Skip to comments.BBC interview with LDS leader earns controversy [An Lds 'apostle' 'lie' about Romney's oath-taking?]
Posted on 06/07/2012 5:50:38 AM PDT by Colofornian
Posted // 2012-06-05 - A BBC investigative journalist's interview with Jeffery R. Holland, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, raises intriguing questions about the LDS Church and its beliefs.
The documentary, released in March but yet to be broadcast Stateside, is called The Mormon Candidate and featured a sit-down interview in the LDS Church Headquarters in downtown Salt Lake City between British reporter John Sweeney and Holland.
Among Sweeney's questions were several relating to whether U.S. presidential candidate Mitt Romney would have pledged to cut his own throat or disembowel himself before revealing the secrets of the LDS temple ceremonies. In edited footage, Holland said, "That's not true." He later says that vows would have been made "regarding the ordinances of the temple." Such penalty oaths were taken out of the temple ceremony some time ago, one Sweeney interview subject said, albeit after Romney would have taken his temple oaths.
Sweeney asked Holland about church members shunning those who leave their faith. Holland noted that he would choose not to cut out of family life one of his children if they decided to leave Mormonism.
Others highlights of the interview include questions relating to the baptizing of dead Holocaust victims, similarities between the LDS Church and Masonic organizations and whether the LDS Church is a cult. By this point in the interview, Holland's distinct unease had unraveled to almost cavalier frustration. "I'm not an idiot," he told Sweeneynor, he implied, are the 14 million members-plus members of his growing church.
Sweeney also brought up the "Strengthening the Members" committee, a group within the LDS Church that polices polygamists and other vocal apostates or breakaways from the church. Holland acknowledged their continued existence as a group dedicated to protecting the church's membership from dangerous critics.
Perhaps the most interesting question is why the interview took place at all. The LDS Church is not known for allowing media to interview its hierarchy.
Given that Sweeney was responsible for a controversial BBC documentary on the Church of Scientologyincluding an infamous on-air rant by Sweeney against church media handlersthe wisdom of agreeing to a sit-down with Holland is a head-scratcher, particularly given the way Holland struggled to answer some of Sweeney's unabashedly direct questions.
A PR firm for the church hand-delivered to BBC offices in London a letter complaining about the "ambush" interview, according to The Guardian.
The documentary will be broadcast in the United States later this yearpresumably before the election.
So, when this Mormon "apostle" said about Romney not taking this oath ("that's not true"), he openly lied.
From the article: The documentary will be broadcast in the United States later this yearpresumably before the election.
The MSM expose' on Mormonism will be a pounding this summer & fall.
Who cares...I don’t.
This will be an interesting documentary as its viewing spreads across the nation.
its ok....this is a free country..you may vote for Obama if you like...
good for you.
So what did the oath consist of?
See chart below -- last row, last column on the right:
|Lds Leader||Chronological 'Prophet' or Fundamental # (or Other Title)||Overlap Areas: Could the President of the U.S. become a 'puppet' to an Lds 'Prophet?' (The Lds Prophets -- in their own words)|
|John Taylor||Lds 'Prophet' #3||The Almighty has established this kingdom with order and laws and every thing pertaining thereto [so] that when the nations shall be convulsed, we may stand forth as saviours and finally redeem a ruined world, not only in a religious but in a political point of view. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 342, April 13, 1862)|
|Orson Hyde||President of the Lds Quorum of the 12 Apostles for 28 years (1847-1875)||What the world calls Mormonism will rule every nation...God has decreed it, and his own right arm will accomplish it. This will make the heathen rage. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 53)|
|Heber J. Grant||Lds 'Prophet' #7||"Elder Marion G. Romney recalled the counsel of President Heber J. Grant: 'My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.' Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, 'But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray'" (in Conference Report, Oct. 1960, p. 78)." Cited in Official Lds publication Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, p. 209 (1984)|
|Harold B. Lee||Lds 'Prophet' #11||...President Harold B. Lee said: 'We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, '...as if from mine own mouth...(D&C 21:4-5)...You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself..." Cited in official Lds publication Remember Me: Relief Society Personal Study Guide I, p. 27 (1989)|
|Spencer Kimball||Lds 'Prophet' #12||"President Spencer W. Kimball said: '...We deal with many things which are thought to be not so spiritual; but all things are spiritual with the Lord, and he expects us to listen, and to obey..." (In Conference Report, Apr. 1977, p. 8; or Ensign, May 1977, p. 7) Cited in official Lds publication Come, Follow Me: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide 1983, p.12 (1983)|
|What about Marion G. Romney, cousin to Mitt's father?||Who was he in Lds hierarchy? (Title: 'President' - Top 3 of church as 2nd counselor to both #11 & #12 Lds 'prophets')||"Elder Neal A. Maxwell has said: 'Following the living prophets is something that must be done in all seasons and circumstances. We must be like President Marion G. Romney, who humbly said, '..I have never hesitated to follow the counsel of the Authorities of the Church even though it crossed my social, professional, and political life' (Conference Report, April 1941, p. 123). There are, or will be moments when prophetic declarations collide with our pride or our seeming personal interests...Do I believe in the living prophet even when he speaks on matters affecting me and my specialty directly? Or do I stop sustaining the prophet when his words fall in my territory? if the latter, the prophet is without honor in our country! (Things As They Really Are, p. 73). Cited in official Lds publication, Search the Commandments: Melchizedek Priesthood Personal Study Guide, pp. 275-276 (1984)|
|Ezra Taft Benson||Lds 'Prophet' #13||Benson speech given 2/26/80 @BYU. Summary: remember, if there is ever a conflict between earthly knowledge and the words of the prophet, you stand with the prophet (See excerpts re: 3 of 14 'fundamentals' below) Source: Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #5||5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time. (My Q: Ya hear that Mitt Romney?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #9||9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual. (My Q: Still listening, Mitt?)|
|Benson (cont'd)||Fundamental #10||10. The prophet may advise on civic matters. (My Q: What say ye Mitt?)|
|B.H. Roberts||LDS Historian and Seventy. Note: Roberts was an elected Democratic Congressman from Utah in 1898 -- but was NEVER seated by Congress because of grass roots uproar vs. Roberts, who took a THIRD simultaneous wife in the early 1890s. Grass roots America collected 7 MILLION signatures on 28 banners and presented them to Congress...in pre-mass media 1800s!||[T]he kingdom of God... is to be a POLITICAL INSTITUTION THAT SHALL HOLD SWAY OVER ALL THE EARTH; TO WHICH ALL OTHER GOVERNMENTS WILL BE SUBORDINATE AND BY WHICH THEY WILL BE DOMINATED. The Rise and Fall of Nauvoo, 1900, p. 180|
|Mitt Romney as POTUS???||Aside from above prophetic impositions, why would Mitt not only honor what these 'prophets' have spoken, but what a future Lds 'prophet' may tell him to do?||The Law of Consecration Oath Mitt Romney has sworn in the Mormon temple (done before marriage/sealing in temple): "You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the law of consecration as contained in this, the book of Doctrine and Covenants [he displays the book], in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and EVERYTHING with which the Lord has blessed you, or WITH which he MAY bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion." Source: What is an LDS Church/Mormon temple marriage/sealing? [Q: Please define 'Zion': The LDS PR Web site (lds.org) defines its primary meaning: "membership in the [LDS] church."]|
Barrack Hussein 0bama was a muslim polygamist - religion that advocates lying to advance islam.
Barry then switched to Rev. Wright’s Fake Church Of The Black Communist Jesus, which advocates lying to destroy Western civilization.
Mitt took the same oath that Masons take. Wow.
Take your pick.
This post was about the religion of mormonism, not politics.
Vote for whomever you wish.
But your comment is so typical of the many mittbots that infest FR lately. Use the tools right out of Alinsky’s playbook and accuse another of that which you yourself are engaged in. Voting for a socialist piece of garbage.
Good for you.
and of course there was NO political implication, for posting it...
I hate romney as much as anyone....
but Obama can NOT have another 4 years without having to worry about re-election.
While I reject mormonism thoroughly as a giant masonic scam that has nothing to do with Christ, nothing in your chart concerns me regarding Mitt (I was strongly and actively anti-Mitt all throughout the primary race).
As our founders intended and exhorted, I want people of faith to serve as President because Iwant their faith to guide their decisions. There is nothing to suggest a Mormon would act unconstitutionally if his religion were to guide every single decision (not so with izlam).
Masons have been president many times, and masonry is the pagan cult that mormonism is based upon. While I could point to masonic ideals that presidents advanced while in office that harmed the USA, it is clear that mormonism is no worse than masonry. The real distinction is the Mormons are more faithful to their cult than masons are to theirs - which actually is a Mormon virtue.
I can imagine (any time now) that Sweeney will be interviewing Barack Hussein Obama about his views on Islam, their "take" on those who leave the "Religion of Pieces" (APOSTASY): IBN ABBAAS SAID : THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH SAID, WHOEVER CHANGES HIS (ISLAMIC) RELIGION, KILL HIM. AL-BUKHARY (NUMBER 6922)....
AND not what we know happened 1,400 years ago, or 100 years ago, but recently (LIKE THIS PAST WEEK, SEE: MUSLIMS SLAUGHTER CONVERT TO CHRISTIANITY
Then of course, Sweeney can ask Dear Leader about how women are treated under Islam; how NO Churches (or any religious symbols or practice of any faith) are allowed in Saudi Arabia and in most Islamic Republics...
Then he can segue into how Christians are being harassed, persecuted, and murdered throughout the Islamic World...
Then...well this is wishful thinking cuz we know it ain't gonna happen.
Mmmm, lets see now, who is more of a "threat" to the safety and security of the United States among these 2?
And of these 2, which is more dangerous to our survival?
The Muslim Brotherhood Creed: Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.
The Muslim Brotherhood Agenda as outlined in 1991 in Phildelphia:
"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means.
THE IKHWAN MUST UNDERSTAND THAT ALL THEIR WORK IN AMERICA IS A KIND OF GRAND JIHAD IN ELIMINATING AND DESTROYING THE WESTERN CIVILIZATION FROM WITHIN AND "SABOTAGING" THEIR MISERABLE HOUSE BY THEIR HANDS AND THE HANDS OF THE BELIEVERS SO THAT IT IS ELIMINATED AND GOD'S RELIGION IS MADE VICTORIOUS OVER ALL RELIGIONS.
Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.
All it takes for .....
..... to triumph is for good men to do nothing.......!"
10 QUOTES BY BARACK OBAMA ON ISLAM
#1 Islam has always been part of America.
#2 We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities.
#3 These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islams role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.
#4 America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.
#5 I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed
#6 Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality #7 As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.
#8 I look forward to hosting an Iftar dinner celebrating Ramadan here at the White House later this week and wish you a blessed month.
#9 That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isnt. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.
#10 I also know that Islam has always been a part of Americas story.
10 QUOTES BY BARACK OBAMA ON CHRISTIANITY
#1 Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation.
#2 We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation.
#3 Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?
#4 Even those who claim the Bibles inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christs divinity are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
#5 The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
#6 From Obamas book, the Audacity of Hope : I am not willing to have the state deny American citizens a civil union that confers equivalent rights on such basic matters as hospital visitation or health insurance coverage simply because the people they love are of the same sex nor am I willing to accept a reading of the Bible that considers an obscure line in Romans to be more defining of Christianity than the Sermon on the Mount.
#7 I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell. I cant imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity. Thats just not part of my religious makeup.
#8 Those opposed to abortion cannot simply invoke Gods will they have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths.
#9 On his support for civil unions for gay couples: If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount.
#10 I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people.
Barack Hussein Obama: Mmm, mm, mmm!
Though we are all aware of Obama's proclivity towards appeasing Islam and Islamic Republics; his negotiating with our enemies (Taliban); his release of captured Terrorists; his support of the "Arab Spring" in the ME which has led to the takeover of those countries by Radical Islamists; etc, many are not aware of what he has done to facilitate their (Islamists) acceptance and appointment to positions of "trust" within our own Government
Here are but 6 of those individuals:
Considering that some Freepers have framed their arguments that voting for Romney would be not only NOT Patriotic, but worst, Not Christian, perhaps they should stop and consider what we face with another 4 years of a Regime under Obama would mean and his facilitating Stealth Jihad and the Islamization of America.
Islam is a frontal attack on Christianity and Judaism and its time we understood this threat and called it what it is. We are not in a war on terror, which so many politically correct politicians would have us believe.
The whole world is, and has been for 1,400 years, in a WAR AGAINST ISLAM! If we do not stand up against this cancerous enemy, whose ultimate goal is to bring the entire world into submission to Islam and have all people worship none but Allah, then Western Civilization and human freedom as we know it will soon cease to exist.
America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls civilization jihad.
For a detailed description of who these individuals pictured above are, their goals and what damage they have done and the real threat they pose, see the following:
IF after viewing this video, one does not come away with the resolve to do whatever it takes to defeat Barack Hussein Obama, then I worry about the future of our Great Republic.
PS: One should at least bookmark this most enlightening, informative, well researched and documented 10-part Series by Frank Gaffney (Muslim Brotherhood in America) and watch all of it as soon as time permits.
Not supporting Romney IS NOT the same as voting for BHO.
It is not only an ignorant premise it is just plain stupid.
Interesting answer, what he is saying is that "yes, lds do shun people who leave, but I personally might not do that."
The choices are clear on who we can trust to preserve religious liberty. That is what matters to me.
I don’t care for Mormonism, but we ain’t voting for pope.
I say goodbye and good riddance to Barry Soetoro and the Wookie he rode in on.
And who would that be?
I endorse post 10 above.
Some FR may have some issues with the tenets of the Mormon Religion and that is their right as an American to express civil discourse.
BUT, when measured against Obama’s political, social and stance on freedom of religion (ObamaCare v. Roman Catholic and other churches), Romney is the good guy and Obama is the guy who is the threat. November 2012 is when America chooses the path to a better future or jumps off the cliff. I stand with the choice that saves us from Obama’s errors and deeds.
I just recently discovered information about the "strengthening the membership committee" From Steve Benson
Some excerpts from Steven's post.
Oaks's benign version of the "Strengthening the Members Committe (and the similiar spin offered up by Holland and Murphy) has been proven to be quite deceptive, as subsequently shown con by blogger "Mormon Heretic,"" who details how claims by Oaks and Company simply don't square with the facts:
"A few months ago, I received an advance copy of a new book by Philip Lindholm called 'Latter-day Dissent: At the Crossroads of Intellectual Inquiry and Ecclesiastical Authority.' . . .
"The most interesting topic to me (outside of the excommunications [of the September Six"] themselves) was learning about the 'Strengthening the Church [Members] Committee' (SCMC). I had never heard of it before. In describing it, ['September Six' member] Lynne Whitesides said on p. 6:
"'There is a "Strengthening Church Members Committee" that we didnt know about at the time, a Gestapo-like group which press-clipped everything anyone said who might be considered an enemy of the Church, meaning one who disagreed with Church policy.'
"Footnote 4 on p. 181 further clarifies this:
"'According to Apostle Dallin H. Oaks, the "Strengthening Church Members Committee" is a "clipping service" that "pores over newspapers and other publications and identifies members accused of crimes, preaching false doctrine, criticizing leadership or other problems. That information is forwarded on to the persons bishop or stake president, who is charged with helping them overcome problems and stay active in the Church.'
(quoted in 'News: Six Intellectuals Disciplined for Apostasy,' 'Sunstone' 92, November 1993, p. 69)
"The First Presidency further clarified the nature and history of the 'Strengthening Church Members Committee' when it stated, 'This committee serves as a resource to priesthood leaders throughout the world who may desire assistance on a wide variety of topics. It is a General Authority committee . . . . They work through established priesthood channels, and neither impose nor direct Church disciplinary action.' (quoted in 'News: Church Defends Keeping Files on Members,' in 'Sunstone' 88, August 1992, p. 63)
"Many of those called in for investigatory interviews or discipline have claimed that this Committee is responsible for compiling incriminating evidence against targeted members.
"Here is what Donald Jessee, former employee of LDS Churchs Public Affairs Department said when asked about the Committee. From pp. 217-220:
"Donald: 'Its a committee that seeks information that, in time, if the proper action is taken, does just that--it can strengthen Church members through proper discipline.'
"Philip: 'How so? Many excommunicants have claimed that it collected files on them in preparation for potential disciplinary courts.'
"Donald: 'They do it by caring about members of the Church. Discipline designed to help members who have gone astray. The Church from its beginning has gathered anti-Mormon literature and derogatory or false information about the Church. If the source of this information comes from Church members of record, then action is taken. The Church must be aware of its critics and enemies. Again, Church leaders must keep the Church morally clean and ethically straight.'
"Philip: 'Should academics avoid publishing research if it could be understood as contradicting the Churchs position on a given topic?'
"Donald: 'Members can publish whatever they want. Theres no censorship. It depends on the context and the persons motives in doing what has been done. If a BYU professor, whose salary is paid with Church funds and who has signed an honor code of conduct to keep university rules, then publicly goes out and violates them, then that person is subject to discipline, but he or she is free to speak about any issue he or she wants to.'
"Philip: 'What about those topics not yet given much attention by Church leaders? Do members have free reign on those topics? Thomas Murphy was nearly excommunicated for doing genetic research that the Mormon Church had yet to conduct. How much freedom is one afforded on such controversial but relatively unaddressed topics? Mother in Heaven is another example of a controversial topic upon which people have published and been punished for doing so.'
"Donald: 'Well, in the case of Murphy, he says that because of DNA he has proven that the Book of Mormon is not true. How does he know? There were other groups of people here in America before Lehi arrived here .How could DNA prove or disprove the truthfulness of a book brought here under the hand of God?'
"'I do not know anything regarding those who have been disciplined for publishing on the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven. Chances are they presented their ideas in a way that ran counter to true religion and to the Church and its teachings. Speculation on such matters can lead members astray and destroy faith in God the Father. Praying to a Mother in Heaven is not a true doctrine, no matter how it is defined or presented. It undermines faith in the true process of offering prayers, which is to pray to Heavenly Father in the name of Christ.
"'Members can believe anything they want. Church members may believe they have a Mother in Heaven, but to go out teaching that we ought to pray to her, or that we give details about her when both the prophets and the scriptures are silentthis violates the teachings of the Church
"'If Church members go to their friends and start talking about practicing plural marriage, they are not in harmony with the Church. Yes, there are some things where common sense says, "Dont discuss it in private or in public." Otherwise, hey, Ive got the freedom to think anything I want, but I need to be careful that Im not trying to represent the Church with my point of view or convince others that a certain doctrine or practice represents true religion or is what the issue or is what the Church teaches. As an individual, I can speculate all I want on any issue or topic as long as I keep to myself those matters that are not in harmony with truth and the Church and its teachings.
The proper name of this committee is the Strengthening Church Members Committee, and anybody writing for the Salt Lake City Weekly should know that, as the committee's been around almost 30 years. The disclosure of the once-secret committee (as the result of a leaked memo) led to a Sunstone Symposium and a series of newspaper articles just before the September Six in the very early 1990s.
Although I find distasteful the idea of any committee that monitors and collects criticisms of church leaders (sometimes leading to excommunication or disenfellowshipment - see the "September Six"), it bothered me more that Holland first denied knowledge of the committee's existence, then upon further questioning, acknowledged it and said he would give Sweeney the names of people who could tell him what the committee was currently doing.
But the committee is Big Brother-esque.
And none of that's an attack on any of our good FR LDS members (unless they're Jefferey Holland or work on the report-your-neighbor committee). I respect their rights, and the rights of all FR members to their religious beliefs.