The Insanity of Mormonism...

No matter how much a Mormon may claim the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Christian Church, that Mormon at best is mistakenly deceived or at worst know the claim is a lie.

JRH 6/3/19

Your generosity is always appreciated:

Please Support SlantRight 2.0

***********************

The Insanity of Mormonism: Everything You’ve Ever Wanted to Know About This Bizarre Cult

By Geri Ungurean

June 2, 2019

Absolute Truth from the Word of God

Mormons at the door

For a while now I have noticed that when I look up something online about Christianity, the very first website which pops up is on Mormonism.  At first I thought it was just a glitch, but soon I realized that this was manipulation on the part of the Mormon cult.  I’m not sure how they accomplish this, but it seems to be working for them.

I also noticed this on youtube.com.

So today I decided to write an article about Mormonism.  Many Christians know that Mormonism is NOT Christianity, but I hope that after you read this piece, you will understand the aberrant beliefs of these very lost people.

From exposingsatanism.org

Mormon Beliefs, are they Christian?   (with commentary and Scripture indented)

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, known as the Mormons, believes and teaches that God the Father used to be a man on another planet, that he became a God by following the laws and ordinances of that God on that planet and came to this world with his wife (she became a goddess), and that they produce a spirit offspring in heaven. These spirit offspring, which includes Jesus, the devil, and you and me, are all brothers and sisters born in the preexistence.

 ^“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”  (Numbers 23:19) KJV

These preexistence spirits come down and inhabit babies at the time of birth and their memories of the preexistence are lost at the time.

This takes reincarnation to a whole new level!

Furthermore, faithful Mormons, who pay a full 10% tithe of their income to the Mormon church through Mormon temples, have the potential of becoming gods of their own planets and are then able to start the procedure over again.

We are called to be godly, but we will never be a god.

If you were to go to any Christian bookstore and look in the non-Christian cult section you will see numerous books on Mormonism that document Mormon beliefs as aberrant and UN-Biblical. The Mormon Church is not considered a Christian church.

Jesus warned us about such groups when he said in Matthew 24:24 that in the last days many false Christs and false prophets will arise and deceive many. Mormonism is exactly that, a manifestation of a false prophet: Joseph Smith, who taught all these things.

The Bible does not teach that God came from another planet, or that he has a goddess wife, or that we can become gods. In fact, the Bible clearly and definitely contradicts those teachings. But, the Mormon Church responds by saying that the Bible is not really trustworthy, that the true faith was lost, and that its leader, Joseph Smith, restored the so-called “true” Christian faith: god from another world, becoming gods, goddess mother, etc. Of course, the Mormon Church’s claim is not true.

Mormon Beliefs documented

Please note that these teachings are documented from Mormon writers, not anti-Mormon writers:

Book of Mormon The book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible, (History of the Church, vol. 4, p. 461.)

The Bible is God’s inerrant and infallible Word. It was penned by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

The Devil
The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192.) Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163]

The devil was not “born.”  He was a created angel (created by God) and the devil became filled with pride and wanted to be like the Most High God. Because of his pride and arrogance, God cast Satan out of heaven, and 1/3 of the “created” angels chose to follow him.

God

God used to be a man on another planet (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333). “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as mans…” (D&C 130:22).

Father God was never a man – in fact, he is Spirit. Jesus Christ (God’s son) the Second Person of the Trinity,  had no beginning and he came to earth in human flesh to reconcile those who were separated from the Father to Him – those who would believe. Jesus lived a perfect life on earth (being the only God-man) and He gave His life on a Cross on Calvary – His blood was spilt for whosoever would believe.

^“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

“For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:16-17) KJV

God, becoming a god

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354).

“Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them,” (DC 132:20).

Sounds very much like the Pride which got Satan cast from heaven!

God, many gods

There are many gods (Mormon Doctrine, p. 163).
“And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light: and there was light,” (Book of Abraham 4:3).

There is ONE GOD.  Our ONE GOD has three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit but He IS ONE GOD.

God, mother goddess

There is a mother god (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).

God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).

Could this cult be any more New Age?

God, Trinity

The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

No – the Trinity is ONE GOD in three Persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit

Heaven

There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348).

The Holy Spirit
The Holy Ghost is a male personage (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, Le Grand Richards, Salt Lake City, 1956, p. 118; Journal of Discources[sic], vol. 5, p. 179).

The Holy Spirit is the Third Person of the Trinity and is not made from flesh and bones.

Jesus

“Therefore we know that both the Father and the Son are in form and stature perfect men; each of them possesses a tangible body . . . of flesh and bones,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 38).

NO, Jesus and His Father are not made of Flesh and bones. When Jesus came to earth to redeem those who would believe, he was in human flesh. But before He ascended to His Father in Heaven, He was in His “Glorified Body” NOT a body of flesh and blood.

“The birth of the Saviour was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood – was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers,” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115).

Mormons teach that God the Father had sexual intercourse with Mary to conceive Jesus.  The Bible says:

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God” (Luke 1:35).

“Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh …” (First Presidency and Council of the Twelve, 1916, God the Father, compiled by Gordon Allred, p. 150).

Joseph Smith

If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation [the context is the full gospel including exaltation to Godhood] outside the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Doctrine, p. 670).

This is straight up Blasphemy!  Our Salvation comes from Jesus Christ and Him alone!

Pre-existence
We were first begotten as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth (Journal of Discourse, vol. 4, p. 218).

Reincarnation with a Mormon twist.  Another term would be LIES!

The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus (Mormon Doctrine, p. 129).

Jesus has ALWAYS existed. He had no beginning:

The Bible teaches that Jesus was not created but was rather the Creator. “In [Jesus Christ] all things were created: . . . all things have been created through him and for him” (Colossians 1:16). The doctrine of the eternality of Christ is one of the distinguishing marks of biblical Christianity.

The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus “in the morning of pre-existence,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 192).

Satan was created (not born) by God as God’s most beautiful of all the created angels.

Salvation
“One of the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation,” (Miracle of Forgiveness, by Spencer W. Kimball, p. 206).

Satan in no way originated how a man must be saved. GOD told us in His Word:

 ^“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

Not of works, lest any man should boast”   (Ephesians 2:8-9) KJV

A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the Father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus’ plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to “deny men their agency and to dethrone god,” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 193; Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 8).

Brethren – this is so messed up and mixed up – kind of reminds me of the author of confusion!

Jesus’ sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins, (murder and repeated adultery are exceptions), (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 1856, p. 247).

Good works are necessary for salvation (Articles of Faith, p. 92).

BLASPHEMY!  Our Glorious Lord Jesus who paid for our sins in full, said “It is finished.”   And whosoever believes in the finished word of Christ is saved!

There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 188).

It sounds as if Satan himself took residence in Joseph Smith!

“Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) KJV   And we know that name is JESUS!

“The first effect [of the atonement] is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 78-79).

WHAT?

“As these sins are the result of individual acts it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements — ‘obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel,’” (Articles of Faith, p. 79).

WORKS WORKS WORKS

“This grace is an enabling power that allows men and women to lay hold on eternal life and exaltation after they have expended their own best efforts,” (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697).

“We know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do,” (2 Nephi 25:23).

The Trinity
The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine dealings with man,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35).

NO NO NO!  The Trinity is ONE God with three persons – Father, Son and Holy Spirit!

Back to the article

Mormon beliefs are not in line with biblical truth. Because they teach things that are opposed to the word of God. It is clear that Mormonism is not Christian. (emphasis added)

Mormons, as well as Jehovah’s Witness, believe that Jesus and Satan are blood brothers

Question: “Are Jesus and Satan brothers?”

From Got Questions

Answer: No, Jesus and Satan are not brothers. Jesus is God, and Satan is one of His creations. Not only are Jesus and Satan not brothers, they are as different as night is from day. Jesus is God incarnate—eternal, all-knowing, and all-powerful, while Satan is a fallen angel that was created by God for God’s purposes. The teaching that Jesus and Satan are “spirit brothers” is one of the many false teachings of the Mormons (Latter-Day Saints) and, to some degree, also the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Both of these groups are properly labeled as cults because they deny essential Christian doctrine. While they use Christian terms such as Jesus, God, and salvation, they have heretical views and teachings on the most basic and essential Christian doctrines. (Please note that most Mormons today will vehemently deny that they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers. However, this teaching was most definitely a belief of the early Mormons.)

The teaching that Jesus and Satan are “spirit brothers” is born out of the Mormons’ misunderstanding and distortion of Scripture as well as some of the extra-biblical teachings they consider to be authoritative. Simply put, there is no way you can read the Bible using any type of sound hermeneutical principles and come away with the idea that Jesus and Satan are “spiritual brothers.” The Scriptures are very clear that Jesus is fully God, not some type of lesser god as the Mormons and other cults believe. The Scriptures are also very clear that God is transcendent above His creation, which simply means that there is no comparison between Christ the Creator and Satan His creation.

Mormons believe that Jesus Christ was the first “spirit child” born to God the Heavenly Father with one of his many wives. Instead of acknowledging Jesus as the one true God, they believe He became God, just as they will one day become gods. According to Mormon doctrine, as the first of the “spirit children” of God, Jesus had preeminence over Satan or Lucifer, who was the second “son of God” and the “spirit brother” of Jesus. It is ironic that they will use Colossians 1:15 as one of their “proof texts,” because it says that “[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.” Yet they ignore verse 16, where we see that “By [Christ] all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth. Visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. ALL THINGS were created through Him and for Him.” All things—thrones, dominions, principalities, or powers—includes Satan and his demons.

In order to believe that Satan and Jesus are “spiritual brothers,” one must deny the clear teaching of Scripture. Scripture says that it was Jesus Christ who created all things and that, as the second Person of the triune Godhead, Christ is fully and uniquely God. Jesus claimed to be God in many passages of Scripture. In John 10:30 Jesus said, “I and the Father are one.” Jesus was not claiming to be another, lesser god. He was declaring that He was fully God. In John 1:1–5 it is clear that Jesus was not a created being and that He Himself created all things. “All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made” (John 1:3). How much clearer can it get? “All things” means what it says, and it includes Satan, who as an angel was himself a created being just like the other angels and demons are. Scripture reveals Satan to be a fallen angel who rebelled against God and Jesus to be God. The only relationship that exists between Satan and Jesus is that of creation and Creator; of the sinful created being, Satan, and the righteous Judge, Jesus Christ.

Like the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses also teach that Jesus and Satan are spiritual brothers. While some Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses might sometimes try to sidestep this teaching because it is so antithetical to what the Bible actually says, it is nevertheless what these organizations believe and is part of their official doctrine.

Mormons believe that, not only were Jesus and Lucifer “spirit children of Elohim,” but that humans are spiritual children, as well. In other words, they believe that “God, angels, and men are all of the same species, one race, one great family.” This is why they believe that they themselves will one day become as much of a god as Jesus or even God the Father. Rather than seeing the clear distinction in Scripture between God and His creation, they believe that one day they will be a gods themselves. Of course, this is the same old lie Satan has been telling us since the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:15). Apparently, the desire to usurp the throne of God is endemic in the hearts of men.

In Matthew 16:15 Jesus asked the important question: “But who do you say that I am?” This is a question that is essential to salvation and one that the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses get wrong. Their answer that Jesus is the spirit brother of Satan is the wrong one. Jesus is God the Son, and in Him the fullness of the Godhead dwelt bodily (Colossians 2:9). He created Satan, and one day He will cast Satan into the lake of fire as the just punishment for his rebellion against God. Sadly, on that Day of Judgment those who fall for Satan’s lies will also be cast into the lake of fire with Satan and His demons. The god of the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses is not the God who revealed Himself in Scripture. Unless these groups repent and come to understand and worship the one true God, they have no hope of salvation.

We should pray for our Mormon friends. Perhaps you should print out this article for reference.

How Can I Be Saved?

Shalom b’Yeshua

MARANATHA!

___________________

A MESSAGE TO MY [i.e. Geri Ungurean’s] READERS

Bundy Mistrial, Their Faith & Constitutional Patriots

John R. Houk

© December 23, 2017

I’ve been following the trials and tribulations the Bundy family of ranchers a number of years. The Bundys have received persecution from the Federal government, especially the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) over property and public grazing land.

In the last post about the Bundys and Federal Prosecutors, “Will Bundy Prosecution MISCONDUCT be Given Pass by Judge Navarro?”, I elaborated a tiny bit of the misdeeds of the BLM grabbing Land and then exorbitantly charging ranchers to graze on Federally seized land.

I found out in a Tim Brown post that U.S. Federal Judge Gloria Navarro has declared a mistrial because of the blatant prosecutorial misconduct. Brown implies the few that have face minor charges and have been convicted might have their convictions tossed. Essentially this is yet another stain on Obama Administration non-legislated rules and regulations making it easier for government agencies to seize land and tell land owners how to work their own property.

Now comes the observation that will surely get me in trouble with members of the Church of Latter Day Saints (aka Mormons).

I consider myself a Conservative Biblically-oriented Christian. Most Mormons also consider themselves the same. However, most Christians that believe the Christian standard for faith in the Trinity believe Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three Persons that constitute ONE God. The persons of the Godhood unity are all coequal as one.

Mormons don’t believe that standard:

According to Mormonism, Jesus is a created being, the first spirit to be born of the Father (Mormon Doctrine, p.129) and a celestial mother (Mormon Doctrine, p.516). Therefore, Jesus could not be the eternal God or part of an eternal Trinity. Mormons also teach that both the Father and the Son are men with bodies of flesh and bone (Doctrine & Covenants 132:20; Articles of Faith, p 38); as two separate people, the Father and the Son cannot be considered “one.”

… READ ENTIRITY (Question: "Do Mormons believe in the Trinity?" GotQuestions.org)

Since Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever; Christians believe Jesus is eternal and not a created being. As with the Trinity and the coequal Godhood, Christ as God is the coequal unborn Creator who emptied His Divine characteristics to be born in the flesh. Hence Jesus is not only coequal in the Godhood, He is both fully man and full God. This perfect nature is the basis of the Redemption of a believing humanity.

Mormons are not so taught:

8. Prior to creation human spirits were literal children of heavenly parents. Although their spirits were created, the essential “intelligence” of these spirits is considered eternal, and without beginning. At a family council, God the Father told the spirit-children that according to his “plan of salvation” they would have to leave their heavenly home, take on human bodies, and be tested before they could progress to godhood. Satan rejected this plan and wanted to implement one that would have involved loss of moral agency. Jesus opposed Satan and offered an alternative plan in which he would take on human form and live a sinless life so that his spirit brothers and sisters could become gods. When his plan was not accepted, Lucifer is said to have rebelled and taken “the third part” of the hosts of heaven with him to the earth to serve as tempters. … READ ENTIRETY (9 Things You Should Know About Mormonism; By Joe Carter; The Gospel Coalition; 7/15/14)

Here are some more excerpts on the Mormon Jesus-Satan brotherhood:

The “christ” of Mormonism and the Christ of biblical Christianity are two distinctly different people. While it is true that when asking a Mormon if they believe in Christ they will confirm that belief, the “christ” that the Mormon believes in is not the Christ talked about in the Bible. … As will be pointed out below, the “christ” of Mormonism is not the Christ of true biblical Christianity. 

In Mormonism, Mormons deny Jesus Christ’s unique divinity. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is a created person. Mormons teach that every person including Christ has had two births. The first birth occurs as a spirit child in preexistence state.  This first birth happens when sexual relations occur between an exalted man, a god, and his goddess wife.  The second birth occurs much later as a human being. 

… Mormon theology states that Christ was the first and foremost of subsequent billions of spirit children created through sexual intercourse between the earth god and his celestial wife. Mormon theology also teaches that later in order to produce the body for Jesus Christ the earth god again had to have sexual intercourse this time with the “virgin” Mary, who became Jesus’ earthly mother. 

… In Mormon theology, there are infinite numbers of planets and infinite numbers of “gods” for each of those planets.  The essence of Christ is no different from the essence of any spirit child of Elohim, whether of men or of Satan and his demons. Every person on earth has the same essence or divine spark that Christ has. This means that every person can have the ability to become their own god or goddess. …

…

Mormon theology also teaches that Christ has a family relation with Satan. In other words, Jesus Christ is Satan’s brother. This is contrary to biblical Christianity and is just another example of how the two Jesus’ differ.  In Mormon theology since Satan (and his demons) was also a pre-existent spirit child of Elohim and his celestial wife, Satan is Christ’s brother. Looking closely at this teaching, we can logically conclude that the devil and all the demons are the spirit brothers of everyone on earth. This would mean that Christ, the Devil and we are all brothers and interrelated. 

…

… Brigham Young’s controversial Adam-God discourse of April 9th 1852, he taught that the body of Jesus Christ was the product of sexual intercourse between God (Adam) and Mary, who then married Joseph.  This teaching is also used later to justify the marriage of more than one women. At the very core, this teaching denies that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and it maintains that Jesus was the literal offspring of the Father because according to Mormonism, the Holy Ghost does not have a physical body and could not have had sexual relations with Mary. In Mormon theology, the Father has a physical body and could have had sexual relations with Mary. The Father is “of flesh and bones.” … READ ENTIRETY (WHO IS THE MORMON JESUS? EmpoweredByChrist.org)

So, here’s the thing. I’m not a big fan of Mormonism. The Church of Christ of the Latter Saints are a cult spinoff of the true Christian faith. AND YET, present day Mormons observe a morality that places many a mainstream Christian to shame. AND present-day Mormons are Patriots that honor the Flag, our nation and most importantly the U.S. Constitution initiated by America’s Founding Fathers.

The Bundys are these kind of Patriots. As a Christian American, I stand with the Bundys to protect their Constitutional Rights the American Left has slowly snuffed out for decades.

And with these my personal thoughts, I encourage to read the Tim Brown post about Judge Gloria Navarro calling a mistrial due egregious prosecutorial misconduct. I like Brown’s thought the weight of the law should be turned on the crooked prosecutors who have persecuting the Bundy family and other Ranchers.

JRH 12/23/17
Please Support SlantRight 2.0

*********************

Judge Declares Mistrial In Bundy Ranch Case Due To Multiple Brady Violations By Prosecution

By TIM BROWN 

DECEMBER 21, 2017

Freedom Outpost

After sealed hearings took place in Nevada in the Bundy Ranch standoff trials, Judge Gloria Navarro declared a mistrial due to multiple Brady violations by the prosecution, but will this mean there won't be a retrial?  Probably not.

Navarro blasted the prosecution for their lawless behavior in not turning over several exculpatory items to defense teams that were favorable to them.

Among those items were the cameras that were set up prior to the impoundment in 2014 in Bunkerville, Threat Assessment reports, names of potential witnesses, and reports from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) reprimanding the BLM for not enforcing the court orders for years.

In all, there were at least seven Brady violations.

These violations are constitutional violations of the Fifth Amendment and Due Process.

Again, I ask, why are no charges being levied against Steven Myhre, his team of attorneys and the BLM in all of this?  They have been determined by a judge to be in violation of the law!

The prosecution didn't act negligently nor did they violate the law unwillingly, but willingly.

Shari Dovale has more:

The government falsely represented that the view of the Bundy home was unintentional. This is huge. There could be, at minimum, sanctions coming for Acting US attorney Steven Myhre and other prosecutors.

Moving on to another item, Navarro referenced the snipers and that the indictment charges false representation, “But now we know there were snipers.”

She found that the information is favorable to the accused and bolsters the defense... “The court does find prejudice toward the defendants. This information may have caused a difference in the opening statements, cross examination of witnesses and undermines the outcome,” she said.

The judge continued her rebuke of the government for about an hour. She included other evidence, such as the threat assessment report and a log of activities surrounding the impoundment.

All together [sic], between 12/12/17 and 12/17/17, over 5,000 pages of new discovery and evidence has been revealed and there may still be outstanding discovery.

Several motions were made after mistrial was declared.

Ryan Bundy asked that the terms of the release of the defendants be changed so that they might be able to go home for the holidays to be with their families and the Las Vegas Review-Journal requested the unsealing of the evidence.

Additionally, the defense asked the Greg Burleson and Todd Engel be released, and it is expected that they will ask for their convictions to be overturned due to the suppression of evidence in their trial.

Wendy Kay Facebook Video of Ryan Bundy Speaking Outside Las Vegas Courthouse

12/20/17 1:08pm

All of these were considered by Judge Navarro and concerning the release of the defendants, she said that she would need to deal with pretrial services before ruling on that.

As to the request for unsealing the evidence, that would be answered on January 18th, 2018, almost two years since the Bundys were arrested on January 26, 2016.

The issue concerning Engel and Burleson will also have to wait until a later date.

One thing should be done here and that is to simply release all of these men.  Judge Navarro has to know the level of corruption that is clearly on display from Myhre's office and the BLM.

The only just thing to do would be to release these men and not allow them to face trial again.  The US government has done enough damage to these men and their families.

Additionally, Steven Myhre and every person involved in suppressing the evidence should be arrested and charged.  If found guilty, they should not only be disbarred or removed from public service, but they should also face the same penalties that they sought for each and every defendant.  In other words, these people would never see the light of freedom again if convicted.

____________________

Bundy Mistrial, Their Faith & Constitutional Patriots

John R. Houk

© December 23, 2017

___________________

Judge Declares Mistrial In Bundy Ranch Case Due To Multiple Brady Violations By Prosecution

Tim Brown is an author and Editor at FreedomOutpost.com, SonsOfLibertyMedia.com, GunsInTheNews.com and TheWashingtonStandard.com. He is husband to his "more precious than rubies" wife, father of 10 "mighty arrows", jack of all trades, Christian and lover of liberty. He resides in the U.S. occupied Great State of South Carolina. Tim is also an affiliate for the Joshua Mark 5 AR/AK hybrid semi-automatic rifle. Follow Tim on Twitter.

Copyright © 2017 FreedomOutpost.com

Disputing Separation Church/State Part 7

John R. Houk

© April 5, 2014

Dougindeap left a comment on the post “The Truth about Separation of Church and State” at NCCR which is a cross post of an Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) brochure that provides reasons for the concept of Separation of Church and State as SCOTUS has set in stone today is and was not a correct interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.

It is my habit to usually post my perspective on a comment then place the comment below my thoughts. Since Dougindeap divided his comment into eight parts to refute the ADF points. So as I initially began to respond to Dougindeap’s original comment which resulted in various parts with the title “Disputing Separation Church/State” (which as of this writing is up to six parts). You can read an edited version of that comment at the end of my thoughts at SlantRight 2.0 or the NCCR blog. You can read Dougindeap’s unedited comment version at NCCR HERE. I am bucking my typical course and take a valiant effort to briefly take each of Dougindeap’s points to put in my two-cents. I say briefly because I can tell that the six parts of “Disputing Separation Church/State” could go on much longer than I desire to devote to the subject. I have to say something though because I disagree with Dougindeap as much as he disagrees with me. Sadly the slant of the reader’s politics will line the reader with Doug or myself.

So here we go.

dougindeap commented on The Truth about Separation of Church and State

April 2, 2014 at 8:12 PM

[Blog Editor: Dougindeap uses the abbreviation “ALF” when I suspect he was thinking Alliance Defending Freedom which would “ADF”. I mention this for clarity’s sake because we all post comments hurriedly in which typos or missing words occur and not as a criticism of Dougindeap.]

Dougindeap:

You have succeeded in gathering quite a collection of arguments about separation of church and state, nearly all of which I’ve seen and seen debunked many times. I won’t attempt to touch on every one of the many points, but will take the ALF items one by one.

1. While Jefferson’s first use of the term “separation of church and state” may have been in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, he hardly was the first to use the term.

Certainly Jefferson’s letter had nothing to say about limiting public religious expression. ALF contends against a strawman. No one contends that Jefferson said any such thing.

It is important to distinguish between "individual" and "government" speech about religion. The constitutional principle of separation of church and state does not purge religion from the public square--far from it. Indeed, the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause assures that each individual is free to exercise and express his or her religious views--publicly as well as privately. The Amendment constrains only the government not to promote or otherwise take steps toward establishment of religion. As government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, when those individuals are performing their official duties (e.g., public school teachers instructing students in class), they effectively are the government and thus should conduct themselves in accordance with the First Amendment's constraints on government. When acting in their individual capacities, they are free to exercise their religions as they please. (Students also are free to exercise and express their religious views--in a time, manner, and place that does not interfere with school programs and activities.) If their right to free exercise of religion extended even to their discharge of their official responsibilities, however, the First Amendment constraints on government establishment of religion would be eviscerated. While figuring out whether someone is speaking for the government in any particular circumstance may sometimes be difficult, making the distinction is critical.

JRH:

I believe Dougindeap has correctly expressed the meaning of the First Amendment until he gets to the part I took the liberty to highlight with bold print.

When Doug says the government can only act through the individuals comprising its ranks, he is correct to the extent those individuals are under the direct mandate of the government. The problem is the Left Wing assumption that all instruments of the government are representative of the Federal government. THIS WAS NOT THE ORIGINAL INTENT of the First Amendment.

The Bill of Rights which are actually the first ten Amendments of the U.S. Constitution provides an intent that must apply to the First Amendment as enumerated in the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Just as Doug points out the First Amendment prevents the U.S. Congress to establish a State Church or to make any laws that prohibits the free exercise of religion. The Tenth Amendment brings specificity in that the State government or “the people” (implying local government such as Counties or cities) can define how individuals working as instruments of government are defined on the State and Local level. Hence the Federal government did not end Established Churches on the State level. The States individually disestablished State Churches as it became obvious the State Established Churches were slipping into the minority among Christian denominations in the various States. Ironically Massachusetts one of the most Liberal States in the American Union today was the last State to disestablish their State Church in the 1833. States’ Rights ended the Established Church in the USA and not the enforcement of the Federal government. In the same manner of Original Intent each State has the power of the law to limit or encourage government instruments such as employees from sharing their individual faith.

Dougindeap:

2. Justice Hugo Black was not the first to “insert” separation of church and state into American jurisprudence. Not by a long shot. A unanimous U.S. Supreme Court first used that term in 1878 in Reynolds v. United States, where it quoted Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists while interpreting the First Amendment.

JRH:

In Reynolds v. United States Dougindeap fails to mention the reason for the unanimity of SCOTUS in the 1878 religious Liberty case before them. George Reynolds a citizen of the then Territory of Utah was a Mormon that married more than one wife. Reynolds was convicted of bigamy. Reynolds demanded his First Amendment rights of Religious Liberty. The 1878 SCOTUS officially was more concerned about social norms than Religious Freedom. In Christian America in 1878 bigamy was not only illegal it was also a heinous sin. The reality of the 1878 SCOTUS decision was upholding traditional Christian values over the cult of Mormonism (Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints). Mormons then and now believe in the supremacy of the Book of Mormon and certain so-called Mormon prophetic pronouncements (Book of Mormon; Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price) over the traditional Christian values of the Holy Bible. SCOTUS upheld the conviction of George Reynolds in 1878 unanimously. I have no doubts Mormons consider themselves Christians however their theology is so divergent from the orthodox practices of Christianity an intelligent evaluation even today would come to the conclusion Mormonism at best is its own religion and at worst a cult spin-off Christianity. It should be noted the powers that be in Mormonism had the remarkable revelation that marriage is between one man and one woman in order for the Utah Territory could become the sovereign State of Utah in 1890.

As to the 1878 SCOTUS unanimous opinion referencing the Jefferson to Danbury Baptists letter WallBuilders provides the actual intent of that Court opinion:

Earlier courts long understood Jefferson's intent. In fact, when Jefferson's letter was invoked by the Supreme Court (only twice prior to the 1947Everson case – the Reynolds v. United States case in 1878), unlike today's Courts which publish only his eight-word separation phrase, that earlier Court published Jefferson's entire letter and then concluded:

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it [Jefferson's letter] may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the Amendment thus secured. Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere [religious] opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order. (emphasis added)[12]

That Court then succinctly summarized Jefferson's intent for "separation of church and state":

[T]he rightful purposes of civil government are for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order. In th[is] . . . is found the true distinction between what properly belongs to the church and what to the State. [13]

With this even the Baptists had agreed; for while wanting to see the government prohibited from interfering with or limiting religious activities, they also had declared it a legitimate function of government "to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor."

That Court, therefore, and others (for example, Commonwealth v. Nesbit and Lindenmuller v. The People), identified actions into which – if perpetrated in the name of religion – the government did have legitimate reason to intrude. Those activities included human sacrifice, polygamy, bigamy, concubinage, incest, infanticide, parricide, advocation and promotion of immorality, etc. (Excerpted from - The Separation of Church and State; By David Barton; WallBuilders.com; January 2001)

Dougindeap:

3. First, ALF tries to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.

Second, it is ALF that has confused its history. Contrary to its assertion, Justice Black did not write that the Danbury letter may be accepted “almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect” of the First Amendment.” Rather Chief Justice Waite wrote that in Reynolds v. United States. Black, moreover, did not repeat that statement in Everson.

Finally, the further notion, suggested by ALF and advanced by some, that the Supreme Court's recognition of the constitutional separation of church and state in Everson is all Justice Black's doing is laughable. It bears noting that all nine justices in the Everson case read the Constitution to call for separation of church and state, and indeed all of the parties and all of the amici curiae (including the National Council of Catholic Men and National Council of Catholic Women) did as well; no one disputed the principle, they differed only in how it should be applied in the circumstances of the case.

JRH:

Actually Hugo Black equally emphasized Jefferson and Madison together. Doug fails to mention that Black’s Majority Opinion included both Jefferson and Madison’s efforts on a State level in Virginia to disestablish any Church to receive tax support because such taxation would be discriminatory toward non-established Christian denominations. Hence Jefferson and Madison were not arguing the removal of recognized Christian Morality but rather the removal of taxpayers’ paying the salary of a State established Clergy. AND so yes, Hugo Black misappropriated the work of Jefferson and Madison use of a States’ Rights issue to apply to Federal authority. Hugo Black attempts to solidify the Church/State separation by adopting Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists. How did Black connect a States’ Rights issue to Federal authority? Then Black used the presumption that the Fourteenth Amendment which officially ended Slavery in all the States by Federal rule of law, then by extension Black presumed the Fourteenth Amendment nullified the Tenth Amendment which in turn pertained to individual State sovereignty bowing to the will of the Judicial and Executive branches of government. This interpretation had the effect to keep the influence of Christianity outside the scope of State level and local level government parameters in the rule of law.

Dougindeap:

4. That the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. To those familiar with the Constitution, the absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., Bill of Rights, separation of powers, checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

Contrary to ALF’s supposition, separation of church and state rests on much more than just the First Amendment. It is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

JRH:

Doug mistakenly equates the lack of the words “Wall of Separation of Church and State” in the Constitute is the same as other civics terms not being the Constitution such as “Bill of Rights, separation of powers (i.e. in branches of government), checks and balances, fair trial, religious liberty” and so on. The reason Doug is mistaken because all those other terms are specifically spelled out in the Constitution BUT the term “Wall of Separation of Church and State” is not spelled out AT ALL The First Amendment ONLY spells out that Congress cannot make a law to Establish a State Church and that Congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Dougindeap:

5. While the First Amendment undoubtedly was intended to preclude the government from establishing a national religion as you note, that was hardly the limit of its intended scope. The first Congress debated and rejected just such a narrow provision (“no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”) and ultimately chose the more broadly phrased prohibition now found in the Amendment. During his presidency, Madison vetoed two bills, neither of which would form a national religion or compel observance of any religion, on the ground that they were contrary to the establishment clause. While some in Congress expressed surprise that the Constitution prohibited Congress from incorporating a church in the town of Alexandria in the District of Columbia or granting land to a church in the Mississippi Territory, Congress upheld both vetoes. Separation of church and state is hardly a new invention of modern courts. In keeping with the Amendment’s terms and legislative history and other evidence, the courts have wisely interpreted it to restrict the government from taking steps that could establish religion de facto as well as de jure. Were the Amendment interpreted merely to preclude government from enacting a statute formally establishing a state church, the intent of the Amendment could easily be circumvented by government doing all sorts of things to promote this or that religion–stopping just short of cutting a ribbon to open its new church.

JRH:

Dougindeap quotes James Madison’s first writing of a proposed First Amendment: “no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed”. I suspect Doug is implying Madison’s influence spoke for all the Congressmen in constructing religious freedom as imputed by Federal government authority en toto as opposed to States’ Rights. That is DEFINITELY not the case because of House deliberation the First Amendment’s form ratified as law is what was sent to the States for ratification. Hence States’ Rights coupled with the Tenth Amendment became the actual Original Intent of the First Amendment which included the individual States upholding the primacy of the values of the Christian religion by which all Denominations upheld regardless of varying theological dogma.

Since the Declaration of Independence led to the Articles of Confederation which were then superseded by the U.S. Constitution in 1789 shows that the Founding Fathers bowed to the will of ‘We the People’ in the promotion of the very least the promotion of Christianity as what will maintain the general welfare of the people of the new USA.

Here’s an abbreviated list of the Continental Congress pushing Christian Morals and Values for the General Welfare (1774 – 1789):

1. Congress' First Act: A Resolution to Pray - September 6, 1774

2. Congress Ordered Purchase and Printing of Bibles - September 11, 1777

3. Congress Expressly Promoted Religion - October 12, 1778:

Whereas true religion and good morals are the only solid foundations of public liberty and happiness: Resolved, That it be, and it is hereby earnestly recommended to the several States to take the most effectual measures for the encouragement thereof.

4. The Declaration of Independence - formally adopted it on July 4, 1776, and signed it August 2, 1776. The Declaration directly appeals to God at least four times

5. Congress Appointed Days Of Prayer, Thanksgiving, and Repentance - In the approximately fifteen years of its existence, the Continental Congress approved at least fifteen proclamations calling on the states to appoint days of special worship or honor to God. Dates enumerated from 1777 through 1787.

The above lists remarkable does not contain the Northwest Ordinance enacted by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation July 13, 1787. The legislation has 14 Sections and the Fourteenth Section has Six Articles. The purpose for the Northwest Ordinance was to establish a Central government rule of law for expansion westward from the Original 13 States and a method of admitting new sovereign States to the United States of America (then under the Articles of Confederation). Christianity and Religious Freedom combined are expressly part of the designs of the Northwest Ordinance.

Sec. 13. And, for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments, which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said territory: to provide also for the establishment of States, and permanent government therein, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest: (Bold emphasis Blog Editor’s)

Sec. 14. It is hereby ordained and declared by the authority aforesaid, That the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said territory and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:

Art. 1. No person, demeaning himself in a peaceable and orderly manner, shall ever be molested on account of his mode of worship or religious sentiments, in the said territory.

Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged. …

The two bills James Madison vetoed was done correctly. The bills’ goals were to Establish the Episcopalian Church in the city of Alexandria within the District of Columbia and provide public funds to buy land for a Church in the Territory of Mississippi. On a Federal basis the First Amendment specifically states that Congress can make no law establishing a Church. AGAIN this has nothing to do with the laws enumerated to the several States not in the U.S. Constitution (Tenth Amendment).

My above thoughts on the history of the Courts and Church Establishment already refute the Doug’s claim that Church/State Separation issues is “hardly a new invention of modern courts.”

Dougindeap:

6. Dreisbach’s fundamental error is his largely unspoken and unexamined presumption that the Constitution’s separation of church and state is merely a First Amendment textual matter. As noted above, however, it is rather a bedrock principle of our Constitution, resting on much more than the First Amendment.

JRH:

Already proved this line of thinking is in error by Dougindeap.

Dougindeap:

7. The Constitution, including particularly the First Amendment, embodies the simple, just idea that each of us should be free to exercise his or her religious views without expecting that the government will endorse or promote those views and without fearing that the government will endorse or promote the religious views of others. By keeping government and religion separate, the establishment clause serves to protect the freedom of all to exercise their religion. Reasonable people may differ, of course, on how these principles should be applied in particular situations, but the principles are hardly to be doubted. Moreover, they are good, sound principles that should be nurtured and defended, not attacked. Efforts to undercut our secular government by somehow merging or infusing it with religion should be resisted by every patriot.

Wake Forest University has published a short, objective Q&A primer on the current law of separation of church and state–as applied by the courts rather than as caricatured in the blogosphere. I commend it to you. http://tiny.cc/6nnnx

JRH:

The only contention I can agree with Dougindeap is that the First Amendment prevents the Federal Congress from Establishing a State Church and that the Federal Congress cannot enact laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Everything else not forbidden by the U.S. Constitution is the purview of each State in the Union of the United States of America. The tiny url posted by Doug does not work or at least not in my Chrome or Internet Explorer browsers. When I Googled ‘Wake Forest Q&A primer on Separation of Church and State’ I discovered Dougindeap has been posting link since at least 2010. I can find no such document online from Wake Forest. Perhaps the closest thing I can find is a PDF document entitled, “Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law”. I found two links for this document: One by Wake Forest and another posted on the Anti-Defamation League website but both are the same document. Both documents are dated January 2010. The document is a collective work by a bunch of people that are on opposite sides of the Church/State Separation issues. The document is anything but definitive. The closest section talking about the First Amendment and Church Establishment is Chapter Two of the roughly 32 page document with End Notes longer if you include acknowledgements by Wake Forest’s (at least then) Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School and the Center for Religion and Public Affairs. The Chapter Two title is “Is the First Amendment the only constitutional or legal provision that affects these issues?”

Chapter Two clearly expresses the First Amendment is functional as a Federal law in which there is a large degree of discretion on the State level of law in which the First Amendment does not address.

In connection to this PDF document (Religious Expression in American Public Life: A Joint Statement of Current Law), the “diverse” committee that truly consisted of representation of both sides of the political spectrum on Church/State issues was led by Melissa Rogers as the Director of Wake Forest University Divinity School's Center for Religion and Public Affairs during the PDF document’s 2010 publication. Melissa Rogers is hardly neutral a person that looks equally on both sides of the coin on Church/State issues. Rogers is a downright and overt proponent of the revisionist Left Wingers choosing to exclude the merits of Original Intent of the Constitution in relation to the opinions of the Founders on how Christianity effects the general welfare of a good society. Even the Founding Fathers in James Madison (See also HERE) and Thomas Jefferson that were closer to the secularist Enlightenment discrediting of orthodox theology of Christianity agreed that Christian Morals and Values promoted a good society.

Dougindeap:

8. While some, including myself, grow tired of the semantic wrangling over the phrase commonly used to describe or name one of the Constitution’s fundamental principles, that principle—by whatever name—remains central and essential to the Constitution and our way of life.

           

JRH:

Doug says he is getting weary of wrangling that Separation of Church and State is a fundamental principle of the Constitution. I myself am frustrated about Leftists trying so hard to prevent the historical nature of Christianity of being such a huge influence on the development of our nation. It is my belief that the Leftist efforts at historical revisionism is to transform America into a society that abandons Christianity as a Moral Foundation. Then replace Christianity with a Secular Humanist perspective as a foundation for societal morality. Such a humanist morality places the created on a pedestal above the Creator. No matter how lofty the ideals of man being inherently good, actual history shows that man is inherently evil. That inherent evil exists in human nature because God’s first created human being – Adam – betrayed God the Creator by agreeing with the serpent Satan and partook of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Why did Adam consume the fruit? Satan told Eve, who Adam did not rebuke, believed the serpent that the fruit would make her and Adam like God knowing the difference between good and evil. Adam’s act of disobedience of God voluntarily sold his nature to the dominion of Satan. Since Adam was made the perpetual steward of God’s created Earth. That meant the earth also came under Satan’s control. Adam’s disobedience led to the punishment of being separated from God which is spiritual death. Humanity and Earth became cursed to a Fallen nature explaining an inherent evil nature. The inherent evil nature of man will inevitably lead to unwholesome if not downright wicked choices in which selfish desires overrule the general welfare of humanity.

The good news for humanity God the Creator promised a way out for Adam choosing Satan’s lie as truth rather than God’s holy union.

¹⁴ So the Lord God said to the serpent:

“Because you have done this,
You are cursed more than all cattle,
And more than every beast of the field;
On your belly you shall go,
And you shall eat dust
All the days of your life.

¹⁵ And I will put enmity
Between you and the woman,
And between your seed and her Seed;
He shall bruise your head,
And you shall bruise His heel.” (Bold Emphasis Blog Editor - Genesis 3: 14-15 NKJV)

Verse 15 is God’s first Promise of a Redeemer to bring humanity back into right standing with God Almighty. Then and only then will humanity not need laws of a government to curb the inclination of a Fallen human nature. Secular Humanism is wrong, humanity is not essentially good.

JRH 4/5/14

Please Support SlantRight 2.0