Driving In Las Vegas

Isn’t it so nice that we have people who drive around with these nauseating stick figures on their car bragging that unfettered reproduction is something to be proud of?  Usually this is also accompanied by a Romney-Ryan bumper sticker, and some other indicator that these are people who have limitless love for the Lord.  typical vegas driver

You’re probably wondering what “Legalize The Constitution” means, right?  I’ll tell you.  It means the driver of this vehicle is a racist, ignorant bigot who feels a black president is illegitimate and the fact that he’s a Constitutional Law EXPERT means nothing.  Oh, and support the troops by sending them to illegal wars.

Damn! It’s very frustrating living among the Teabags.

h/t @mytinyurl for the pic!

A Closely Knit Mormon-Controlled City Gives Us A Glimpse Into A Romney Administration

 

Ex-Police Chief Thomas Finn
Ex-Police Chief Thomas Finn

In April, 2013, the seven-year term of the Boulder City, Nevada chief of police was fired from his position.  During that time period, the small community that touches the Hoover Dam experienced one of the lowest crime rates in Nevada.  He was fired for one reason: he was one of the very few non-LDS officials in town.  Finn states, “For the past seven years I applied my education, training and experience to lead the police department with the goal of making Boulder City the safest community in the state of Nevada,” … “That goal was achieved almost every year.”  

According to Ex-Police Chief Thomas Finn’s allegations, ‘this bedroom burg is a seething cauldron of intrigue, revenge and discrimination, ruled by a small, closely knit cabal of power players, a group of folks who, you might say, are all cut from the same cloth.’  Much like the nepotism afforded to many of Willard Romney’s Mormon brethren during the hosting of the 2002 Salt Lake City (Pork Barrel) Winter Olympics, this closely-knit LDS run city has some dirty corruption.  Mr. Finn, now relocated to a Northern Nevada community is not giving up on exposing the unimaginable incompetence and abuse of power in Boulder City.  

Not just wearing a bowtie on a motorcycle, but really? A Teabag flag?
Not just wearing a bowtie on a motorcycle, but really? A Teabag flag?

The attorney who had it in for Mr. Finn, the lawyer for the Mongols Motorcycle Gang Mr. Steve Stubbs (Stubby), understands now that “Karma is a bitch.”  He is under investigation for shady law practices and corruption involving collusion with the BCPD   Regarding the concern of the former Chief of Police, Stubby was pissed his gang friends were being closely watched, considering their history of violence.  Stubbs complained,

 “He was going to have a zero tolerance policy against the Mongols for every little thing. People were given handlebar tickets, jaywalking tickets, unconstitutional tickets,” said Stephen Stubbs, attorney for the Mongols.  

How dare a police chief closely monitor a motorcycle gang who ordered to shoot to kill any member of the Hell’s Angels who show up near the Mongols.  Another interesting case related to more Mormon corruption is the case against the son of City Attorney Dave Olsen.  His son Brian Olsen was arrested, but not charged in court, after Henderson police (the city between BC and Las Vegas) received a complaint about him from a female classmate who knew him from a cosmetology school that both attended.  The classmate complained that Olsen, when borrowing her cellphone, located and sent two nude photos of her to his email address, court records from the lawsuit show. Mormons are the most sexually repressed —and thus deviously clandestine— of any group. There is a reason there’s more anonymously accessed porn in Utah than any other state. What I’d like to know now is, why the DA declined to prosecute. I wonder how they came to this conclusion, that, if the girl had nude photos of herself on the phone, it was her own fault and got what she deserved…? Probably. 

Dave Olsen sued the Henderson Police, on behalf of his son, alleging police violated his constitutional rights to be free of unlawful arrest, false imprisonment and infliction of emotional distress. The judge ruled in favor of the Henderson PD and shortly thereafter, Finn was fired. 

Even the current City Manager is less than squeaky clean.  City Manager David Fraser has a problem paying his utility bills. In Boulder City, utilities such as power, water and garbage are paid through the city, which means the bills are public information. Records show that 11 times in the last 15 months, Fraser received delinquency notices from the city for not paying his bills. Four times, he was sent disconnect notices. Fraser, who earns $192,000 per year in salary and benefits, ordered city workers to stop the disconnections.

Mr. Finn and his wife Donna now reside in scenic Northern Nevada, far from the site of the misery inflicted upon him in Boulder City. Far from over, he intends to not only clear his own name and reputation which should never have been tarnished, but to show Boulder City who is running the show. He told a local CBS affiliate,

“I get regular contact from city employees and city residents who say, ‘you really may want to look at this.’ What else could they do to me? They tried to convict me of felonies. They fired me. They blast me still on a regular basis. I’m not going away,” Finn said.

Hopefully reason will prevail and Finn won’t stop pursuing his noble fight. Unfortunately, Willard Romney won’t go away, so we haven’t heard the last from him either. I’d much rather hear from the former BCPD Chief whose integrity far exceeds the members of the corrupt LDS community who served with him.  

 

Teaparty Darling Mike Lee Takes Racist Cues From Jim DeMint

The Republican party is furiously trying to revamp its tarnished image as racist sycophants who have no use for minorities, who they’ve clearly deemed inferior. The way they’ve chosen to go about this daunting task is to find new and improved policies designed to disguise their racist proclivities. However, this has backfired in ways no one could have imagined, as the fringe element of the party has taken over the asylum.

The winner of the most unbelievably assuming racist, entitled bootlicker has to be Utah Senator Mike Lee. This fine LDS specimen is a tremendous fan of the teachings of Professor Cleon Skousen and advocate of absolutely ZERO gun-control truly feels that provisions must be included in immigration reform to keep treating undocumented workers essentially like slaves. Of course this is perfectly acceptable. When your idol is a zealot, like Skousen, who said the following about slaves: “one of the blessings of slavery” was that slaves’ marriages were fleeting, and suggests that being bought at auction improved slaves’ self worth. The real victims of slavery, were the white owners. The book also referred to black children as “pickaninnies.” The freshman Senator has attempted to modify the Gang of 8‘s attempt at immigration reform by excluding the following professions from requiring any form of documentation:

“cooks, waiters, butlers, housekeepers, governessess, maids, valets, baby sitters, janitors, laundresses, furnacemen, care-takers, handymen, gardeners, footmen, grooms, and chauffeurs of automobiles for family use” from prohibitions against “unlawful employment” for undocumented immigrants.”

It sure sounds like a wealthy person’s list of needed cheap labor. It’s pretty obvious who this entitled Mormon is working for in Congress. Perhaps it could also be something some of his FLDS voters require to maintain their lifestyle while staying under the radar in their polygamous compounds. Who knows? We know he’s a big proponent of anything advocated by the Heritage Foundation and against a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people.

The Heritage Foundation recently came up with their own racially offensive survey on the intelligence quotient of Hispanic immigrants. Jim DeMint, the former Confederate South Carolina Senator, claims legalizing undocumented immigrants will cost $6.3 trillion. He fails to mention this price tag is for a FIFTY YEAR PERIOD. The current leader of the Heritage Foundation has always been the enemy of anyone who happens to be poor, a minority, a homosexual or a woman. For instance, DeMint has said, ‘if someone is openly homosexual, they shouldn’t be teaching in the classroom and he holds the same position on an unmarried woman who’s sleeping with her boyfriend — she shouldn’t be in the classroom.’ He believed the Confederate Flag should fly over the capital statehouse in Charleston and naturally, his state was the last to remove it. You can still see plenty of Confederate flags waving in the air by the residents of the southern state that enjoys 47th in life expectancy and is the 3rd highest in infant mortality.

Former Senator Jim DeMint President of the Heritage Foundation
Former Senator Jim DeMint
President of the Heritage Foundation


So racist Jim retired from the Senate to make more money and have more power to shove his socially and fiscally conservative agenda down the throats of America. He and his ilk believe immigrants are just too damned expensive to the one percent’s ability to rob the coffers of Social Security, which is their ultimate goal. Their Utopian world consists of a Hooverville-esque nightmare for the American plebeian, because the Heritage Foundation is here to preserve America for the privileged white male. Immigrants, especially those Hispanics that maintain his lawn and clean his home, will never, according to his organization, get off welfare and earn an honest living. There are 69.5 million people dependent on the government for subsistence and this is simply too many for his liking.

The problem with Utah Senator Lee is he’s dripping with Mormonism, and truly thinks, like Willard Romney, he is one of “God’s chosen leaders” in these “latter days.” He is absolutely against helping anyone if it should cost him the slightest inconvenience. Hell, he even hates the handicapped. Jim DeMint and his Heritage Foundation, another “Christian” group, has overtly come out against Hispanics in such an offensive way, their only Latino supporters may be GOP hypocritical “Hispanic” Senators, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, who are both of Cuban descent. Ironically, the Cubans are the only Hispanic demographic from which the GOP enjoys support.

If these lunatics keep at it, they will lose not only every subsequent election when demographics are largely against their favor, but their existence as a legitimate political party will disappear. The GOP (a.k.a. the Misanthropic Party) has shown, with the election of Mark Sanford, they love a “good Christian” who begs for redemption but actually deserves none. In fact, pretending to be a good Christian while adhering to absolutely none of Christ’s Sermon on the Mount seems to be their modus operandi. Time will be the Republicans’ biggest enemy as America becomes darker, more diverse and thus their obsolescence is nearly assured.

Following President Obama’s State of the Union speech, Senator Lee will be giving the Teaparty “rebuttal.” I’m not sure when the annual, Constitutionally-mandated speech delivered by the head of the Executive Branch, became some sort of debate demanding a rebuttal. No speech given by a single person, alone, without a massive presence like the House Chamber filled to capacity can compare with the President’s delivery, especially a skilled orator like President Obama. If you can stomach Senator Lee’s delivery, try to watch as these sound bytes will be replayed in the future documentary which could be entitled: The Meteoric Rise And Inevitable Implosion Of The Teaparty.

Is a Mormon Theocracy Replacing Law Enforcement in Boulder City, Nevada?

20130428-103638.jpg

Mormons believe that they are the “noble and great ones,” the spirits that god would “make his rulers” on earth. Just like with Abraham, the pronouncement that “thou was chosen before thou wast born” also applies to the pre-mortal status and eventual earthly destiny of each Mormon. This is precisely why they call themselves latter-day saints: they consider themselves an elect breed apart and above all others, holier-than-thou in every sense of the word. These are the End of Days, after all, and God’s chosen people must be in control.

This is a story of how this arrogant theology has perverted and corrupted government, more specifically Law Enforcement, in a city dominated by LDS theological doctrine. One brave man, now Former Police Chief Thomas Finn, has spoken out against this unacceptably insidious behavior and he unquestionably will be vindicated when his story is better understood. News 8 Reporter George Knapp bravely brought this matter to the public forum which inadvertently demonstrated another case of defamation by Mormons when they are hell bent on discrediting someone who is not “one of them.” Mr. Knapp intended only to bring Chief Finn’s plight to the public. Let me make this perfectly clear, Knapp’s objective was not to disparage Mormons in general. However, any time one exposes despotism in any form, it can be a risky endeavor.

20130428-103953.jpg
Police Chief Thomas Finn

Police Chief Thomas Finn has an impressive list of educational credentials

A Few Noteworthy Accomplishments:

•F.B.I. National Academy, 185th Session, Quantico, Virginia 1996
•Master’s Degree, Public Administration, Rutgers University, Newark, New Jersey 1993 •Certified Public Manager, Rutgers University New Jersey Department of Personnel 1991 •Bachelor of Science, Criminal Justice (Cum Laude), Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey 1983

Not only is he extremely knowledgeable on all matters pertaining to law enforcement and criminal justice, he’s a passionate teacher who loves the history and application of law enforcement since our Colonial Days. Mr. Finn had quite a following and was a very beloved Professor at Rutgers University. His lectures were always filled with eager students who found themselves passionate about the subject Mr. Finn taught with such enthusiasm and competence. His history of service from a patrolman in 1980 all the way through his ascension to the Chief of Police in two parts of the country, were always conducted with exemplary service and performance.

Officer Finn was a distinguished chief of police who is another unfortunate casualty of this despotic cult which craves domination of the public domain. I’ve had the privilege of speaking with former Police Chief Thomas Finn about a subject with which I’ve become all too familiar: Mormon Nepotism. Prior to his dismissal on April 15th, this man has never once been fired from any job he’s ever held. Mormon City Attorney, Dave Olsen claimed Mr. Finn was a paranoid, frightened angry man inside. Funny how that sounds terribly familiar. Park Romney said, “… I am personally aware, on the basis of such experience, of the actual differences between what Mormons profess in public and practice in private when they think their agenda is being threatened.” Naturally they will praise the Chief to his face, but look out folks, Sunday LDS services actually discussed their contrived issue of having a non-chosen son of Abraham in charge of the Police Department.

In the past I’ve looked to those with experience to guide me about the workings of the LDS Church. Park Romney, Professor Mark Larsen and Kay Burningham, ESQ. have, with painstaking personal trials and irrefutable logic, elucidated the details of a grotesque fraud of cosmic proportions masquerading under a charitable façade of public spirited nobility. All of my expert reference providers were part of the cult of Mormonism at one time and have since come to the exact same conclusion: it is, without question, an insidious fraud. The aforementioned authors have systematically dismantled all fallacious tenets of the cult and effectively demonstrate how these rules of conduct (or “Doctrines and Covenants”) apply to how LDS adherents run every aspect of their personal and public lives. For example, Among other things, Joseph Smith is reported to have taught, “That man who rises up to condemn others, finding fault with the Church, saying that they are out of the way, while he himself is righteous, then know assuredly, that that man is in the high road to apostasy.” Broken down more simply, anyone not complying with the Mormon Cult is labeled by the LDS faithful as being influenced by Satan.

We all know full well Councilman Cam Walker, City Attorney Dave Olsen, Mayor Tobler and Mongols Motorcycle Gang attorney, Stephen Stubbs (all Mormons) could never have Chief Finn (a Roman Catholic) removed on the basis of “Satan’s influence” as that would never hold up in court. In collusion, they attempted to label a man who lives and breathes ethical law enforcement, who conducts his personal and professional life “by the book,” as mentally unfit for the job.

To get a better handle on who exactly is Chief Finn, i asked him a few questions pertaining to current issues in the news. When I posed the question to Mr. Finn, ‘do you think the excessive police presence while trying to locate the second Tsarnaev brother was overkill,’ he put things in a perspective that I hadn’t considered. Paraphrasing, he said, if the police had flubbed the case one bit and one more casualty occurred due to lack of thoroughness on their part, they’d never be forgiven. He also believes automatic weapons have no place in the hands of civilians, contrary to what many of his colleagues believe. He’s a no-nonsense man who speaks his mind and believes in integrity in all he does. Literally, this cadre of cohorts have taken the LDS tenet of Lying For The Lord and justified the iniquitous firing of one of the most qualified and best Police Chiefs in Clark County. When Mr. Finn filed a claim with the EEOC in Boulder City, citing Mormonism as the paramount reason for his dismissal, he was most assuredly justified.

According to the log filed with the former city manager, Vicki Mayes, Mr. Stubbs, the Mongols lawyer, was on a quest to find an officer to speak out negatively against Chief Finn. He was unable to find anyone because there were no officers who had any problem with the chief. He even asked if “he could find an officer in Reno to testify against Finn,” would that suffice? For some unjustified reason, after being on a brief medical leave, the day Mr. Finn returned to his job, he was fired. Here’s the story in a nutshell in the words of Mr. Finn:

A two-month investigation by the Attorney General’s Office, followed by a review of the investigation report and interviews of the investigators by District Attorney Steve Wolfson cleared me,and D.A. Wolfson stated exactly what I was saying all along. What is particularly troubling is that the city NEVER asked me why I issued the “email deletion” (regarding the gathering of Mongol Gang Members in 2012) order to my officers. They took Stubbs’ rantings as gospel and moved ahead with the investigation into my “felonies.” Stubbs asked for the investigation in November, it was started by the A.G. in January, I was interviewed in February and cleared in April. Then, EIGHT days (April 15th) before I was cleared of all wrongdoing, they FIRED me!!!
I was appointed to a state commission by two NV governors, served on a national highway safety committee for the International Association of Chiefs of Police for eleven years, was appointed by a NJ governor to serve as a commissioner on a labor-management relations commission, represented the Nevada Sheriffs’ and Chiefs’ Association for two years, and then Boulder City decided to terminate me after seven years of service without giving me a reason.
In the words of one of my favorite humorists, ..if they’ve got nothing concrete on him that would convince the DA of wrongdoing… they are not only holier-than-thou arrogant, but also…. STUPID as hell. To fire someone, especially a chief of police, with no probable cause is as pig-ignorant as Romney telling his donors about the 47% “scum.”
Unfortunately, Mr. Finn and his wife have other plans, and they no longer include Southern Nevada. It is highly unfortunate for all of us he had to go through these trials unnecessarily. Perhaps with greater understanding of Mormon Nepotism, we can avoid situations such as this Boulder City fiasco in the future. No one should ever be persecuted in this country for their religious beliefs and when a group of a particular religious or ethnic majority control all aspects of government in our diverse nation, it will inevitably lead to a compromising of our democratic values and justice.
UPDATE:  Investigation into ethics violations currently filed in Boulder City.

Tax-Free Terrorism: The NRA and LDS Church

20130111-094526.jpg
Orrin Hatch (R-UT): NRA cohort in the Senate

There is a false perception in America that there are more gun owners than there actually are. The number of households owning guns has declined from almost 50% in 1973 to just over 32% in 2010.

This misconception that most Americans are proud gun owners just isn’t true. It has helped bolster a political narrative, emboldened the National Rifle Association and left politicians worried about losing elections if they try to do any of the following with regards to guns: increase regulation, increase taxes, restrict sales, legislate in favor of safety and sensibility or ban any particular type of deadly firearm or accessory. The NRA, whose affiliated organizations include the Institute for Legislative Action, the NRA’s lobbying arm, and the NRA Foundation, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization, which provides “a means to raise millions of dollars to fund gun safety and educational projects of benefit to the general public.” Like this group, religious institutes, namely the LDS Cult, enjoy untold savings from their tax-exempt status. So why not partner up and make it doubly tax-free?

I’ve tried to steer clear of dissecting the Mormon political, social and economic culture since the defeat of Willard Romney, but I can’t seem to shake the connection between matters that are egregiously wrong with our society and that cult. Researching the history of the NRA’s rise to power pointed me in an unexpected direction. The perpetrator of this lobbying travesty is none other than Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Ut). Today, the NRA had the audacity to say Congress is “jumping on every tragedy to ban guns.” Not this Senator, he’s been a champion of “gun rights” rather than championing the rights of innocent people to live life without the threat of dying by the hand of a gun-crazed lunatic.

Tracing the ascension of the NRA’s obscenely powerful lobby leads us right to Hatch. This opportunistic Mormon was responsible for authoring the 1982 Senate subcommittee report, “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms.” His partner in crime, NRA leader Wayne LaPierre, asked him what were his objectives in writing this report. He responded:

There were really two goals, I suppose. First, we wanted a definitive account of the history of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. For decades – maybe even longer – people had tried to pretend that the Second Amendment was somehow ambiguous, (they did?) that the intent of the Framers, when it comes to this one amendment, was simply unknowable. Of course, it should be noted that most of the people making this argument tended to believe that the meaning of the entire Constitution changes over time. But, with the Second Amendment, they’d been more than willing to simply read it out of the Constitution entirely. Our second goal with the report was to change the dialogue on gun rights. Instead of arguing how far the government could go to keep people from buying guns, we wanted to get people thinking about doing more to facilitate lawful, reasonable gun ownership. I think we were successful on that count as well, though it took a number of years for the debate to be where it is now…..Even into the 1990s, it was fashionable for Democrats to demonize guns and gun owners on all sides. Guns became a scapegoat – and, by extension, those of us who supported the rights of gun owners were also scapegoats.

 

Leading the charge for the poor, persecuted gun owners is the same man who, earlier in his life, served as a missionary for the LDS Church in the Great Lakes region, and later as a bishop, presiding over a congregation of 600 people.

By simply wanting to stop the sale of weapons American Generals say are inappropriate for civilian use, those who grotesquely pervert the Second Amendment act as if taking their lethal toys means we are decimating a sacred document, which actually says no such thing. Utah, with it’s largely LDS population, seems to have a fondness for arsenal procurement. I’ve previously noted Utah seems to be the epicenter of gun vigilantism, as there is incredible profit in the gun business and Utah has the 2nd most guns per capita in the nation. Obviously, 2nd Amendment misinterpreters share a commonality: they feel their possession of entertaining weaponry (which makes them feel more masculine) supersedes innocent life preservation.

Utah is leading the charge to arm its citizens. A town proposed mandatory gun ownership for every household in a Utah city. They’ve also topped the list of crazy ideas gone mainstream by trying to arm every single teacher. This is how they respond to Sandy Hook! The National Rifle Association countered with “arm the teachers.” Gun clubs claim hundreds of teachers are applying for free weapons training. Two hundred people showed up for a class in West Valley City, Utah, outside Salt Lake City, on December 27, 2012, for example. Not all of the people who took the course were teachers. But some were, including Carolyn Cain, who teaches special education kids in kindergarten to the 6th grade in Utah County, Utah. Utah County is home to the headquarters, ironically, of the Crossroads Gun Show. How fortuitous for their bottom line!

The LDS Church and the NRA are both profit driven groups, which I’ve certainly ascertained during the presidential campaign. Both are predominantly Republican. Both seem to care little for the poor and defenseless of society. Both facilitate murder and pay not one cent to promulgate their violent agenda.

20130111-094919.jpg
Wayne LaPierre CEO of the NRA

Blind Obedience and Mitt Romney

Helen Radkey, Researcher out of  Salt Lake City, Utah wrote this paper on the blind obedience required by the Mormon Church (or any other organized religion in my opinion, Mormonism being the most egregious).  With her permission, I am sharing her work in its original form.  Thanks to Park Romney for passing this on to me. 

In what may be one of the most  controversial exposés written about The Church  of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), my report unmasks blind  obedience within the LDS Church, and how this Mormon  requirement could affect Mitt Romney. I address abusive  Mormon behavior, with emphasis  on Church  disciplinary councils, used to control and discipline members.  Months of planning and over 100  hours went into the piecing together of this unique report, which  draws from personal experience, interviews with involved parties,  and Church communications. My account is jammed-packed  with information that demonstrates how Mormons are expected  to blindly following LDS leaders. Multiple Mormon abusers are  named.  As a card-carrying temple Mormon,  Mitt Romney is part of the Mormon system of rules—an  intrinsically abusive system.  Romney may not be mentally equipped to fairly govern all the citizens of this nation. Can  America afford to take this risk?   

Blind obedience and Mitt Romney

By Helen Radkey

October 27, 2012

Mormon blind obedience

Since the days of the founding “prophet” of Mormonism, Joseph Smith Jr., presiding officers of the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) have mandated obedience to Church officials. The LDS Church is a patriarchal religion rooted in the traditions of the Old Testament. Unquestioning loyalty to LDS leaders is an immutable demand placed on Church members—and a fundamental characteristic of Mormonism.

Mormon culture emphasizes the need for members to be obedient to the authoritarian control of Church leadership. LDS authorities believe they have a divine right to impose their will upon others. A member cannot be considered a good Mormon unless he or she is subservient to LDS leaders and demonstrates compliance with Mormon teachings. Mormons may insist they sustain Church officials on a voluntary basis, but if they do not conform to the directives of their leaders, they may be judged to be in a state of apostasy.

Blind obedience compels the subordination of individual LDS Church members to the hierarchical superstructure. It is the invisible glue that binds the LDS Church and the principal ingredient that fuels the wealthy and powerful Mormon machine. Questioning the edicts of LDS authorities is viewed as subversive behavior that undermines religious faith. Blind obedience keeps Church members in check, via an uncomplicated, orderly world, where dissent is largely prohibited and Mormons obediently do as they are told—a psychological pattern generally valued above critical thinking by faithful Mormons.

The oppressive Mormon system

Mormon officials who preside over local LDS congregations, known as wards and stakes, or branches and districts for smaller congregations, are required to exercise strict control over their flocks. They are taskmasters who must ensure members abide by the rules.

A Church member who has violated Church rules is generally subjected to a Church disciplinary council—known as a Church court—an ecclesiastical trial during which the member is tried for violations of Church standards. Serious violations of civil law, spouse or child abuse, adultery, fornication, rape, and incest, usually generate Church discipline. Depending on the gravity of the charge, a disciplined member may be given “cautionary counsel,” or put on formal probation, or disfellowshipped, or excommunicated.

Formal probation involves restrictions of Church privileges for the offender as specified by the Church council. A disfellowshipped Mormon remains a member of the LDS Church, but is no longer in good standing. Disfellowshipped members are not entitled to hold a temple recommend, exercise the (exclusively male) priesthood, partake of the “sacrament” in Church, serve in any Church position, offer public prayer, give a sermon, or teach a lesson at Church. Excommunication is the most severe judgment a Church court can impose. Excommunicated parties are no longer considered members of the LDS Church and are denied all privileges of membership, including the payment of tithes.

Apostasy ranks high on the list of reasons for excommunication from the LDS Church. An apostate is a member who deserts the faith, a renegade dissenter who once embraced Mormonism, but now rejects it. Turning or falling away from Mormon gospel teachings, especially teaching or following “anti-Mormon” doctrines, and acting in opposition to the Church or its leaders, is perceived as apostasy—spiritual death—alienation from God.

Mormon apostates are “axed” to protect the interests of the LDS Church. When dissidents are labelled with “excommunicated” status, it creates the impression they have sinned. Expelled parties are likely to be discredited, stigmatized, and shunned by other Mormons, thus reducing the “anti-Mormon” influence of ousted members within Mormon ranks.

The LDS Church fails to provide a healthy environment for independent thought. Members are expected to readily accept Church dogma. Many Mormons, including dissident scholars, have been disfellowshipped, excommunicated, and fired from Church–related jobs, for writing and teaching alternate views on topics such as Mormon racism, Mormon feminism, gay rights, genetic science, and Church history. Speaking publicly in opposition to Church policy or doctrine is not tolerated. It does not matter how much supportive evidence, including documentation, is presented, members found guilty are punished through Church courts because they disagree with the “official” LDS position.

LDS officialdom is overly preoccupied with the performance of Church members. The “worthiness” of individual Mormons is measured by their degree of obedience to LDS leaders and the Mormon cause. LDS membership is influenced by the “we alone are right” persuasion, in a delusional world of domination and submission, where the “carrot-and-stick” approach is used to induce members to conform to Church standards.

Church members are offered a combination of rewards and punishments to regulate their behavior. Obedient Mormons are rewarded with social acceptance, Church assignments, and the promise of eternal salvation, godhood, and happiness with their families forever. Unmanageable Mormons may be reprimanded and threatened with disciplinary action.

General Authorities of the LDS Church are implicated in abusive behavior because they empower local LDS leaders to maintain “the law and order of the Church” through private, faultfinding Church courts that—more often than not—guarantee the “tarring and feathering” of non-compliant members who make a noise—especially a public noise.

In a spiritually abusive system such as the LDS Church, where the belief in an authoritarian priesthood power is extolled, LDS leaders require the place of honor. Mormons are encouraged to place their leaders upon pedestals. Members are taught to never criticize Church leaders, past or present, even if the claims are true. Not only do some LDS officials expect special recognition, they may use their Church status to coerce members by instructing them to deny their inner voice and decision-making process.

Charles Parsons, an LDS bishop in Hurstville, Sydney, Australia, offered me a ward secretarial position, in early 1975, when I was still an active Mormon. After I declined his proposal, Parsons insisted I should have prayed for the strength to fulfill the “calling” and not prayed and asked if the position was God’s will for me—as I told him I had done. After the run-in with Parsons, I received no Church assignments for the next six months.

LDS leaders may give counsel in any area, not just in spiritual matters. Church members do not need to ask their bishops for permission regarding mundane daily acts. Mormons are encouraged to “choose the right” in every aspect of their lives. They are counseled to read the scriptures and pray about private matters. If a personal choice involves the offer of a Church “calling” or work assignment initiated by a Mormon official, like Parsons, for example, the Church requirement would ordinarily take precedence over personal responsibilities. If a member wishes to remain in good standing, he or she will obediently accept all formal Church demands and put his or her “shoulder to the (Mormon) wheel.”

Common consent and rigged Mormon record-keeping

There is a democratic principle in Mormonism, known as the law of common consent. “Callings” to positions in the LDS Church are made by authorized leaders and then brought before appropriate Church congregations to be sustained or opposed. Church members do not nominate persons to office, but are asked to give their sustaining vote by raising their right hand in agreement, or they may give an opposing vote in the same way.

It appears members exercise their “free agency” when they accept or reject names, but this function is more or less perfunctory. Mormon congregations have been intimidated into conformity. Members are expected to sustain names presented to them, based upon the assumption that these names have been chosen by Church leaders who represent God.

There are times when common consent becomes a figment of the imagination. Acts of protest by members against Church leaders—especially acts of protest in opposition to a group of LDS officials—are viewed as rebellion and will not go unpunished. The issue is always seen as disobedience. There are no structural safeguards against the abuse of Church members who question. Protesters will be accused of not sustaining LDS leaders.

In June 1976, I attended a Sydney Australia South Stake conference, with seven other adult Mormons, to vote in opposition to the stake presidency and stake high council. The LDS officials, whom I voted against, had been responsible for the excommunications of four men—all devout Mormons—in 1975. Before the stake conference, I had interviewed about a dozen key witnesses and became convinced the accused men were innocent.

Retaliation was swift. A letter was hastily hand-delivered to my Sydney home, informing me I had been disfellowshipped from the LDS Church, on March 21—over three months earlier. The letter was signed by Hurstville Ward bishopric members, Bishop Charles Parsons, and “Bro” Allan D. Murrin, 1st counselor. The Church decree listed penalties and suggestions, but gave no reason for the bishop’s court outcome. I was advised I could no longer speak or participate in meetings or attend any assembly of Church officers.

My diminished Church standing was likely conjured up by Parsons, in collaboration with John Daniel Parker—stake president of Sydney Australia South Stake. Disfellowshipped members cannot vote to sustain or oppose the election of Church officers. My disfellowshipment status gave Sydney Mormon authorities an official reason to discount my opposing vote against them at stake conference. My vote could be safely disregarded.

The telltale dates on the letter I received from Parsons told the story. The letter was dated May 31, and was delivered on June 30, which was 101 days after the date of the action. According to the (Church) General Handbook (1968), a disfellowshipped member should be notified of the conditions of that penalty when the penalty is imposed. If that person does not attend the trial, he or she should be notified by two Melchizedek Priesthood bearers or by registered letter. Parsons violated Church rules. I did not attend the trial on March 21 and was not notified of the result until June 30. My disfellowshipment status appears to have been quickly determined after my opposing vote at the June conference.

Those subject to Church disciplinary sanctions have a right of appeal. An accused member may appeal the decision of a disciplinary council within 30 days of the decision. Parsons dated his letter, May 31, and it was handed to me on the night of June 30, exactly 30 days later. Parsons and Parker had strategically managed to block my right of appeal.

Records of LDS Church disciplinary proceedings that result in disfellowshipment or excommunication should be sent to the LDS First Presidency, as stated in the General Handbook. Nearly four months after the bishop’s court, Church headquarters had not received the record—another reason why my disfellowshipment did not occur in March.

When I protested to LDS officials in Salt Lake City, a letter, dated July 9, 1976, from the Office of the First Presidency stated “…according to the Confidential Section of the Membership Department…” the record of my trial had not reached General Church Offices. The letter also stated: “There is no provision for receiving direct testimony on an appeal to the First Presidency since all appeals are handled only on the basis of the official record made by the lower court.” I was advised I would first have to appeal to the high council court before an appeal to the First Presidency could be entertained. In other words, I would have to appeal to Parker concerning the judgment of the ward trial.  Parsons had also signed the disfellowshipment letter on behalf of Hurstville Ward bishopric member, Hugh Nugent, 1st counselor to Parsons. A year later at my home, in June 1977, Nugent told me in front of witnesses that he had no idea why I had been disfellowshipped. All three members of a ward bishopric are expected to participate in bishop’s courts which have jurisdiction over all ward members. If my disfellowshipment had occurred on March 21, Nugent should have been aware of the reason for the verdict.

The Hurstville Ward bishopric was part of a Church hierarchy that was more concerned with status than pastoral care. Running amok with Church-sanctioned authority—with the support of LDS General Authorities and back-to-back LDS mission presidents in Sydney—LDS officials in south Sydney bullied members on a ward and stake level, until all Mormons who objected to their overbearing behavior were driven out of the Church

Sustaining “right or wrong” and kangaroo Church courts
The sustaining “right or wrong” belief has its roots in early Mormonism, in a secret, oath-bound vigilante group known as the Mormon Danite band or “Destroying Angels.” Mormon Danites took oaths to support a brother “right or wrong” even unto the shedding of blood. They were expected to sustain, protect, defend, and obey Mormon leaders under all circumstances. Members of the Danite band considered themselves as much bound to obey the heads of the Church as to obey God. To disobey was punishable by death.

My rude awakening to the modern-day version of the sustaining “right or wrong” Mormon rule came through Charles Parsons, when he unexpectedly stopped by my home on February 11, 1976. Parsons demanded that I meet with Parker that evening or a Church court would be convened. My Church membership was on the line, according to Parsons. When I asked him why I should meet with Parker, he insisted, “there could only be one voice in the stake and that was the voice of Stake President Parker.” Parsons then said I was required to sustain Parker “right or wrong.” I refused those terms on the spot.

It is commonly taught in the LDS Church that members should support all actions by presiding Church officers. If these actions are flawed, Mormons believe the leaders—not the members who support the incorrect actions—will be held accountable. According to Parsons, if the excommunications of the four Mormon men occurred in error, I was still expected to sustain Parker regarding those stake disciplinary council judgments—even though I believed all parties were innocent of any violation that could justify such action.

The issue at stake was the 1975 excommuncations of four Mormons—Wallace Brown, Jeffrey Watts, Brian Watts, and Paul Knightley. These men lived in Bankstown Ward, adjacent to Hurstville, in the Sydney Australia South Stake, presided over by Parker. Jeff Watts, an associate of Wallace Brown, was the first to be excommunicated. Brown was allowing LDS missionaries to use his home to teach prospective converts. Watts was upset when missionaries abruptly stopped coming to Brown’s home. They were teaching two people there and Watts was concerned the couple would be lost to the LDS Church. He phoned Earl Carr Tingey, president of the Australia Sydney Mission, and asked for an explanation. Tingey refused to respond. Watts questioned Tingey, at a Sunday meeting at Bankstown Ward, a few days later. After Tingey brushed him aside, Watts told Tingey his behavior was unlawful. Jeff Watts was speedily excommunicated by a stake high council court, upon the basis of “evidence” from LDS mission president, Earl Tingey.

The final point put to Jeff Watts at his excommunication trial was, “Do you accept what we say as leaders of the Church in this stake?” Watts replied, “Yes, in righteousness.” According to Watts, the court’s answer to his response was, “No, right or wrong!” After the trial of Jeff Watts, there was an attempt to excommunicate Wallace Brown, the following night. Brown had challenged a stake presidency edict that prohibited his wife, Taisa, from asking the children in her Bankstown Ward classes to kneel in prayer to maintain reverence. Taisa was told this behavior was too much like the Roman Catholics. Wallace Brown claimed stake officials had interfered with his wife’s prerogative.  Brown had also corrected Maximilian Forstpointner, the bishop of Bankstown Ward, who had tried to arbitrarily change the time of Sunday priesthood meetings without an elder’s quorum vote. Brown asked Forstpointner to obey the Church law of common consent. Forstpointner condescended and allowed the elder’s quorum to vote. Shortly thereafter, Brown received a scribbled carbon copy charge sheet summonsing him to a stake high council court. With no verifiable charges presented against him, Wallace Brown was disfellowshipped at his first Church court, which lasted nine hours, until the cock crowed.

Bishop Maximilian Forstpointner confronted Brian Watts and Paul Knightley soon after Brown’s first trial and demanded to know if they would support him “right or wrong.” These two young men stood firmly against Forstpointner’s requirement and they were soon summonsed to a Church court. The question of sustaining “right or wrong” was put to them a number of times, and they were drawn into nasty disputes and name-calling by those who presided over the court. Watts and Knightley were excommunicated because they refused to sustain local Church leaders, especially Forstpointner, “right or wrong.”

Brian Watts and Paul Knightley were probably excommunicated to eliminate them as witnesses so they could not testify against Forstpointer. They were present when he attempted to change the priesthood meeting time in violation of the common consent law.

Wallace Brown was excommunicated from the LDS Church three months after he was disfellowshipped. Independent witnesses, who were waiting outside the court at Brown’s excommunication trial, claimed he was verbally abused in an “unchristian-like manner” by LDS authorities during his rowdy second trial. Brown openly criticized this court for excommunicating Brian Watts and Paul Knightley. Facing no specific charges—and dealing only with personal harassment—Brown declared he was “in the synagogue of Satan…” He left the room and was subsequently excommunicated from the LDS Church.

In November 1978, while still listed as a disfellowshipped Church member, I prepared a seven-page pamphlet, Free Agency and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Australia, with the assistance of another member, John Mitchell. The pamphlet outlined the “…disintegration of respect for the rights and freedom of the individual within certain quarters…of Sydney…In the Church in Sydney, a number of individuals have been removed from the fellowship of the Church for failing to sustain their local leaders right or wrong, i.e., obedience to authority without regard to personal feelings, conscience, personal revelation, any second witness, self respect, or right of choice…”

Copies of the Free Agency pamphlet were mailed to the presiding officers of every stake, ward, district, and branch of the LDS Church in Australia, each Mormon apostle in Salt Lake City, various LDS mission presidents around the world, and selected Church members in Sydney. John Mitchell and I were promptly excommunicated, along with Stuart Olmstead, who had financed the distribution of the tract. Parker had been replaced by Graham Sully as stake president. Prior to my excommunication trial, when Sully handed me the court summons, he accused me of “causing confusion in the Church.”

The non-specific “conduct in violation of the law and order of the Church” charge was given as the reason on paper for the excommunications of Wallace Brown, Jeff and Brian Watts, Paul Knightley, John Mitchell, Stuart Olmstead, and myself. In actuality, Sydney LDS authorities had overstepped their boundaries—expected unquestioning obedience— and overreacted when they were faced with objections to their behavior. They responded the only way they knew how, by taking punitive action against the members involved.  A number of Mormons in Bankstown and Hurstville wards were familiar with the details of the seven excommunications—and did nothing—along with other members who did not want to know the facts. In spite of the tendency to look the other way, around the time of my exodus from the LDS Church, in early 1976, roughly 30 Mormons left the Church because of the excommunciations and the sustaining “right or wrong” requirement.

Death to the “Ark-steadiers”

Two years after I moved to Salt Lake City, Wallace Brown died in Sydney, in July 1986. After I received the news of his death, I met with Mormon bishop, Larry Shaw, at his home in Salt Lake City. I notified Shaw of Brown’s death and informed him that Brown had been unjustly excommunicated from the LDS Church in 1975. I also advised Shaw I intended to publish an account of my LDS experiences—as a tribute to Wallace Brown.

Shaw compared the LDS Church to the legendary Ark of the Covenant, built in the time of Moses. He flatly stated that God had killed Uzzah, as recorded in the Old Testatment book of 2 Samuel 6:6-7, because Uzzah had tried to steady the Ark of the Covenant when he was not authorized to do so. God would also strike me down, predicted Shaw, if I committed any action (such as publications) which could harm the LDS Church.

The present-day Mormon interpretation of the story of Uzzah is applied to the relationship between members and the LDS Church. Members are instructed they should not correct Church leaders or Church policies, despite any good intentions. Mormons are taught the leaders of the Church are in charge and it is not their place to correct them.

On September 11, 1986, I sent a letter to the First Presidency, the highest-ranking governing body of the LDS Church, advising them I wanted my name cleared of any wrongdoing implied on Mormon records. I requested Church records show I was no longer a member of the LDS Church because I requested this and for no other reason. I objected to the sustaining “right or wrong” mandate imposed by Sydney Church officials.  At my Salt Lake City home, in August 1987, Paul Mecham, stake president of Salt Lake Granite Stake, showed me a letter, dated December 1, 1986, from the First Presidency, affirming my excommunication from the LDS Church. The letter had been signed by each member of the First Presidency, Ezra Taft Benson and Gordon B. Hinckley, both now deceased, and Thomas S. Monson, current Church president and “living prophet.”

Thomas S. Monson, and other LDS higher-ups at Church headquarters in Salt Lake City, who were flooded during the 1970s with appeals of concern regarding the abuse of power by Sydney LDS leaders, were complicit in backing blind obedience. Without exception, they rejected all pleas for help and “rubber-stamped” the Sydney excommunications.

Former LDS bishop, Larry Shaw, resurfaced when he phoned me from Atlanta, Georgia, on February 27, 2012. At the time, my research discoveries on the proxy baptisms of well-known Holocaust victims, such as Simon Wiesenthal’s parents and Anne Frank, were receiving extensive media coverage and would prompt Mormon officials to make technological changes that would block my access to their database of proxy rites.

During the hour-long phone call, Shaw attempted to pressure me back into the LDS Church through forceful persuasion. He refused to accept my complete renunciation of Mormonism. I interpreted his call as personal harassment because of the work I had done to uncover posthumous rites for non-Mormons, which had damaged the reputation of the LDS Church. Shaw asked me about my health, three times, and implied that I might soon be going to the other side because of my age. He had called to silence me as a dissenter.

Mormon temple oaths

Faithful Mormons believe their first and foremost duty is uncompromising loyalty to the LDS Church and unquestioning obedience to Church leaders. Obedience is perceived as an active demonstration of implicit trust in the Mormon faith. Mormons who participate in LDS temple ceremonies are locked into a loyalty-to-Church mindset through the rites performed in LDS temples, which include oaths of loyalty and sacrifice to the Church.

The endowment ceremony serves as a rite of adult initiation in LDS temples. During the temple endowment, Mormons take oaths to obey Mormon gospel laws, which include:

  • The Law of Obedience requires participating temple patrons to promise to obey the law of God. Mormons understand the LDS Church to be the one true source of God’s law.
  • The Law of Sacrifice requires participating temple patrons to covenant to sacrifice all that they possess, even their own lives, if necessary, in sustaining and defending “the kingdom of God.” To a Mormon, the term “the kingdom of God” means the LDS Church.
  • The Law of the Gospel includes an admonition to avoid speaking evil of the “Lord’s anointed [Church priesthood leaders].”
  • The Law of Consecration requires participating temple patrons to consecrate themselves, their time, their talents, and everything the Lord has blessed them with, or whatever he may bless them with, to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for the building up of “the [Mormon] kingdom of God on the earth…”

Mitt Romney’s Mormon indoctrination

Mitt Romney has been exposed to Mormon authoritarian rule since infancy. Mormonism has been the dominant influence in the forging of his core values and identity. Romney has internalized a theology that unreservedly claims that the LDS Church is “the only true Church” and rejects divine authority in other faiths. Mormons believe the United States was created and chosen by God, as the latter-day “Promised Land,” where Mormonism could come into existence and flourish as the “restoration” of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Many Mormons believe the USA will eventually become a Mormon-ruled theocracy.

As an oath-taking temple Mormon, Romney has consecrated his life, talents, and worldly goods to the LDS Church. To be faithful to his temple vows he must also support Mormon ecclesiastical rule. That means following directives from Temple Square as well as his local Church leaders. The issue is whether Romney would be able to separate his actions as president from Mormon doctrines, edicts, and rules governing human behavior.

Differing views on faith have no place in the secular political sphere and the shaping of political policies. The multicultural USA includes Mormons, millions of believers in non-Mormon religions, and non-religious citizens. We should not be governed by a president who has taken private oaths to prioritize the advancement of Mormon agenda above other interests. Flexibility in the rule of law is the hallmark of a successful government.

Mitt Romney is a religious authoritarian whose zeal for Mormon rules mirrors that of his Church. If Romney was the commander-in-chief of this country, he would probably expect to be supported, without question, as he has undoubtedly done in the past when he served in Mormon leadership positions. Like many—if not most LDS leaders—Romney is likely to be insistent on the “rightness” of his position. As a Mormon bishop and stake president in the Boston area, he was used to dictating actions and having members obey his instructions. He did not have to make a case, or answer questions, for his decisions.

In Church, Romney frequently spoke about obeying authority and God’s fixed standards. During Mitt Romney’s years as a bishop and stake president, he would have disciplined Church members and played an active role in excommunicating Mormons. Romney has reportedly said he would support any Mormon bishop who initiates an excommunication from the LDS Church. He has also said he would not question the reasoning behind the excommunication, even if it was for differing views, and not misconduct. This attitude demonstrates Romney’s blind trust in the Mormon system, his one-eyed support of rank and file LDS officials, and his sustaining of Church court judgments “right or wrong.”

Mitt Romney is part of an aggressive Church that demanded blind obedience to its leaders in the past, expects it from members today, and will likely expect it in the future. If Romney is elected as president of our nation, we Americans may soon be required to sustain the White House “right or wrong,” in conformity with the Mormon imperative.

© Copyright 2012 Helen Radkey—Permission granted to reproduce for non-commercial purposes, provided text is not changed and this copyright notice is included.

Pulpit Freedom Sunday Violates Separation of Church And State

20121004-072805.jpg
Is there really a separation?

The right to freedom of religion is so central to American democracy that it was enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution along with other fundamental rights such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We are not supposed to establish a state run church/mosque/synagogue. Period.

In order to protect this vital separation, churches were added to section 501C3 of the tax code in 1954. They could not participate in politics AND enjoy a tax-exempt status. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. Senator Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping “public policy.” To ensure equality among religious and non-religious alike, this was as important a legislative act as the Civil Rights Act. He intended to keep religious leaders from directly engaging in our political process from their pulpits.

Unfortunately, the religious right seized their opening to influence policy directly with the Moral Majority. The Reagan Administration ushered in these frightening right wing Christian megalomaniacs who literally took control of his social agenda. They brought us hate mongers like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who had tremendous impact on government who were not paying one red cent in taxes for their opulent and excessive wealth, while imposing their “standards of decency” on the entire nation.

To add a dash of effrontery seldom seen; reverends, pastors and preachers plan on voicing their political opinions this Sunday. This is the impetus for Pulpit Freedom Sunday set to occur nationwide on October 7th. The lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom organization states: “The purpose is to make sure that the pastor -and not the IRS -decides what is said from the pulpit.” – Erik Stanley. It heralds a complete lack of respect for the fundamentals of the United States Government. If you want a voice in the political arena, you must pay your taxes like the rest of us Americans do. That keeps us from becoming a theocracy much like Saudi Arabia. If we don’t keep these zealots in check, that might very well mirror the Religious-Right America of the future.

20121004-055230.jpg
The real message this Pulpit Freedom Sunday, October 7th

This is the third annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”. Isn’t it odd how this began after the first Black President was elected, as it was not an issue prior to that, apparently? Anyone with their eyes open can see this as just another not-so-thinly veiled display of blatant racism against President Obama. These agents of “god” are planning to videotape their sermons and then mail them to the IRS.

Speaking of racists, the Mormon Church has very publicly funded efforts to define marriage as between one man and one woman by aggressively promoting Proposition 8 legislation. Ironic how they value the “one woman” principle as even today, open polygamist Mormons can be found in rural areas of Nevada, Utah, Arizona and Texas. Willard Romney’s great grandfather, Miles Park Romney had FIVE wives. We’ve obviously not successfully conquered separation of church and state as there’s still under God in our Pledge of Allegiance and In God We Trust on our currency. When a public official is sworn in or one testifies in court, they must place their hand on a book of fiction, the Bible.

I sincerely hope THIS Pulpit Freedom Sunday results in the very warranted taxation of many of these profitable mega churches. Religious institutions certainly have had their fair share of scandals that deem them undeserving of their 501C3 status. In addition to their often deplorable behavior, they seem to favor Draconian Old Testament laws that have no place in modern society. Bigotry and discrimination should not be legislated through the pulpit without payment. Just imagine the funds we could put into educating our children if we taxed the $30 billion in holdings by the LDS Church alone. If only….

If you’d like to help stop this, please sign my petition to eliminate tax-free status given to these hate merchants! Click on this link to add your name! Thank you.