President Elect Obama and the Freedom of Choice Act

During the election process and now after the election of President elect Barack Obama most of his most devoted votaries were seemingly ignorant of, or didn’t care about his pledge to enact the Freedom of Choice Act. This act would open the flood gates to mass fetocide, the killing of a fetus in utero, otherwise known by the ambiguous term abortion.

 

The United States of America has aborted roughly 48,589,993 unique human beings since Roe Vs Wade in 1973 (now, I must say that there are rare instances where abortions are justified i.e. rape and incest). In 2005, 1.21 million unique fetuses were terminated[1] according to the Guttmacher Institute (named in honor of the former president of Planned Parenthood and vice-president of the American Eugenics Society) citizens of the United States terminate an average of 850,000 unique children a year, and Obama, our incoming President Elect supports this practice and hails its practitioners saying:
 “Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country—and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country…There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield…Now the good news is that there has been a decline in the teen birth rate in part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood.”

During the same event Obama was asked “what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?

Obama replied: “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act.  That’s t he first thing that I’d do. Um, but the, okay, but, but your question about the federal courts is absolutely on target…That’s why I think it’s important for us obviously to get not only a Democratic White House as well as a stronger Congress to protect these rights. But  I also think it’s important to understand that there’s nothing wrong in voting against nominees who don’t appear to share a broader vision of what the Constitution is about.”[2]

 

So Obama will not yield on abortion and he praises Planned Parenthood for their dedication. He also will sign the Freedom of Choice Act and sees that it is proper to vote against justices that don’t agree with his point of view. Along with this let’s look at his cabinet appointment, the most pro-abortion cabinet in US history.

1 Gov. Janet Napolitano is to become his new head of the Department of Homeland Security.  Cathi Herrod, president of The Center for Arizona Policy, told LifeNews.com that Napolitano constantly shows "her radical pro-abortion position…the Governor is establishing a track record of being one of the most pro-abortion governors this country has ever seen,” [3]

2 A member of his Department of Justice Review Team is Dawn Johnsen, a former Legal Director for NARAL (National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws) from 1988-1993

3 Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle is Obama's choice for Secretary of Health and Human Services. Daschle has acted as a fundraiser for Naral, case and point his Oct, 29, 2002 letter to NARAL supports entitled HARD WORK BRINGS SUCCESS. In this letter Daschle states: “ Rarely has so much been at stake for a woman's right to choose in a U.S. Senate Election.... Anti-choice forces are organizing and mobilizing right now to defeat champions of reproductive rights… So, we must succeed in getting out the pro-choice vote in this and other key states where pro-choice leadership could be lost… As the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, I've stood up for a woman's right to choose, and the pro-choice leadership of the Senate has made a difference by safeguarding women's rights from the anti-choice agenda of the Bush administration. Please give to NARAL today, so NARAL can mobilize the resources to get out the pro-choice vote on Election Day.”

4 Joe Biden, his vice president shows the following history:

•  Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Yet he says he Accepts Catholic church view that life begins at conception. (Apr 2007)[4]

Naral supports Biden in a press statement saying:  “Sen. Biden has consistently expressed support for a woman’s right to choose. While we have not agreed with him on every vote, we have a longstanding relationship with Sen. Biden that is open, positive, and constructive, and we are confident this will continue in a new administration under Sen. Obama’s pro-choice leadership. “Most notably, Sen. Biden has a strong record of opposing judicial nominees with hostile anti-choice records.” [5]

 The Freedom of Choice act (FOCA) is legislative act sponsored by Obama secretary of state Hillary Clinton, senators Lieberman and Feinstein. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Secretariat calls the FOCA the most “Radical Abortion Legislation in US History”[6]

The Legislation states:

Sec 4 (a) STATEMENT OF POLICY- It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman.

(b) PROHIBITION OF INTERFERENCE- A government may not--

(1) deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose--

(A) to bear a child;

(B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to viability; or

(C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability where termination is necessary to protect the life or health of the woman; or

(2) discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

(c) CIVIL ACTION- An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.

 

The Act defines the viability of the fetus to be “that stage of pregnancy when, in the best medical judgment of the attending physician based on the particular medical facts of the case before the physician, there is a reasonable likelihood of the sustained survival of the fetus outside of the woman," But As FOCA in its current uses the word “heath” 12 times but fails in every instance to define the term, thereby leaving the decision on the viability of the life of the baby, and the heath of the mother in the hands of the practitioner who is paid to perform the abortion.

 

The lie behind the FOCA is that its purpose is to codify Roe V. Wade. The bill itself sets forth the goal to “To prohibit, consistent with Roe v. Wade, the interference by the government with a woman's right to choose to bear a child or terminate a pregnancy, and for other purposes”

 

Accordingly FOCA identifies abortion as a “fundamental right”, however current case law a decision to have an abortion is not a fundamental right as it was under Roe. In 1992, seven justices rejected that view and concluded that the Court's earlier decisions under Roe had too severely and improperly restricted the states' power to regulate abortion. Planned Parenthood v. Casey[7]concluding that the Court's earlier decisions had gone "too far" and that "not all governmental intrusion [into abortion] is of necessity unwarranted");[8]”

 

Speaking of the “fundamental right” Chief Justice Rehnquist states: Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to "strict scrutiny" and could be justified only in the light of "compelling state interests." The joint opinion rejects that view.[9]”

 

According to the USCCB Office of General Counsel, “FOCA would nullify Casey or, more accurately, render it superfluous, not in the sense of creating new constitutional law (Congress, of course, cannot do), but by creating a statutory abortion right that goes beyond what Casey and even Roe require.”[10]

 

Government institution of Abortion under FOCA.

 

As we stand now abortion provider Planned Parenthood receives 336.7 million dollars from American tax payers and committed 289,750 abortions in 2007. Taxpayer funding of this abortion provider makes up 33% of its income.[11]

 

Under FOCA tax payer funding of abortion would increase as the legislation would make states that withhold funding from abortion providers, while supplying state funds to health care providers who reject abortion discriminatory, and there fore in violation of the Act. Section Four of the act states: “A government may not… discriminate against the exercise of the rights set forth in paragraph (1) in the regulation or provision of benefits, facilities, services, or information.

 

Discriminate, in legislative and legal terms means simply to treat differently. Therefore under the FOCA institutions, doctors and hospitals that offer services to encourage childbirth and neglect or refuse to be associated with abortion can be charged with discrimination. FOCA also provides that “An individual aggrieved by a violation of this section may obtain appropriate relief (including relief against a government) in a civil action.”

 

In other words if your health care provider does not provide fetocide procedures, you may use the law to force them or line your pockets with their money. The government will thereby make abortion national policy that all healthcare providers comply with under threat of cohersion.

 

FOCA effectively removes the states rights to control the elimination of pre-born children within the borders of their own states, makes it impossible for local officials to enact and enforce the will of the community and represents the willingness of the federal government to oppress the will of  individuals, local communities and governments.

 

Obama, as a constitutional professor knows the 10^th Amendment states: “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.” That is to say that anything not expressly granted to the Federal government is reserved for the States or the People.

 

The constitution makes no reference to Abortion, Health, reproductive rights or discrimination, therefore the power to over see such issues are in the hands of the people and their local representatives, not the federal government, Obama knows this…and is showing his willingness to abuse the power of the Government.

 

To end on a religious note, God will not continue to prosper a people that institutionalize the destruction of the most innocent of Gods creations as a national entitlement. 42 million killed since 1973… How much longer can the Lord withhold his just hand?

---

[1] http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html

[2] Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007

[3] http://www.lifenews.com/state3657.html

[4] http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/joe_biden.htm

[5] Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 23, 2008

[6] http://www.calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=26b1a32b-5a26-43a4-8852-506b90e97768, also see http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml

[7] , 505 U.S. 833,873-87 (1992)

[8] id. @ 944

[9] Id @ 954

[10] USCCB Office of General Counsel, August 2008, http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/FOCA/index.shtml

[11] PPFA Annual Report 2006-07, http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report.htm

Our Founding Fathers stood against the Re-distribution of wealth, the theory which Obama and his followers espouse.

Our Founding Fathers stood against the Re-distribution of wealth, the theory which Obama and his followers espouse.

Please See http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/09/obamas_patriotic_tonic.html 

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owA2geM8OGg&feature=related

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck

The Founders lived under taxation that was used to support the power and might of England. They sacrificed that they might be free from oppression of the state, and so that we, their children many of us, might also be free.  

In our day, Obama has said he wants to collectivize our wealth, in doing so, when the government has the power to take by force, to socialize what was American freedom, our liberty will die.

When the men are beholden to their government for their needs and their welfare they are not free, they are slaves.

Did the King of England have any more right to tax and take from our founding fathers? Did the King with his “divine right” have any more right than a socialist “king” with a mandate from his party?  No, no man or government has the right to take from another what is his, a man is free to give, but no man has the right, and no King or government has the righteous power to take, to steal from the people.

The government that takes from its people to support and grow its control and power over them is a tyranny, and in time any government that feels is has a right to the people’s money will use force to get it.

Our government is one of FREEDOM from the oppressive hand of the state; here are the words of our founding fathers:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816 

“A wise and frugal government… shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” — Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.” — Thomas Jefferson

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.” — John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

“With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.” — James Madison in a letter to James Robertson

In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia, James Madison stood on the floor of the House to object saying:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.” — James Madison, 4 Annals of Congress 179, 1794

“[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.” — James Madison

“Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression.” — James Madison

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.” James Madison, “Letter to Edmund Pendleton,” — James Madison, January 21, 1792, in The Papers of James Madison, vol. 14, Robert A Rutland et. al., ed (Charlottesvile: University Press of Virginia, 1984).

“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and restrained by the others.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 58, February 20, 1788

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.” — James Madison, speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 16, 1788

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” — Benjamin Franklin

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” — Benjamin Franklin

“These quotes and others make it clear that those who promote “redistribution of wealth” (OBAMA) as a task for the government run against the very basic principles underlying the United States of America. This is no detail.

What is really surprising is that many of the champions of socialism live in prosperity because of capitalism and because of the fruits of other people’s work and the strength of the ideals of the Founding Fathers and their counterparts in other lucky places. Nevertheless, they are not repelled by using their own prosperity as an argument against freedom and capitalism.

Are the principles of America guaranteed to exist forever, even if the people and the circumstances are against them? Let me end up with two not quite optimistic quotes”:

“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” — John Adams

“But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.” — John Adams

 

I will not have my freedoms taken by men who are my peers. I stand with the founding fathers. I stand against the potential abuses of government as outlined by Barak Obama. And I Promise I will do all I can to keep my freedoms and my raise my children free from the thumb of a King, or anything like unto it.

NO TRUE AMERICAN, ONE WHO UNDERSTOOD THE FRAGILE NATURE OF FREEDOM, CAN OR WOULD WITH A CLEAR CONSCIENCE MOVE TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF HIS NEIGHBORS EVEN IN THE SLIGHTEST MEASURE, TO DO SO IS TO MOVE TOWARD TYRANNY AND THE END OF MEANINGFUL FREEDOMS.

Have we forgotten that “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” Thomas Jefferson  

LDS CHURCH, Prohibition, Socialism and Gay Marriage

Over the last few weeks I have heard many of my peers lamenting the Churches involvement in the proposition 8 movement. Their claim is always the same, they say the church should not be involved in politics and that it doesn’t not affect them if the Government supports gay marriage, it’s a political issue.

This argument however is temporally minded and narrow. This mode of thought assumes that there is separation between the spheres of temporal action and affair and spiritual action and affairs when the opposite is true, our temporal choices and associations dictate eternal ramifications.  Elder Ivins, speaking to the church stated that a mans politics is the reflection or the outgrowth of his religion: “I heard a man say, the other day, that his politics had nothing to do with his religion. I can think of no obligation resting upon me which is more sacred or nearer a religious duty, than that I see to it, so far as my influence, so far as my voice and my vote may go, that this civil government which we love, which we maintain, be administered by righteous men. To that extent it is my religion, and I don't want to be muzzled in saying so.” (Elder Anthony W.  Ivins, Oct conference 1908)

 

Our politics is a reflection of our devotion to the Lord. We look to the prophet for guidance, why do so many stand against the church when it speaks out on social issues? When has the church ever been silent on social issues? The answer is never.

 

In the early 1900’s  the Church came out in favor of Prohibition, a series of laws and amendments that outlawed the creation and sales of alcohol in the US. In conference, many General Authorities encouraged the saints to vote in support of the prohibition laws and amendments:

 

“I desire that every man woman and child in the sound of my voice shall be workers to bring our fair state prohibition…” (Heber J. Grant, April conference 1916)

 

“On the twenty-seventh of June, this year, all Israel, at least in this state, shall have an opportunity to declare themselves in favor of or against God's truth that alcohol, strong drink in any of its forms is not good for man. They will tell you, We want to get rid of the saloons all right, but we can't do it. Prohibition, they will say, will not prohibit. I say, prohibition will prohibit as well as any other law will prohibit the transgression of it. Two things we ought to keep in mind,—First, we want the sentiment of the people back of it; and second, we want officers elected in the communities who are in harmony with that public sentiment. … Strong drink is not good for man. It is in your power to elect men who will enforce that law.”  (David O McKay, General Conference, April 1911)

 

“Brethren and sisters, on the next election day, the people of Utah are asked to vote on an amendment to the Constitution of the State of Utah. There are several amendments. I am going to mention only one. It pertains to Prohibition in our State. As you know, we have Prohibition by legislative enactment, but it is not a part of the Constitution of the State, now if we can make it a part of the Constitution of the State, Prohibition is safe. Now, the suggestion is that the prohibition statute be made a part of the Constitution of the State… I am simply mentioning it so that when you go to the polls you will look at that amendment and vote "Yes." (David O McKay, General Conference, October 1918)

 

“The remark has been made that whispering is being indulged in to some extent by some of the people to the effect, that the authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do not want prohibition, and I think I am in a position to say, that the authorities of the Church, the Presidency, and the Council of the Twelve, stand for temperance, and they do want such prohibition. Those who declare to the contrary, when they come to you, tell them that they speak that which is not true. And I think I know what I am talking about.”   (Elder Joseph F Smith, General Conference, April 1915)

 

 The above conference excerpts are pretty blatant, not to mention openly political. Surely there were those so liberally minded to argue, “ if people wish to drink, its their choice, the government should not oppress those who are inclined to drink.” Or they would say “this forces those who drank underground, making them second class citizens, not able to express their love of fine drinks with their peers for fear of being rejected.”

The Churches purpose in supporting and promoting prohibition was to show that it was firm in following the Word of Wisdom and following the Lord command to keep our bodies and our communities pure. A people who aim for Zion can never achieve such a lofty goal if the people support and even cultivate vice in their mists.

 

Now, do we argue with the prophets, do we disregard their counsel because it varies with our view of things? or do we consider that maybe they see something we don’t and put faith in their direction despite the societal climate?

 

Prohibition was a moral issue, just like marriage, and the church supported it in full.

 

Another political issue the church was deeply involved in was stanch opposition to socialism in the United States and around the world. The opposition to socialism was deeply political and divisive. Many Latter-day Saints, again, argued that the church needed to stay out of the issue, that men should not be judged by their political leaning. That the lord would not condemn then for supporting the Equality that is levied out by the state as represented in socialism.

 

(Many Latter-day Saints today consider themselves socialist…obviously they either don’t care or they have stepped away from the follow the prophet motto, in any case keep reading)

 

Other members stayed neutral under the assumption that the changes in society that socialism wrought would not affect them, and that the issue was not truly important to religion.

 

Now this is upsetting to my Liberal Mormon friends but Ezra Taft Benson went as far as to say: “No true Latter-day Saint and no true American can be a socialist or a communist or support programs leading in that direction. These evil philosophies are incompatible with Mormonism, the true gospel of Jesus Christ….. (General Conference, October 1961)

 

 

Benson further states: Up to now some members of the Church have stood aloof, feeling that the fight against socialistic-communism is "controversial" and unrelated to the mission of the Church or the work of the Lord. But the President of the Church in our day has made it clear that the fight against atheistic communism is a major challenge to the Church and every member in it…(Ibid)

 

…During the general conference of the Church in October 1959, President David O. McKay, in discussing the threat of communism, referred to W. Cleon Skousen's book, The Naked Communist, and said, "I admonish everybody to read that excellent book."(Ibid)

 

The stance in opposition to this, often very emotionally appealing, political theory alienated many members who felt to align themselves with the more leftist leaning in the communities. But the fact that many members felt slighted by the churches political stance didn’t and doesn’t matter…and why should it?

 

The church is eternal and governed by revelation with and eternal perspective. When the prophet speaks and takes a stance we need to listen, in the words of elder Benson: “Brethren and sisters, we don't need a prophet—we have one—we need a listening ear. And if we do not listen and heed, then, as the Doctrine and Covenants states, " . . . the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people." (ibid, D&C 1:14.)

 

Some may say I’m not socialist, but I’m a liberal mormon, to you Elder John Widstoe said the following: “In the United States, communists, Nazis, or fascists would probably insist that they are liberals… they are apostates from a cause, engaged in building their own cause under false colors, whether in the state or the Church. They are often without basic convictions, rudderless mariners, victims of every passing wave. Such men, whatever they may call themselves, are dangerous to human happiness… Their chief pastime is to sow the seeds of anarchy in the hearts of others… Proponents of a liberal religion are probably not certain of the foundations of their own faith and characterize their distrust by the world liberal.”(Elder John A. Widstoe October 1941, Improvement Era)

 

In the 1970’s and early 1980’s the church came out in strong opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, a stance that cause many prominent Mormon ”intellectuals” and Liberals to leave the church in protest.

 

The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution which is intended to guarantee equal rights under the law regardless of the sex of and individual.  Sounds like a noble cause, so why did the church oppose it?

 

In answer to repeated questions about its opposition to the ERA the Church said: Court and administrative interpretations of the ERA could endanger time-honored moral values by challenging laws that have safeguarded the family and afforded women necessary protections and exemptions…

Any reasonable chance for reversing the accelerating trend of courts to grant abortion on demand would probably be eliminated. It could affect issues that have yet to be decided, such as whether parents of minors must be notified and whether government funds will be involved…

Constitutional authorities indicate that passage of the ERA could extend legal protection to same-sex lesbian and homosexual marriages, giving legal sanction to the rearing of children in such homes… (The Church and the Proposed Equal Rights Amendment: A Moral Issue, Ensign, Mar 1980, insert: 1)

 

Much of the churches opposition to the ERA is identical to their reasons for supporting Proposition 8 in California. Says the Church:

Our Creator has especially suited fathers and mothers, through physical and emotional differences, to fulfill their own particular parental responsibilities. Legislation that could blur those roles gives cause for concern…                                                                Churches have a responsibility and a right to speak out on moral issues. The Constitution neither states nor implies that churches shall not involve themselves in moral issues pertaining to government, only that government shall not establish a religion or prohibit the exercise of religion and free speech…                                                                        The First Presidency has repeatedly encouraged Church members, in the exercise of their constitutional right as citizens, to make their influence felt in opposition to the proposed amendment…” (Ibid)

In reflecting on this we see that the church always takes stands on moral issues.  There is nothing new in the churches opposition to Gay Marriage, in fact, the church and its prophet, as endowed representatives of the living God are under obligation to testify truth to the world… its just amazing how many Latter-day Saints reject their counsel in favor of temporal attitudes. 

The First Presidency, and by extension the Lord says:  “The Church’s teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal. Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan for His children. Children are entitled to be born within this bond of marriage” (Letter of the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to Church leaders in California to be read to all congregations on 29 June 2008)

And as representatives of the Lord, they have asked the Latter-day Saints to act: “We ask that you do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman. Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage” (Ibid)

Above I mentioned President McKay telling the saints to read the Naked Communist, a text which chronicled the rise, threat and future of socialism and communism.  It is important to note that one of the goals of Communism as outlined in this book the prophet supported in Conference was the following:

• Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them censorship and a violation of free speech and free press.
• Break down all cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
• And Finally to Present homosexuality, degenerates and promiscuity as normal natural and healthy.   (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, P 261, 11th edition 1962)

 

These are all goals those on the leftist leaders (many, many republican leaders) support and promote. How sad is it that even though the prophets have addresses this issue, many of us actively resists their counsel for the sake of political fashion and emotional appeal? All of things McKay warned us of have happened…now some are set to see the last goal happen…in the name of equality, despite being warned.

So, to my friends who stand against the Lord and either support proposition 8 saying: “I don't feel like God is going to condemn me for supporting equality” or those in selfish apathy chose to do nothing. It seems that the Lord has made his will know to us through his Prophets by telling us “Our best efforts are required to preserve the sacred institution of marriage”.

This is not an issue of how two individuals feel, its not about desires or equality. In the end our moral responsibility is to see to it that we follow the guidance of the Lord. In following we need to see to it that his children who have yet to come to life have the blessings of entering homes that mirror, as closely as possible, that eternal standard God himself has established.

 If we stand against this counsel, or do nothing, is that not rejection of the Lord? Is that not apostasy?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An open Letter to My friends and family

Dear Friends and Family,

As we approach the close of this election season there are many issues that should be weighed not as political issues, but as spiritual issues of eternal importance.

The issue of marriage is inseparably connected with religion; this is because God has instituted marriage as the means of providing life and proper rearing of children, which is the promotion of life.

My concern is Senator Barak Obama’s vow to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .
The Defense of Marriage Act (H.R.3396) simply states that states do not have to recognize the legitimacy of same sex marriage, even if homosexual union are recognized on other states: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
The act also states that marriage is between men and women only: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Obama, in all of his interviews in homosexual press sources emphasizes his desire to repeal this act saying: “Senator Biden and I have long committed ourselves to supporting fundamental civil rights for all. In addition to the issues you mentioned, I also support full repeal of DOMA to provide equal federal rights and benefits to LGBT couples.”(WashingtonBlade.com, “Obama pledges ‘equality for all’ Vows to fight for full federal recognition of couples in civil unions, domestic partnerships” By WILLIAM R. KAPFER Sep 10, 2008)

From the same interview Obama is asked:

Washington Blade: You have called for the full repeal of DOMA. If elected president, will you introduce legislation calling for its repeal during your first year in office?

Obama: I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will
work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible.

If DOMA is repealed, the result forces all states to recognize same-sex marriages passed by just a few states (not to mention gay couples will sue in mass for state recognition) and thereby Obama will legalize homosexual marriage in the United States.


The scriptural record as we have it makes it clear that our situation is not new. The issue of marriage is not unique to our 21st century hubris. The Book of Ecclesiastes gives us a wonderful passage to understand our current situation. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any whereof it may be said, see this is new? It has been of old time, which was before us.”( Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Our biblical tradition tells of a people like us, who when given to choose between honoring Marriage or accepting a counterfeit, chose to go with those choices that supported the counterfeit. This choice took place before Noah.

Our day is not unlike the time preceding the great destruction of the flood. Our day, in fact, is a carbon copy of those times as the Lord has told us: “as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the son of man” this passage from the Savior found in Luke 17:26 and Matt 24:37 is my concern, and the foundation of my letter to you.

But are we indeed like the times of Noah? The bible doesn’t tell us much about that generation, how ever two biblical sources do. First the Book of Enoch, quoted as scripture as Jude and 2nd peter and The book of Jasher referenced in Joshua and 2nd Samuel. Both of these text give us some insight into the time of Noah.

Starting with 1 Enoch (apocryphal); once man had adorned themselves with gold and jewelry: “there arose much Godlessness, and they committed fornication and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.” (1 Enoch 8:2-3) Their loose morals served only to engender the wrath of the Lord who tells Enoch: “So the judgment will come upon them because they believe in the debauchery of their bodies and deny the spirit of the Lord” (1 Enoch 67:10-11, Charlesworth translation, also Gen 6:7)

We also are told that the practice of homosexuality in that time was rather extravagant as Enoch describers “Men dressing like women and women like men” (The Chester Beatty Papyrus 91:1) Men had become so vain and confused that they: “put on more jewelry than women and more multicolored ornaments than a virgin” (Charlesworth 1 Enoch 98:2)

Speaking to Enoch the Lord laments the extent of the homosexual activity saying: “they have rejected my commandments and my yoke, worthless seed has come up not fearing God…and have laden the whole earth with untruths, offences, abominable lecheries, namely one with another and all manner of unclean wickedness which are disgusting to relate” (2nd Enoch 34:1-2)


Another alarming aspect of the Anti-Deluvian wickedness that directly ties them to our day are the multiple traditional accounts that describe them practicing abortion.

Professor James H. Charlesworth’s translation of Enoch records that a fallen angel taught mankind “the smashing of the embryo so that it may be crushed” (Enoch 69:12) while the R.H. Charles translation reads “the smiting of the embryo in the womb that is may pass away”

The same situation is played out in the book of Jasher which tells us: “For in those days the sons of men began to trespass which had been commanded to Adam to be fruitful and multiply in the earth. And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they may retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.” (Jasher 2:19-20)

Enoch himself draws the correlation between our time and his as he prophesies: “And in those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) will come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their mists; they shall also abandon their other children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their loved ones” (Charlesworth 1 Enoch 99:5)

On this matter too, Obama is the Abortion Candidate, once stating that if his daughters “made a mistake”, that is knowingly and with forethought engaged in sexual intercourse, the only means by which children are produced, he did not “ want them punished with a baby," (March 30 2008 At a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania)

Obama has set himself on the side of those who extinguish the most innocent of lives for the continued perceived convince of others.

According to the catholic news agency; “In the July 17, 2008 speech, Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban and the nomination of Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade. In the speech the senator said, "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11918)

Remember Planned parenthood killed a record 289,650 preborn babies at Planned Parenthood clinics in fiscal year 2006-07, an increase of nearly 25,000 from 2005-06. For these killings Planned Parenthood received $336 million in taxpayer money last year. (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007070.cfm)

Obama also stated (granted he is also referencing Planned Parenthoods dispensing of contraceptives and Kinsey based counseling) “Now the good news is that there has been a decline in the teen birth rate, in part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood. But we all know that we can do more… It’s amazing how many women tell me the stories of how important it was for Planned Parenthood to provide them services when they were in college and they did not have the health insurance or the access to a regular doctor that they needed. To be able to have somebody they could trust to deal with so many of their basic and essential health issues.” (Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007)

Obama was asked by an audience member about how Planned Parenthood fit into his administration plans and Obama replied: “Now, I know I’m limited on time but I just want to expand on that second part of your question which is role that organizations like Planned Parenthood play. Obviously, my hope under a universal health care system is that everybody’s got access to basic care and we have less of a patchwork quilt of services. That—I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system. (ibid)

He then promised socialistic health care to the audience “But, in the meantime, what I’ve said is that I believe we can have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term. By the end of my first term as president [applause] of the United States of America.” (ibid)

Obama was then asked: “what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?”

To which he replied: “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That’s the first thing that I’d do.” (ibid)

These issues are not political, they are spiritual. They are issues that reflect our respect for that which God has created. These are the issues at the core of society; these are the things the Lord will question us on at our judgment. Did we practice faith in him and uphold that which he delivered to us in his Word? Or did we fear man more then we feared him? Did we look the other way on the degrading of the family because we were caught up in the thrall of the political joust?

Politicians come and go, and we can rationalize to ourselves, but I know the Lord will hold us all accountable for who we chose to align ourselves with and who we give our time, our allegiance and our vote to.

The Children of the Lord deserve to be born into and raised in homes that mirror the model laid down by that being that created them. Man, being the creation, the offspring of the Lord, his children, cannot by their own will alter the foundations of the Lords house and not expect to be held accountable for their action or inaction. That is man cannot alter that which he did not create, and man cannot kill that life which is not their to kill for they, of their own power did not create life, it is not theirs, it is a unique child.

The Lord cannot be fooled…I pray that we will not be either.

Your Friend

James B Smith.
Miloap@hotmail.com

Obama's letter opposeing Prop 8,and his interviews in the Advocate

Dear Friends, below the intoductory article you will find a copy of a letter witten by Obama in opposition to propisition 8. the source for the letter is his campaign website for LGBT issues.
Obama is dead set against protecting marriage, which means he also against history and Gods Plan of Salvation and Family.


Obama opposes proposed ban on gay marriage
San Francisco Chronicle, John Wildermuth, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/MN8J11I731.DTL&type=politics

(07-01) 19:35 PDT -- Gay rights moved to the forefront of the presidential campaign Tuesday after Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's announcement that he opposes a November ballot measure that would ban same-sex marriage in California.

In a letter to San Francisco's Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club, the presumptive presidential nominee said he opposed "the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution" and similar efforts in other states.
Obama's position on Proposition 8 was announced at a club event Sunday.

… On Tuesday, Obama spokeswoman Shannon Gilson released this statement:
"Senator Obama supports civil unions, and he has consistently opposed federal and state constitutional marriage amendments because as we have seen in some states, enshrining a definition of marriage into the constitution can allow states to roll back the civil rights and benefits that are provided in domestic partnerships and civil unions."

But civil unions, gay activists argue, aren't the same as marriage, and they say his earlier stance would put Obama on the wrong side of what's increasingly seen as a civil rights issue.

… Groups opposing Prop. 8, which would amend the state Constitution to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California," were excited to have Obama on their side and more than willing to overlook his mixed record on the same-sex marriage issue.

But Prop. 8 supporters accused Obama of trying to have it both ways by coming out publicly against same-sex marriage, but opposing any efforts to ban those unions.

"His position makes very little sense," said Brian Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, California. "If he's opposed (to same-sex marriage), he should just say so. Instead, he's trying to appease the wealthy elite who support gay marriage."





Obama's letter opposing same-sex marriage ban
The text of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's letter to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club in San Francisco:
Dear Friends,
Thank you for the opportunity to welcome everyone to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club's Pride Breakfast and to congratulate you on continuing a legacy of success, stretching back thirty-six years. As one of the oldest and most influential LGBT organizations in the country, you have continually rallied to support Democratic candidates and causes, and have fought tirelessly to secure equal rights and opportunities for LGBT Americans in California and throughout the country.

As the Democratic nominee for President, I am proud to join with and support the LGBT community in an effort to set our nation on a course that recognizes LGBT Americans with full equality under the law. That is why I support extending fully equal rights and benefits to same sex couples under both state and federal law. That is why I support repealing the Defense of Marriage ct and the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy, and the passage of laws to protect LGBT Americans from hate crimes and employment discrimination. And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S.
Constitution or those of other states.

For too long. issues of LGBT rights have been exploited by those seeking to divide us. It's time to move beyond polarization and live up to our founding promise of equality by treating all our citizens with dignity and respect. This is no less than a core issue about who we are as Democrats and as Americans. Finally, I want to congratulate all of you who have shown your love for each other by getting married these last few weeks. My thanks again to the Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club for allowing me to be a part of today's celebration. I look forward to working with you in the coming months and years, and I wish you all continued success.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama




April 10, 2008
Obama Talks All Things LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transexual) With The Advocate
By Kerry Eleveld
Advocate.com

The Advocate: Let’s start with what’s hot -- why the silence on gay issues? You’ve done only one other interview with the LGBT press. I know people wish they were hearing more from you.

Obama: I don’t think it’s fair to say "silence" on gay issues. The gay press may feel like
I’m not giving them enough love. But basically, all press feels that way at all times…But I haven’t been silent on gay issues. What’s happened is, I speak oftentimes to gay issues to a public general audience…So I actually have been much more vocal on gay issues to general audiences than any other presidential candidate probably in history.

Advocate: Do you think it’s possible to get full repeal of DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act)? As you know, Senator Clinton is only looking at repealing the plank of DOMA that prohibits the federal government from recognizing state-sanctioned unions.

Obama: I don’t know. But my commitment is to try to make sure that we are moving in the direction of full equality, and I think the federal government historically has led on civil rights -- I’d like to see us lead here too.

Advocate: Both you and your wife speak eloquently about being told to wait your turn and how if you had done that, you might not have gone to law school or run for Senate or even president. To some extent, isn’t that what you’re asking same-sex couples to do by favoring civil unions over marriage -- to wait their turn?

Obama: I don’t ask them that. Anybody who’s been at an LGBT event with me can testify that my message is very explicit -- I don’t think that the gay and lesbian community, the LGBT community, should take its cues from me or some political leader in terms of what they think is right for them. It’s not my place to tell the LGBT community, "Wait your turn."… So I strongly respect the right of same-sex couples to insist that even if we got complete equality in benefits, it still wouldn’t be equal because there’s a stigma associated with not having the same word, marriage, assigned to it.

Obama:…As I said, I think the LGBT community has every right to push for what it thinks is right. And I think that it’s absolutely fair to ask me for leadership, and my argument would be that I’m ahead of the curve on these issues compared to 99% of most elected officials around the country on this issue. So I think I’ve shown leadership.

Advocate: What event or person has most affected your perceptions of or relationship to the LGBT community?

Obama: …I actually had a professor at Occidental…Lawrence Goldyn, I think it was. He was a wonderful guy. He was the first openly gay professor that I had ever come in contact with, or openly gay person of authority that I had come in contact with. And he was just a terrific guy. He wasn’t proselytizing all the time, but just his comfort in his own skin and the friendship we developed helped to educate me on a number of these issues.

Advocate: Did you have a chance to ask him about being gay?

Obama: I’m sure we did, but as I said, he was really comfortable in his own skin, and the relationship was a strong friendship and I never felt as if I had to get over any mental hurdles to be close to him or to learn from him. He’s probably somebody who had a strong influence



Excerpts from Washington Blade interview with Obama entitled:
“Obama pledges ‘equality for all’ Vows to fight for full federal recognition of couples in civil unions, domestic partnerships”
By WILLIAM R. KAPFER Sep 10, 2008

Blade: Would you decline to nominate a qualified Supreme Court justice or cabinet member who had a history of anti-gay rulings?

Obama: I would have to consider the totality of the candidate’s record and qualifications.
However, I think someone who has an established record of failing to support equal opportunities for all Americans would not fare well in an Obama-Biden administration.
Obama: … Senator Biden and I have long committed ourselves to supporting fundamental civil rights for all. In addition to the issues you mentioned, I also support full repeal of DOMA to provide equal federal rights and benefits to LGBT couples.
America must live up to our founding principle of equality for all, and it’s wrong to have millions of LGBT Americans living as second-class citizens in this nation.

… If I am honored to serve as your President, I will continue to do what I’ve done throughout my career and in this campaign: speak out on behalf of the cause for equal justice and opportunity for LGBT Americans.

Blade: You have called for the full repeal of DOMA. If elected president, will you introduce legislation calling for its repeal during your first year in office?

Obama: I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible.

Blade: Do you think repeal of all of DOMA would, in fact, prompt Congress to strongly consider and possibly pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage?

Obama: Again, I think this issue ties in to who controls Congress. And a Democratic Congress that enacts a repeal of DOMA would not be likely to pass a Constitutional ban on gay marriage — partly because our party rejects enshrining discrimination and divisive distinctions among citizens into our founding documents.

Blade: If DOMA is repealed fully or in part, the federal government most likely still could not recognize civil unions or domestic partnerships performed by states. Would you ask Congress to pass federal enabling legislation that would require the federal government to recognize civil unions and/or domestic partnerships performed by states so that same-sex couples joined in civil unions or domestic partnerships could obtain the same federal rights and benefits of marriage that you have called for?

Obama: I support the notion that all people — gay or straight — deserve the same rights and responsibilities to assist their loved ones in times of emergency, deserve equal health insurance and other employment benefits currently extended to heterosexual married couples, and deserve the same property rights as anyone else.

If elected, I would call on Congress to enact legislation that would repeal DOMA and ensure that the over 1,100 federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally recognized unions.

As I have said before, I’m running for President to build an America that lives up to our founding promise of equality for all — a promise that certainly extends to the LGBT community. I do envision a time when we all enjoy that promise, but we have to work hard to get there. LGBT Americans deserve real change, and they deserve it now. Certainly as a nation we can all agree that discrimination has no place in our America. Same-sex couples face legal discrimination every day — that we can, and must, end — by repealing DOMA, providing federal rights and responsibilities to same-sex families, and supporting LGBT parents, to start. And we need to remember that it’s not just couples that need protection — we need to pass long overdue legislation that ends employment discrimination, enhances hate crimes protections, and repeals “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.”

OBAMA REFUSED TO ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:

If the full repeal of DOMA forces all states to recognize same-sex marriages passed by just a few states, aren't you, in effect, supporting same-sex marriage in the United States? As a former law professor, do you believe the repeal of DOMA would force all states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in Mass. and Calif. under the Constitution's full faith and credit clause?

How would you handle institutions such as the Boy Scouts and Salvation Army — which havebeen known to engage in discriminate against gays — to underscore your message?

Obama promised to repeal Defense of Marriage act

Dear Friends and Family,

As we approach the close of this election season there are many issues that should be weighed not as political issues, but as spiritual issues of eternal importance.

The issue of marriage is inseparably connected with religion; this is because God has instituted marriage as the means of providing life and proper rearing of children, which is the promotion of life.

My concern is Senator Barak Obama’s vow to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) .
The Defense of Marriage Act (H.R.3396) simply states that states do not have to recognize the legitimacy of same sex marriage, even if homosexual union are recognized on other states: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.”
The act also states that marriage is between men and women only: “In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.”

Obama, in all of his interviews in homosexual press sources emphasizes his desire to repeal this act saying: “Senator Biden and I have long committed ourselves to supporting fundamental civil rights for all. In addition to the issues you mentioned, I also support full repeal of DOMA to provide equal federal rights and benefits to LGBT couples.”(WashingtonBlade.com, “Obama pledges ‘equality for all’ Vows to fight for full federal recognition of couples in civil unions, domestic partnerships” By WILLIAM R. KAPFER Sep 10, 2008)

From the same interview Obama is asked:

Washington Blade: You have called for the full repeal of DOMA. If elected president, will you introduce legislation calling for its repeal during your first year in office?

Obama: I have long been on record opposing DOMA, and an Obama-Biden administration will
work hard to ensure that we can pass a repeal of that law as soon as possible.

If DOMA is repealed, the result forces all states to recognize same-sex marriages passed by just a few states (not to mention gay couples will sue in mass for state recognition) and thereby Obama will legalize homosexual marriage in the United States.


The scriptural record as we have it makes it clear that our situation is not new. The issue of marriage is not unique to our 21st century hubris. The Book of Ecclesiastes gives us a wonderful passage to understand our current situation. “The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any whereof it may be said, see this is new? It has been of old time, which was before us.”( Ecclesiastes 1:9-10)

Our biblical tradition tells of a people like us, who when given to choose between honoring Marriage or accepting a counterfeit, chose to go with those choices that supported the counterfeit. This choice took place before Noah.

Our day is not unlike the time preceding the great destruction of the flood. Our day, in fact, is a carbon copy of those times as the Lord has told us: “as it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be at the coming of the son of man” this passage from the Savior found in Luke 17:26 and Matt 24:37 is my concern, and the foundation of my letter to you.

But are we indeed like the times of Noah? The bible doesn’t tell us much about that generation, how ever two biblical sources do. First the Book of Enoch, quoted as scripture as Jude and 2nd peter and The book of Jasher referenced in Joshua and 2nd Samuel. Both of these text give us some insight into the time of Noah.

Starting with 1 Enoch (apocryphal); once man had adorned themselves with gold and jewelry: “there arose much Godlessness, and they committed fornication and they were led astray, and became corrupt in all their ways.” (1 Enoch 8:2-3) Their loose morals served only to engender the wrath of the Lord who tells Enoch: “So the judgment will come upon them because they believe in the debauchery of their bodies and deny the spirit of the Lord” (1 Enoch 67:10-11, Charlesworth translation, also Gen 6:7)

We also are told that the practice of homosexuality in that time was rather extravagant as Enoch describers “Men dressing like women and women like men” (The Chester Beatty Papyrus 91:1) Men had become so vain and confused that they: “put on more jewelry than women and more multicolored ornaments than a virgin” (Charlesworth 1 Enoch 98:2)

Speaking to Enoch the Lord laments the extent of the homosexual activity saying: “they have rejected my commandments and my yoke, worthless seed has come up not fearing God…and have laden the whole earth with untruths, offences, abominable lecheries, namely one with another and all manner of unclean wickedness which are disgusting to relate” (2nd Enoch 34:1-2)


Another alarming aspect of the Anti-Deluvian wickedness that directly ties them to our day are the multiple traditional accounts that describe them practicing abortion.

Professor James H. Charlesworth’s translation of Enoch records that a fallen angel taught mankind “the smashing of the embryo so that it may be crushed” (Enoch 69:12) while the R.H. Charles translation reads “the smiting of the embryo in the womb that is may pass away”

The same situation is played out in the book of Jasher which tells us: “For in those days the sons of men began to trespass which had been commanded to Adam to be fruitful and multiply in the earth. And some of the sons of men caused their wives to drink a draught that would render them barren, in order that they may retain their figures and whereby their beautiful appearance might not fade.” (Jasher 2:19-20)

Enoch himself draws the correlation between our time and his as he prophesies: “And in those days, they (the women) shall become pregnant, but they (the sinners) will come out and abort their infants and cast them out from their mists; they shall also abandon their other children, casting their infants out while they are still suckling. They shall neither return to them (their babes) nor have compassion upon their loved ones” (Charlesworth 1 Enoch 99:5)

On this matter too, Obama is the Abortion Candidate, once stating that if his daughters “made a mistake”, that is knowingly and with forethought engaged in sexual intercourse, the only means by which children are produced, he did not “ want them punished with a baby," (March 30 2008 At a town hall meeting in Johnstown, Pennsylvania)

Obama has set himself on the side of those who extinguish the most innocent of lives for the continued perceived convince of others.

According to the catholic news agency; “In the July 17, 2008 speech, Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision that upheld the federal partial-birth abortion ban and the nomination of Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade. In the speech the senator said, "There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield.” (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11918)

Remember Planned parenthood killed a record 289,650 preborn babies at Planned Parenthood clinics in fiscal year 2006-07, an increase of nearly 25,000 from 2005-06. For these killings Planned Parenthood received $336 million in taxpayer money last year. (http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000007070.cfm)

Obama also stated (granted he is also referencing Planned Parenthoods dispensing of contraceptives and Kinsey based counseling) “Now the good news is that there has been a decline in the teen birth rate, in part due to the outstanding work of Planned Parenthood. But we all know that we can do more… It’s amazing how many women tell me the stories of how important it was for Planned Parenthood to provide them services when they were in college and they did not have the health insurance or the access to a regular doctor that they needed. To be able to have somebody they could trust to deal with so many of their basic and essential health issues.” (Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007)

Obama was asked by an audience member about how Planned Parenthood fit into his administration plans and Obama replied: “Now, I know I’m limited on time but I just want to expand on that second part of your question which is role that organizations like Planned Parenthood play. Obviously, my hope under a universal health care system is that everybody’s got access to basic care and we have less of a patchwork quilt of services. That—I still believe that it is important for organizations like Planned Parenthood to be part of that system. (ibid)

He then promised socialistic health care to the audience “But, in the meantime, what I’ve said is that I believe we can have universal health care in this country by the end of the next president’s first term. By the end of my first term as president [applause] of the United States of America.” (ibid)

Obama was then asked: “what would you do at the federal level not only to ensure access to abortion but to make sure that the judicial nominees that you will inevitably be able to pick are true to the core tenets of Roe v. Wade?”

To which he replied: “Well, the first thing I’d do as president is, is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. [Applause.] That’s the first thing that I’d do.” (ibid)

These issues are not political, they are spiritual. They are issues that reflect our respect for that which God has created. These are the issues at the core of society; these are the things the Lord will question us on at our judgment. Did we practice faith in him and uphold that which he delivered to us in his Word? Or did we fear man more then we feared him? Did we look the other way on the degrading of the family because we were caught up in the thrall of the political joust?

Politicians come and go, and we can rationalize to ourselves, but I know the Lord will hold us all accountable for who we chose to align ourselves with and who we give our time, our allegiance and our vote to.

The Children of the Lord deserve to be born into and raised in homes that mirror the model laid down by that being that created them. Man, being the creation, the offspring of the Lord, his children, cannot by their own will alter the foundations of the Lords house and not expect to be held accountable for their action or inaction. That is man cannot alter that which he did not create, and man cannot kill that life which is not their to kill for they, of their own power did not create life, it is not theirs, it is a unique child.

The Lord cannot be fooled…I pray that we will not be either.

Your Friend

James B Smith.
Miloap@hotmail.com

"That Thou Shalt Not Covet Thine Own Property.” D&C 19:26

that thou shalt not covet thine own property.” D&C 19:26

While driving from my office in Salt Lake City to my home in Utah county on Friday July 25 2008, I heard on the radio an offer for a truly remarkable deal. The deal, which was for a limited time was for two whole acres of land in scenic Mapleton Utah for the bargain price of $300,000 dollars. I laughed and thought to myself; we are a sick, sick people, we have priced the land God owns right out of the hands of those who need it most.

We as a people do not use the land the lord has allowed us to dwell upon for its rightful use. In all actuality our love of the dollar has lead us to neglect the resource the lord has placed in our stewardship. What we do with the land we have been blessed with is actually quite ugly and disgraceful, that is we buy it up in mass, subdivide it, pave it over, and turn it for as much profit as possible. Thus making the land unprofitable to anyone! 100 acres, properly used, can loosen the financial burden of food for dozens of families, but we, as a people, driven by our wealth worship, prefer to flip the property for “starter houses” and “Affordable Luxury” starting in the low $200,000’s.

To till the earth is one of the purposes of man according to Moses 3.5, 4.29, 51. Moreover the Book of Jubilees (abt. 161-50 BC) teaches that while in the Garden of Eden the Lord sent angels to instruct Adam on the arts of cultivating the earth. Those very things the word of wisdom informs us we should feed ourselves (grains ect) can only come through proper cultivation and care of the land.

Having a Food Storage is not the Same as being self sufficient

As it stands now most Christians in our culture have all but forsaken the blessings of the earth in lieu of 1/8 acre luxury homes and unlimited convenience. We have been warned of the future, anybody who has studies the writings of the modern prophets know just how cataclysmic the end times will be, and that when the lord raises his hand to cleanse his creation all the iphones and technology we worship will be of no avail ( see the John Taylor vision, diary of Wilford woodruff April 15, 1878, also see CWHN 17:86).

When the hand of the Lord comes down, those who live in quick buck subdivisions will be unable to sustain themselves beyond their food storage, and in time will be dependant on others, if not the Bishops Storehouses. However, those people, both Mormon and non Mormon alike, who wisely use the land will have room for crops and animals which can them be used to provide for their families.

We may have our food storage, but food storage is not the same as being self sufficient. We as a people are completely dependant on super markets for all our needs, and when the times go bad, many will be completely dependant on the storehouses. The Lord gave us the Land to bless our lives. We should utilize ALL WE CAN to its fullest effect.

We should use the land properly, that is to provided for our needs, not pave it over for quick, subdivisions. Yet this lust for money over anything else is nothing new for the church. For example President Brigham Young addressed the problems of business minded saints with the following: “I will refer to our merchants, I mean our Mormon merchants particularly. What do they say about their goods? They do not ask what their goods are worth, or what they paid for them, but what people will give for them? That is the price. It is not what their goods are really worth, but how many greenbacks will it take to buy me another stock of goods. It will take a good many. What their goods are worth is not a question with them, but what they can get. They will get sorrow- the most of them will be damned, there is no doubt of it, unless they repent.”[1]

The placing of temporal excess over priesthood and Church duties has been a cause of much heartache and sorrow in the Church. This has been the case since the inception of the Church for Joseph Smith observed: “The spirit of speculation in the lands and property of all kinds, which was so prevalent throughout the whole nation, was taking deep root in the Church. As the fruits of this spirit, evil surmising, fault finding, disunion, dissension and apostasy followed in quick succession.”[2]

And just a few years later Wilford Woodruff observed: “Many of the leading brethren had given their time and talent to speculation and were absorbed in schemes detrimental to their religious standing, quite contrary to the counsel of the Prophet…Their Financial speculations brought on a spirit of self sufficiency, and that spirit made them wise on their own conceit …Such wisdom was undermining their integrity to the Church.”[3] Is it not telling that our world compels us to become financially self sufficient yet to elder Woodruff this sense of self sufficiency corrupted leading brethren?

This trend did not subside as the persecutions followed the saints for after leaving Kirkland, Heber C. Kimball returned and found: “Trade and traffic seemed to engross the time and attention of the Saints. When we left Kirkland, a city lot was worth about $150; but on our return, to our astonishment, the same lot was said to be worth from $500 to $1000…in fact everything in the place seemed to be moving in great prosperity and all seemed determined to become rich……I had many days of sorrow and mourning, for my heart was sickened to see the awful extent that things were getting to…The Ohio mobbing, the Missouri persecutions, the martyrdom, the exodus, nor all that Zion’s cause has suffered since, have imperiled it half so much as when mammon and the love of God strove for supremacy in the hearts of his people”[4]

Our world loves the well to do, we admire Donald Trump and we emulate the entrepreneur who reaps wealth in his youth. We buy books on living in “wealth Cycles” to learn principles of prosperity and we invest in books that show us the LDS ways of building wealth because those who have money must know something we don’t. But once again the gospel turns the table on temporal things as John Taylor points out that “Money is not to be compared with intelligence.”[5]

The prophets are constantly critical of the pursuit of excess, here are several examples:
"The Latter-day Saints, in their conduct and acts with regard to financial matters, are like the rest of the world. The course pursued by men of business in the world has a tendency to make a few rich, and to sink the masses of the people in poverty and degradation. Too many of the Elders of Israel take this course. No matter what comes they are for gain—for gathering around them riches; and when they get rich, how are those riches used? Spent on the lusts of the flesh." [6]

"Instead of reflecting upon and searching for hidden things of the greatest value to them, [the Latter-day Saints] rather wish to learn how to secure their way through this world as easily and as comfortably as possible. The reflections, what they are here for, who produced them, and where they are from, far too seldom enter their minds."[7]

"I am sorry that this people are worldly-minded. . . . Their affections are upon . . . their farms, upon their property, their houses and possessions, and in the same ratio that this is the case, the Holy Spirit of God—the spirit of their calling—forsakes them, and they are overcome with the spirit of the evil one."[8]

Heber C Kimball once stated: “After a while the gentiles will gather by the thousands to this place, and salt lake will be classed among the wicked cities of the world. A spirit of speculation and extravagance will take possession of the saints and the result will be financial bondage”[9] Do we not see this daily? Members of the Church saddled with such debts and excess that their goal is to be debt free by retirement? We must also observe that the word luxury is used to describe everything we need from houses to cars. Luxury…is unnecessary.

Lastly, president Kimball sums up the problem that plagues us so in the following eloquent yet alarming speech (exerpts from “The False Gods We Worship,” Ensign, Jun 1976):

I would sometimes just stand silently in the mellow light and the fragrance of sunflowers and ask myself, “If you were going to create a world, what would it be like?” Now with a little thought the answer seems so natural: “Just like this one.”… and when I pass through the lovely countryside or fly over the vast and beautiful expanses of our globe, I compare these beauties with many of the dark and miserable practices of men, and I have the feeling that the good earth can hardly bear our presence upon it. I recall the occasion when Enoch heard the earth mourn, saying, “Wo, wo is me, the mother of men; I am pained, I am weary, because of the wickedness of my children. When shall I rest, and be cleansed from the filthiness which is gone forth out of me?” (Moses 7:48.)
… That such a cry should be necessary among a people so blessed is amazing to me. And that such things should be found even among the Saints to some degree is scarcely believable, for these are a people who are in possession of many gifts of the Spirit, who have knowledge that puts the eternities into perspective, who have been shown the way to eternal life.
Sadly, however, we find that to be shown the way is not necessarily to walk in it, and many have not been able to continue in faith. These have submitted themselves in one degree or another to the enticings of Satan and his servants and joined with those of “the world” in lives of ever-deepening idolatry.
The Lord has blessed us as a people with a prosperity unequaled in times past. The resources that have been placed in our power are good, and necessary to our work here on the earth. But I am afraid that many of us have been surfeited with flocks and herds and acres and barns and wealth and have begun to worship them as false gods, and they have power over us. Do we have more of these good things than our faith can stand? Many people spend most of their time working in the service of a self-image that includes sufficient money, stocks, bonds, investment portfolios, property, credit cards, furnishings, automobiles, and the like to guarantee carnal security throughout, it is hoped, a long and happy life. Forgotten is the fact that our assignment is to use these many resources in our families and quorums to build up the kingdom of God—to further the missionary effort and the genealogical and temple work; to raise our children up as fruitful servants unto the Lord; to bless others in every way, that they may also be fruitful. Instead, we expend these blessings on our own desires, and as Moroni said, “Ye adorn yourselves with that which hath no life, and yet suffer the hungry, and the needy, and the naked, and the sick and the afflicted to pass by you, and notice them not.” (Morm. 8:39.)
As the Lord himself said in our day, “They seek not the Lord to establish his righteousness, but every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own God, whose image is in the likeness of the world, and whose substance is that of an idol, which waxeth old and shall perish in Babylon, even Babylon the great, which shall fall.” (D&C 1:16; italics added.)
… In spite of our delight in defining ourselves as modern, and our tendency to think we possess a sophistication that no people in the past ever had—in spite of these things, we are, on the whole, an idolatrous people—a condition most repugnant to the Lord.
We are a warlike people, easily distracted from our assignment of preparing for the coming of the Lord. When enemies rise up, we commit vast resources to the fabrication of gods of stone and steel—ships, planes, missiles, fortifications—and depend on them for protection and deliverance. When threatened, we become antienemy instead of pro-kingdom of God; we train a man in the art of war and call him a patriot, thus, in the manner of Satan’s counterfeit of true patriotism, perverting the Savior’s teaching:
“Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
“That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 5:44–45.)
We forget that if we are righteous the Lord will either not suffer our enemies to come upon us—and this is the special promise to the inhabitants of the land of the Americas (see 2 Ne. 1:7)—or he will fight our battles for us (Ex. 14:14; D&C 98:37, to name only two references of many). This he is able to do, for as he said at the time of his betrayal, “Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?” (Matt. 26:53.) We can imagine what fearsome soldiers they would be. King Jehoshaphat and his people were delivered by such a troop (see 2 Chr. 20), and when Elisha’s life was threatened, he comforted his servant by saying, “Fear not: for they that be with us are more than they that be with them” (2 Kgs. 6:16). The Lord then opened the eyes of the servant, “And he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.” (2 Kgs. 6:17.)


[1] By Journal of discourses vol 11 p 19
[2] History of the Church, Vol. 2, pg 387-88.
[3] The Life of Wilford Woodruff (1945), p 67
[4] , The Life of Heber C. Kimball (1967), p 99, 101, 181
[5] Journal of Discourses 20:169
[6] Journal of Discourses 11:348
[7] Journal of discourses 7:282
[8] Journal of discourses 11:216
[9] Heber C Kimball, Deseret News, Church Dept pp 3, May 23, 1931