anti-Mormon more so than anti-polygamy, since the goal was the elimination of Mormonism rather than rescuing women from the horrors of being well-kept by Brigham Young and company. When the "liberating" forces of the US limped into the Utah Valley, they were actually quite pissed off that there were damned few women interested at all in being liberated. They did their best however to solicit Mormon wives and daughters to desert their husbands and fathers, and under the guise of "liberation" take up with the camp-following hordes or the randy buggers of the US Army, or the conniving bastards sent from Washington DC to suppress the civil rights of the local Mormon population. Whores and trollops and whiskey for the most part had to be imported, which only added to the outrage of the American "liberators" of the Mormon desert empire.
When forced by continued Mormon legal fighting to rationalize the nation’s Christian crusade against Mormonism via plural marriage, the reasoning of the High Court of all the land was this: If we protect plural marriage under the 1st Amendment because of a religious belief, then somebody else will demand that we let them practice human sacrifice because of a religious belief. To the truly stupid this may actually seem reasonable, and since I’m writing this for idiots of every religious and political stripe, I’ll just point out the fundamental difference between protecting the Constitutional right of any single, or group of consenting adults, who want to play with themselves however they may behind closed doors, or allowing a man and any number of women–or vice-versa for that matter–to cohabitate and share income, chores or sex as they see fit, and the prospect of forcibly seizing one’s fellow citizens and laying them dead on an altar against their will. In the one case, even Roe v Wade should teach us that the Constitution implies a fundamental right to privacy. There isn’t a single anti-sodomy law in the nation that has withstood even a lower-court challenge under the reasoning that it’s just so outrageous that the public and national peace is at stake. In the other case, you’re just killing people. Are you bright enough to see the difference? If not, I for one don’t want you in the church anyway.
Let’s try it this way for you "enlightened" so-called "liberals" or "progressives": If we were to suggest today that catching two gay men cohabitating should be a criminal act worthy of five years in prison at hard labor, and for every additional man found cohabitating with them an additional five years should be added to the sentence, we can begin to approach a more contemporary vision of the idiocy, cruelty, and bigotry of these Christian anti-bigamy laws directed and executed directly against the early Mormons. And if the only "compelling" national, state or public interest in stamping out early Mormonism’s multiple wives is some imagined concern for what happens to the children in these relationships, the answer is almost invariably that they go on to be very happy and well adjusted citizens and many of them now hold high LDS church offices, and many many more of the products of these relationships are in highly placed social, political, business and entrepreneurial enterprises. This overwhelming success occurred mind you, in spite of the federal anti-polygamy witch hunts that stole many of the breadwinners from these families, threw these often elderly patriarchs in jail, and attempted to break apart their families while the Mormon women and children were left essentially to die in a nearly helpless condition.
When it proved essentially impossible to enforce their anti-bigamy legislation without a willing wife to confess and rat out her husband and fellow wives and insure a conviction, the Edmunds Tucker Act used the Supreme Court’s ruling in Reynolds v US to craft laws that disincorporated and seized the church’s property for merely teaching that plural marriage was a correct Biblical principle–it was not required to prove anyone was even actually practicing it. Test oaths were drafted in Utah and Idaho that required these constituencies to swear that they were not a member of any organization that espoused the belief in or practice of plural marriage. The entire Mormon population was enslaved and governed by federal appointees who rented back their own church buildings to them and denied them the right to vote or hold any civic office.
Having made the case for early Mormon plural marriage, if you’re wondering whether LDS or Utah-based folk-fable or doctrine or ideology, is going to be a problem in the governance of the United States of America relative to its past promotion of plural marriage, the answer is NO. If the Lefties have already decided Gay marriage is de rigueur, the Libertarians don’t give a shite what anyone does behind closed doors, and the Anarchists are too busy occupying McDonald’s to know the difference, that just leaves the hard core of the Tea Party and the once-called "Conservative," or more pointedly, "Religious Right" fanatics to piss and moan about Mormons, their secret death squads, satanic symbolism, and multiple wives. The problem this waning segment of the American social landscape is having of course, is that so many of their sainted leaders are turning out to be serial monogamists, fornicators, adulterers, or in the case of a certain unnamed, traditionally very Conservative World Power and religious sect: boy-buggering child molesters and enablers of same. Some of these loosely united Christian pals are out pissing on the funerals of homecoming war heroes, and screaming at their parents, wives, family and loved ones about what a great thing it is that God is killing so many US servicemen and women. I can’t even follow that one intellectually or otherwise. And naturally, all the Religious Right can do is shut about them and keep a low profile. You can’t defend that sort of thing within the Body of Christ in the public, social or political spheres. Internally, of course, those sinners will go to Heaven because they are saved as Christians no matter what. And Mitt Romney’s burning in hell no matter what, be cause he’s neither saved nor a Christian. In the old days, these same nut-cases, these cheating, stealing, lying lecherous hypocrites, would find no trouble contriving an excuse to send him there through fire and sword. Plural marriage was just the most universally convenient issue to beat Mormonism to death with at a national level.