Dr.ML King 48 Assassination Anniversary – King betrayed and Killed by Masonic Brothers


King Remembrance Week 2016 – Martin Luther King Jr …

The Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site and Ebenezer
Baptist Church will commemorate the annual observance of King
Remembrance Week which honors the life and legacy of the Reverend Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. April 4-8, 2016. To commence the Park’s week
long series of public activities, a special Wreath-Laying Ceremony will
take place at Historic Ebenezer Baptist Church, Heritage Sanctuary in
Atlanta, Georgia on Monday April 4, 2016 at 5:30pm. This year marks the
48th anniversary of the death of Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Dr. King was assassinated on April 4, 1968 at the Lorraine
Motel in Memphis, Tennessee and was brought home to be buried in the
Sweet Auburn community. On April 9, 1968, his funeral took place at
Historic Ebenezer Baptist Church and Morehouse College. To reflect upon
that solemn occasion in history, the National Park Service along with
members of Ebenezer Baptist Church will place a replica of the 1968
wreath on the historic location of Ebenezer Baptist Church, Heritage
Sanctuary as it appeared on April 9, 1968. There will be a brief program
with remarks by National Park Service officials and other dignitaries
before laying the wreath upon the church’s façade.

KING CENTER COMMEMORATES MLK ASSASSINATION …

Dr. King is assassinated – Apr 04, 1968 – HISTORY.com

 

April 4th Commemoration | National Civil Rights Museum

civilrightsmuseum.org/april4th-commemo…
National Civil Rights Museum

The annual April 4th Commemoration at the National Civil Rights Museum is a … life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on the anniversary of his death at the Lorraine Motel on April 4, 1968. … music selections, a ceremonial wreath laying and a

 The King Assassination Conspiracy: Betrayed by Judas

On March 28 1968 King was leading a march
in downtown Memphis when a masonic planned riot broke out and two Negro Masonic
assassins chased King and Abernathy with the intent to assassinate both King
and Abernathy on March 28.

King and Abernathy were able to find
refuge at a white business until the white print shop owner was able to safely escort
King and Abernathy out of town.  

On April 3, 1968, Loree Bailey, the co-owner of
the Lorain Motel received a call from a member of Kings inner circle in Atlanta
requesting that a specific room on the second floor be reserve for King.
(King had always stayed in a secure room on the 1st floor.) On April 4,
Loree Bailey overheard a member of Kings entourage asking him to come out of
his room and speak to a small group that had assemble in the parking lot.
Loree Bailey knew that King was in bed suffering from a severe headache but
this member of Kings inner circle insisted that King come out and talk to the
people. King reluctantly came out of his room to speak to the small crowd when
he was shoot. Loree knew the identity of the Judas who had Dr. King set-up
to be assassinated. There
were Negro masonic assassins  in Memphis the day of
the assassination
one from Forrest City Arkansas. Were these  the same assassins who attempted to kill King a week earlier?  According to testimony from eye witnesses from the King
family vs. US government trial, the gun smoke came from the bushes across from
the motel and not from the bathroom window at the boarding
house where Ray had stayed. 


Dr. ML King and Loree  Bailey were killed by Negro Masonic Assassins doing the dirty work of their white masonic slave masters.

Photographer Ernest Withers doubled as FBI informant

mlk.jpg
Was the Judas who betrayed King following orders from his Masonic White Master?
Loree
Bailey was killed, hung in the stairwell of her motel only hours after
the King assassination. The official cover-up statement said that Loree
Bailey had a stroke on April 4th and died a few days later.
Who
was the Judas who set-up King? Was King assassination a Masonic hit?
Was a beer distributorship part of the payoff?Steve Cokley said it best
in his video.

 

 

 

Assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. (4 April 1968)

 

 

Posted: April 4 2015 3:00 AM
martin_luther_king_jr_nywts 

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964World Telegram & Sun by Dick DeMarsico/Wikimedia Commons

 

The 47th
anniversary of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination should
inspire us all to reimagine this political revolutionary’s final act as a
statesman and civil rights leader.
In the afterglow of the March on Washington and the
Selma-to-Montgomery march, King became a pillar of fire, rejecting the
course of political moderation and social reform that had made him
palatable to white leaders and a hero to African Americans.
King’s final years
found him linking the struggle for racial justice to a wider crusade to
end war and poverty. Tellingly, his comprehensive approach, which
focused on changing America’s foreign and domestic policies as well as
hearts and minds, found him under attack by critics who claimed that he
was in over his head on the subject of Vietnam and foolish to break with
former ally President Lyndon B. Johnson.
The radical King formed an anti-war political alliance with black
power leader Stokely Carmichael. On April 15, 1967, in New York City, King and Carmichael
headlined the largest anti-war rally in American history to that date,
placing two of the era’s leading black political activists at the
forefront of a still-unpopular anti-war movement.
King had also publicly repudiated the war in Vietnam exactly one year
to the day before his death in a speech at Riverside Church in New York
City. His speech, “Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break the Silence,” announced
his formal break with both the Johnson Administration (he would never
visit the White House again) and political moderation.
Journalists and newspapers immediately attacked King for going beyond
his civil rights portfolio into the world of foreign policy and
international politics. Many publicly denounced him for having
irrevocably damaged the black freedom struggle by linking it to the
Vietnam War. King’s public approval ratings dropped precipitously among
whites and blacks for his uncompromising stance.
His final speech, in Memphis, Tenn., where he aided 1,000 striking
black sanitation workers, concluded with biblical references to having
seen the “promised land,” and is noteworthy for its rhetorical and political combativeness.
In words that would not sound out of place at contemporary #BlackLivesMatter protests, King asserted that “the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.

King’s political evolution remains unacknowledged by most of the
American public, leading to the irony of critics of the
#BlackLivesMatter movement asserting that contemporary protesters would
do well to follow in the footsteps of King and other heroes of the civil
rights era. Missing from such criticism is the reality of the later
King, the prophet who, after being recognized in his own lifetime, was
thoroughly disregarded by past allies, politicians and the public for
speaking truth to power in a manner that made the entire nation
uncomfortable.

At the end of his life, King asserted that racism, militarism and materialism represented the greatest threats to humanity that the world had ever seen. History has proved King’s words to be prophetic.
The massive protests that erupted last year in the wake of grand jury
decisions not to indict police officers in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten
Island, N.Y., represent, in both symbolic and substantive ways, a
continuation of the radical King’s political work.
Updating King’s “triple threat” means understanding the ways in which
the militarism of which he spoke has invaded our domestic sphere
through mass incarceration; how materialism promotes the largest income
and wealth gap between the rich and poor in American history; and how
institutional racism contours our current social, political and economic
systems.
King spent his whole life preaching an unusually eloquent message
that black lives mattered. His two most famous political sermons (at the
March on Washington in 1963 and in Montgomery, Ala., in 1965) were
broadcast by every major television network.
Yet there were many more radical speeches to be made, ones that
linked political revolution to radical policy changes that went beyond
the vote, that advocated economic redistribution and an end to war,
along with a “revolution in values
designed to transform the very foundations of American democracy. It is
this King whom #BlackLivesMatter demonstrations most accurately reflect
and honor, even as he’s the one our nation continues to ignore.

Peniel E. Joseph, a contributing editor at The Root, is founding director of the Center for the Study of Race and Democracy

 

Assassination Conspiracy Trial

Reprint from the King Center:

After four weeks of testimony and over 70 witnesses in a civil trial in
Memphis, Tennessee, twelve jurors reached a unanimous verdict on
December 8, 1999 after about an hour of deliberations that Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. was assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. In a
press statement held the following day in Atlanta, Mrs. Coretta Scott
King welcomed the verdict, saying , “There is abundant evidence of a
major high level conspiracy in the assassination of my husband, Martin
Luther King, Jr. And the civil court’s unanimous verdict has validated
our belief. I wholeheartedly applaud the verdict of the jury and I feel
that justice has been well served in their deliberations. This verdict
is not only a great victory for my family, but also a great victory for
America. It is a great victory for truth itself. It is important to know
that this was a SWIFT verdict, delivered after about an hour of jury
deliberation. The jury was clearly convinced by the extensive evidence
that was presented during the trial that, in addition to Mr. Jowers, the
conspiracy of the Mafia, local, state and federal government agencies,
were deeply involved in the assassination of my husband. The jury also
affirmed overwhelming evidence that identified someone else, not James
Earl Ray, as the shooter, and that Mr. Ray was set up to take the blame.
I want to make it clear that my family has no interest in retribution.
Instead, our sole concern has been that the full truth of the
assassination has been revealed and adjudicated in a court of law… My
husband once said, “The moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends
toward justice.” To-day, almost 32 years after my husband and the father
of my four children was assassinated, I feel that the jury’s verdict
clearly affirms this principle. With this faith, we can begin the 21st
century and the new millennium with a new spirit of hope and healing.”

Adobe PDF – View as html

Across from the Lorraine Motel was Fire Station no. 2. Who ordered … to the question did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King, your …

www.tucradio.org/Who_killed_MLK.pdf
In
the complaint filed by the King family, “King versus Jowers and Other
Unknown Co-Conspirators,” the only named defendant, Loyd Jowers, was
never their primary concern. As soon became evident in court, the real
defendants were the anonymous co-conspirators who stood in the shadows
behind Jowers, the former owner of a Memphis bar and grill. The Kings
and Pepper were in effect charging U.S. intelligence agencies —
particularly the FBI and Army intelligence — with organizing,
subcontracting, and covering up the assassination. Such a charge
guarantees almost insuperable obstacles to its being argued in a court
within the United States. Judicially it is an unwelcome beast.









I can
hardly believe the fact that, apart from the courtroom participants,
only Memphis TV reporter Wendell Stacy and I attended from beginning to
end this historic three-and-one-half week trial. Because of journalistic
neglect scarcely anyone else in this land of ours even knows what went
on in it. After critical testimony was given in the trial’s second week
before an almost empty gallery, Barbara Reis, U.S. correspondent for the
Lisbon daily Publico who was there several days, turned to me
and said, “Everything in the U.S. is the trial of the century. O.J.
Simpson’s trial was the trial of the century. Clinton’s trial was the
trial of the century. But this is the trial of the century, and who’s here?”




Many
qualifiers have been attached to the verdict in the King case. It came
not in criminal court but in civil court, where the standards of
evidence are much lower than in criminal court. (For example, the
plaintiffs used unsworn testimony made on audiotapes and videotapes.)
Furthermore, the King family as plaintiffs and Jowers as defendant
agreed ahead of time on much of the evidence.

But
these observations are not entirely to the point. Because of the
government’s “sovereign immunity,” it is not possible to put a U.S.
intelligence agency in the dock of a U.S. criminal court. Such a step
would require authorization by the federal government, which is not
likely to indict itself. Thanks to the conjunction of a civil court, an
independent judge with a sense of history, and a courageous family and
lawyer, a spiritual breakthrough to an unspeakable truth occurred in
Memphis. It allowed at least a few people (and hopefully many more
through them) to see the forces behind King’s martyrdom and to feel the
responsibility we all share for it through our government. In the end,
twelve jurors, six black and six white, said to everyone willing to
hear: guilty as charged.

We can also thank the unlikely figure of Loyd Jowers for providing a way into that truth.

Loyd
Jowers: When the frail, 73-year-old Jowers became ill after three days
in court, Judge Swearengen excused him. Jowers did not testify and said
through his attorney, Lewis Garrison, that he would plead the Fifth
Amendment if subpoenaed. His discretion was too late. In 1993 against
the advice of Garrison, Jowers had gone public. Prompted by William
Pepper’s progress as James Earl Ray’s attorney in uncovering Jowers’s
role in the assassination, Jowers told his story to Sam Donaldson on Prime Time Live.
He said he had been asked to help in the murder of King and was told
there would be a decoy (Ray) in the plot. He was also told that the
police “wouldn’t be there that night.”

In
that interview, the transcript of which was read to the jury in the
Memphis courtroom, Jowers said the man who asked him to help in the
murder was a Mafia-connected produce dealer named Frank Liberto.
Liberto, now deceased, had a courier deliver $100,000 for Jowers to hold
at his restaurant, Jim’s Grill, the back door of which opened onto the
dense bushes across from the Lorraine Motel. Jowers said he was visited
the day before the murder by a man named Raul, who brought a rifle in a
box.

As Mike Vinson reported in the March-April Probe,
other witnesses testified to their knowledge of Liberto’s involvement
in King’s slaying. Store-owner John McFerren said he arrived around 5:15
pm, April 4, 1968, for a produce pick-up at Frank Liberto’s warehouse
in Memphis. (King would be shot at 6:0l pm.) When he approached the
warehouse office, McFerren overheard Liberto on the phone inside saying,
“Shoot the son-of-a-bitch on the balcony.”

Café-owner
Lavada Addison, a friend of Liberto’s in the late 1970’s, testified
that Liberto had told her he “had Martin Luther King killed.” Addison’s
son, Nathan Whitlock, said when he learned of this conversation he asked
Liberto point-blank if he had killed King.

“[Liberto]
said, `I didn’t kill the nigger but I had it done.’ I said, `What about
that other son-of-a-bitch taking credit for it?’ He says, `Ahh, he
wasn’t nothing but a troublemaker from Missouri. He was a front man . . .
a setup man.'”

The
jury also heard a tape recording of a two-hour-long confession Jowers
made at a fall 1998 meeting with Martin Luther King’s son Dexter and
former UN Ambassador Andrew Young. On the tape Jowers says that meetings
to plan the assassination occurred at Jim’s Grill. He said the planners
included undercover Memphis Police Department officer Marrell
McCollough (who now works for the Central Intelligence Agency, and who
is referenced in the trial transcript as Merrell McCullough), MPD
Lieutentant Earl Clark (who died in 1987), a third police officer, and
two men Jowers did not know but thought were federal agents.

Young,
who witnessed the assassination, can be heard on the tape identifying
McCollough as the man kneeling beside King’s body on the balcony in a
famous photograph. According to witness Colby Vernon Smith, McCollough
had infiltrated a Memphis community organizing group, the Invaders,
which was working with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. In
his trial testimony Young said the MPD intelligence agent was “the guy
who ran up [the balcony stairs] with us to see Martin.”

Jowers
says on the tape that right after the shot was fired he received a
smoking rifle at the rear door of Jim’s Grill from Clark. He broke the
rifle down into two pieces and wrapped it in a tablecloth. Raul picked
it up the next day. Jowers said he didn’t actually see who fired the
shot that killed King, but thought it was Clark, the MPD’s best
marksman.

Young
testified that his impression from the 1998 meeting was that the aging,
ailing Jowers “wanted to get right with God before he died, wanted to
confess it and be free of it.” Jowers denied, however, that he knew the
plot’s purpose was to kill King — a claim that seemed implausible to
Dexter King and Young. Jowers has continued to fear jail, and he had
directed Garrison to defend him on the grounds that he didn’t know the
target of the plot was King. But his interview with Donaldson suggests
he was not naïve on this point.

Loyd Jowers’s story opened the door to testimony that explored the systemic nature of the murder in seven other basic areas:

background to the assassination;
local conspiracy;

the crime scene;
the rifle;
Raul;
broader conspiracy;

cover-up.

James Lawson, King’s friend and an organizer with SCLC,
testified that King’s stands on Vietnam and the Poor People’s Campaign
had created enemies in Washington. He said King’s speech at New York’s Riverside Church
on April 4, 1967, which condemned the Vietnam War and identified the
U.S. government as “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world
today,” provoked intense hostility in the White House and FBI.

Hatred
and fear of King deepened, Lawson said, in response to his plan to hold
the Poor People’s Campaign in Washington, D.C. King wanted to shut down
the nation’s capital in the spring of 1968 through massive civil
disobedience until the government agreed to abolish poverty. King saw
the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike as the beginning of a nonviolent
revolution that would redistribute income.

“I have no doubt,” Lawson said, “that the government viewed all this seriously enough to plan his assassination.”

Coretta
Scott King testified that her husband had to return to Memphis in early
April 1968 because of a violent demonstration there for which he had
been blamed. Moments after King arrived in Memphis to join the
sanitation workers’ march there on March 28, 1968, the scene turned
violent — subverted by government provocateurs, Lawson said. Thus King
had to return to Memphis on April 3 and prepare for a truly nonviolent
march, Mrs. King said, to prove SCLC could still carry out a nonviolent
campaign in Washington.


On the night of April 3, 1968, Floyd E. Newsum, a black
firefighter and civil rights activist, heard King’s “I’ve Been to the
Mountain Top” speech at the Mason Temple in Memphis. On his return home,
Newsum returned a phone call from his lieutenant and was told he had
been temporarily transferred, effective April 4, from Fire Station 2,
located across the street from the Lorraine Motel, to Fire Station 31.
Newsum testified that he was not needed at the new station. However, he
was needed at his old station because his departure left it “out of
service unless somebody else was detailed to my company in my stead.”
After making many queries, Newsum was eventually told he had been
transferred by request of the police department.

The
only other black firefighter at Fire Station 2, Norvell E. Wallace,
testified that he, too, received orders from his superior officer on the
night of April 3 for a temporary transfer to a fire station far removed
from the Lorraine Motel. He was later told vaguely that he had been
threatened.

Wallace
guessed it was because “I was putting out fires,” he told the jury with
a smile. Asked if he ever received a satisfactory explanation for his
transfer Wallace answered, “No. Never did. Not to this day.”

In the March-April Probe,
Mike Vinson described the similar removal of Ed Redditt, a black
Memphis Police Department detective, from his Fire Station 2
surveillance post two hours before King’s murder.

To
understand the Redditt incident, it is important to note that it was
Redditt himself who initiated his watch on Dr. King from the firehouse
across the street. Redditt testified that when King’s party and the
police accompanying them (including Detective Redditt) arrived from the
airport at the Lorraine Motel on April 3, he “noticed something that was
unusual.” When Inspector Don Smith, who was in charge of security, told
Redditt he could leave, Redditt “noticed there was nobody else there.
In the past when we were assigned to Dr. King [when Redditt had been
part of a black security team for King], we stayed with him. I saw
nobody with him. So I went across the street and asked the Fire
Department could we come in and observe from the rear, which we did.”
Given Redditt’s concerns for King’s safety, his particular watch on the
Lorraine may not have fit into others’ plans.

Redditt
testified that late in the afternoon of April 4, MPD Intelligence
Officer Eli Arkin came to Fire Station 2 to take him to Central
Headquarters. There Police and Fire Director Frank Holloman (formerly an
FBI agent for 25 years, seven of them as supervisor of J. Edgar
Hoover’s office) ordered Redditt home, against his wishes and
accompanied by Arkin. The reason Holloman gave Redditt for his removal
from the King watch Redditt had initiated the day before was that his
life had been threatened.

In
an interview after the trial, Redditt told me the story of how his 1978
testimony on this question before the House Select Committee on
Assassinations was part of a heavily pressured cover-up. “It was a
farce,” he said, “a total farce.”

Redditt
had been subpoenaed by the HSCA to testify, as he came to realize, not
so much on his strange removal from Fire Station 2 as the fact that he
had spoken about it openly to writers and researchers. The HSCA focused
narrowly on the discrepancy between Redditt’s surveiling King (as he was
doing) and acting as security (an impression Redditt had given writers
interviewing him) in order to discredit the story of his removal.
Redditt was first grilled by the committee for eight straight hours in a
closed executive session. After a day of hostile questioning, Redditt
finally said late in the afternoon, “I came here as a friend of the
investigation, not as an enemy of the investigation. You don’t want to
deal with the truth.” He told the committee angrily that if the secret
purpose behind the King conspiracy was, like the JFK conspiracy, “to
protect the country, just tell the American people! They’ll be happy!
And quit fooling the folks and trying to pull the wool over their eyes.”

When
the closed hearing was over, Redditt received a warning call from a
friend in the White House who said, “Man, your life isn’t worth a wooden
nickel.”

Redditt
said his public testimony the next day “was a set-up”: “The bottom line
on that one was that Senator Baker decided that I wouldn’t go into this
open hearing without an attorney. When the lawyer and I arrived at the
hearing, we were ushered right back out across town to the executive
director in charge of the investigation. [We] looked through a book, to
look at the questions and answers.”

“So
in essence what they were saying was: `This is what you’re going to
answer to, and this is how you’re going to answer.’ It was all made up
— all designed, questions and answers, what to say and what not to say.
A total farce.”

Former
MPD Captain Jerry Williams followed Redditt to the witness stand.
Williams had been responsible for forming a special security unit of
black officers whenever King came to Memphis (the unit Redditt had
served on earlier). Williams took pride in providing the best possible
protection for Dr. King, which included, he said, advising him never to
stay at the Lorraine “because we couldn’t furnish proper security
there.” (“It was just an open view,” he explained to me later, “Anybody
could . . . There was no protection at all. To me that was a set-up from
the very beginning.”)



Hatred and
fear of King deepened, Lawson said, in response to his plan to hold the
Poor People’s Campaign in Washington, D.C. King wanted to shut down the
nation’s capital in the spring of 1968 through massive civil
disobedience until the government agreed to abolish poverty. King saw
the Memphis sanitation workers’ strike as the beginning of a nonviolent
revolution that would redistribute income. “I have no doubt,” Lawson
said, “that the government viewed all this seriously enough to plan his
assassination.”

For
King’s April 3, 1968 arrival, however, Williams was for some reason not
asked to form the special black bodyguard. He was told years later by
his inspector (a man whom Jowers identified as a participant in the
planning meetings at Jim’s Grill) that the change occurred because
somebody in King’s entourage had asked specifically for no black
security officers. Williams told the jury he was bothered by the
omission “even to this day.”

Leon
Cohen, a retired New York City police officer, testified that in 1968
he had become friendly with the Lorraine Motel’s owner and manager,
Walter Bailey (now deceased). On the morning after King’s murder, Cohen
spoke with a visibly upset Bailey outside his office at the Lorraine.
Bailey told Cohen about a strange request that had forced him to change
King’s room to the location where he was shot.

Bailey
explained that the night before King’s arrival he had received a call
“from a member of Dr. King’s group in Atlanta.” The caller (whom Bailey
said he knew but referred to only by the pronoun “he”) wanted the motel
owner to change King’s room. Bailey said he was adamantly opposed to
moving King, as instructed, from an inner court room behind the motel
office (which had better security) to an outside balcony room exposed to
public view.

“If they had listened to me,” Bailey said, “this wouldn’t have happened.”

Philip Melanson, author of the Martin Luther King Assassination (1991),
described his investigation into the April 4 pullback of four tactical
police units that had been patrolling the immediate vicinity of the
Lorraine Motel. Melanson asked MPD Inspector Sam Evans (now deceased),
commander of the units, why they were pulled back the morning of April
4, in effect making an assassin’s escape much easier. Evans said he gave
the order at the request of a local pastor connected with King’s party,
Rev. Samuel Kyles. (Melanson wrote in his book that Kyles emphatically
denied making any such request.) Melanson said the idea that MPD
security would be determined at such a time by a local pastor’s request
made no sense whatsoever.

Olivia
Catling lived a block away from the Lorraine on Mulberry Street.
Catling had planned to walk down the street the evening of April 4 in
the hope of catching a glimpse of King at the motel. She testified that
when she heard the shot a little after six o’clock, she said, “Oh, my
God, Dr. King is at that hotel!” She ran with her two children to the
corner of Mulberry and Huling streets, just north of the Lorraine. She
saw a man in a checkered shirt come running out of the alley beside a
building across from the Lorraine. The man jumped into a green 1965
Chevrolet just as a police car drove up behind him. He gunned the
Chevrolet around the corner and up Mulberry past Catling’s house moving
her to exclaim, “It’s going to take us six months to pay for the rubber
he’s burning up!!” The police, she said, ignored the man and blocked off
a street, leaving his car free to go the opposite way.

I
visited Catling in her home, and she told me the man she had seen
running was not James Earl Ray. “I will go into my grave saying that was
not Ray, because the gentleman I saw was heavier than Ray.”

“The
police,” she told me, “asked not one neighbor [around the Lorraine],
`What did you see?’ Thirty-one years went by. Nobody came and asked one
question. I often thought about that. I even had nightmares over that,
because they never said anything. How did they let him get away?”

Catling
also testified that from her vantage point on the corner of Mulberry
and Huling she could see a fireman standing alone across from the motel
when the police drove up. She heard him say to the police, “The shot
came from that clump of bushes,” indicating the heavily overgrown brushy
area facing the Lorraine and adjacent to Fire Station 2.


Earl Caldwell was a New York Times reporter in his room
at the Lorraine Motel the evening of April 4. In videotaped testimony,
Caldwell said he heard what he thought was a bomb blast at 6:00 p.m.
When he ran to the door and looked out, he saw a man crouched in the
heavy part of the bushes across the street. The man was looking over at
the Lorraine’s balcony. Caldwell wrote an article about the figure in
the bushes but was never questioned about what he had seen by any
authorities.

In
a 1993 affidavit from former SCLC official James Orange that was read
into the record, Orange said that on April 4, “James Bevel and I were
driven around by Marrell McCollough, a person who at that time we knew
to be a member of the Invaders, a local community organizing group, and
who we subsequently learned was an undercover agent for the Memphis
Police Department and who now works for the Central Intelligence Agency .
. . [After the shot, when Orange saw Dr. King’s leg dangling over the
balcony], I looked back and saw the smoke. It couldn’t have been more
than five to ten seconds. The smoke came out of the brush area on the
opposite side of the street from the Lorraine Motel. I saw it rise up
from the bushes over there. From that day to this time I have never had
any doubt that the fatal shot, the bullet which ended Dr. King’s life,
was fired by a sniper concealed in the brush area behind the derelict
buildings.

“I
also remember then turning my attention back to the balcony and seeing
Marrell McCollough up on the balcony kneeling over Dr. King, looking as
though he was checking Dr. King for life signs.

“I
also noticed, quite early the next morning around 8 or 9 o’clock, that
all of the bushes and brush on the hill were cut down and cleaned up. It
was as though the entire area of the bushes from behind the rooming
house had been cleared . . .

“I will always remember the puff of white smoke and the cut brush and having never been given a satisfactory explanation.

“When I tried to tell the police at the scene as best I saw they told me to be quiet and to get out of the way.

“I was never interviewed or asked what I saw by any law enforcement authority in all of the time since 1968.”

Also
read into the record were depositions made by Solomon Jones to the FBI
and to the Memphis police. Jones was King’s chauffeur in Memphis. The
FBI document, dated April 13, 1968, says that after King was shot, when
Jones looked across Mulberry Street into the brushy area, “he got a
quick glimpse of a person with his back toward Mulberry Street. . . .
This person was moving rather fast, and he recalls that he believed he
was wearing some sort of light-colored jacket with some sort of a hood
or parka.” In his 11:30 p.m., April 4, 1968 police interview, Jones
provides the same basic information concerning a person leaving the
brushy area hurriedly.

Maynard
Stiles, who in 1968 was a senior official in the Memphis Sanitation
Department, confirmed in his testimony that the bushes near the rooming
house were cut down. At about 7:00 a.m. on April 5, Stiles told the
jury, he received a call from MPD Inspector Sam Evans “requesting
assistance in clearing brush and debris from a vacant lot in the
vicinity of the assassination.” Stiles called another superintendent of
sanitation, who assembled a crew. “They went to that site, and under the
direction of the police department, whoever was in charge there,
proceeded with the clean-up in a slow, methodical, meticulous manner.”
Stiles identified the site as an area overgrown with brush and bushes
across from the Lorraine Motel.

Within
hours of King’s assassination, the crime scene that witnesses were
identifying to the Memphis police as a cover for the shooter had been
sanitized by orders of the police.


Probe readers will again recall from Mike Vinson’s
article three key witnesses in the Memphis trial who offered evidence
counter to James Earl Ray’s rifle being the murder weapon:
Judge Joe Brown;
Judge Arthur Hanes Jr.;
William Hamblin.

Judge Joe Brown, who had presided over two years of hearings
on the rifle, testified that “67% of the bullets from my tests did not
match the Ray rifle.” He added that the unfired bullets found wrapped
with it in a blanket were metallurgically different from the bullet
taken from King’s body, and therefore were from a different lot of
ammunition. And because the rifle’s scope had not been sited, Brown
said, “this weapon literally could not have hit the broad side of a
barn.” Holding up the 30.06 Remington 760 Gamemaster rifle, Judge Brown
told the jury, “It is my opinion that this is not the murder weapon.”
Circuit Court Judge Arthur Hanes Jr. of Birmingham, Alabama,
had been Ray’s attorney in 1968. (On the eve of his trial, Ray replaced
Hanes and his father, Arthur Hanes Sr., by Percy Foreman, a decision Ray
told the Haneses one week later was the biggest mistake of his life.)
Hanes testified that in the summer of 1968 he interviewed Guy Canipe,
owner of the Canipe Amusement Company. Canipe was a witness to the
dropping in his doorway of a bundle that held a trove of James Earl Ray
memorabilia, including the rifle, unfired bullets, and a radio with
Ray’s prison identification number on it. This dropped bundle, heaven
(or otherwise) sent for the State’s case against Ray, can be accepted as
credible evidence through a willing suspension of disbelief. As Judge
Hanes summarized the State’s lone-assassin theory (with reference to an
exhibit depicting the scene), “James Earl Ray had fired the shot from
the bathroom on that second floor, come down that hallway into his room
and carefully packed that box, tied it up, then had proceeded across the
walkway the length of the building to the back where that stair from
that door came up, had come down the stairs out the door, placed the
Browning box containing the rifle and the radio there in the Canipe
entryway.” Then Ray presumably got in his car seconds before the
police’s arrival, driving from downtown Memphis to Atlanta unchallenged
in his white Mustang.

Concerning
his interview with the witness who was the cornerstone of this theory,
Judge Hanes told the jury that Guy Canipe (now deceased) provided
“terrific evidence”: “He said that the package was dropped in his
doorway by a man headed south down Main Street on foot, and that this
happened at about ten minutes before the shot was fired [emphasis added].”

Hanes
thought Canipe’s witnessing the bundle-dropping ten minutes before the
shot was very credible for another reason. It so happened (as confirmed
by Philip Melanson’s research) that at 6:00 p.m. one of the MPD tactical
units that had been withdrawn earlier by Inspector Evans, TACT 10, had
returned briefly to the area with its 16 officers for a rest break at
Fire Station 2. Thus, as Hanes testified, with the firehouse brimming
with police, some already watching King across the street, “when they
saw Dr. King go down, the fire house erupted like a beehive . . . In
addition to the time involved [in Ray’s presumed odyssey from the
bathroom to the car], it was circumstantially almost impossible to
believe that somebody had been able to throw that [rifle] down and
leaave right in the face of that erupting fire station.”

When
I spoke with Judge Hanes after the trial about the startling evidence
he had received from Canipe, he commented, “That’s what I’ve been saying
for 30 years.”
William Hamblin testified not about the rifle thrown down in
the Canipe doorway but rather the smoking rifle Loyd Jowers said he
received at his back door from Earl Clark right after the shooting.
Hamblin recounted a story he was told many times by his friend James
McCraw, who had died.

James
McCraw is already well-known to researchers as the taxi driver who
arrived at the rooming house to pick up Charlie Stephens shortly before
6:00 p.m. on April 4. In a deposition read earlier to the jury, McCraw
said he found Stephens in his room lying on his bed too drunk to get up,
so McCraw turned out the light and left without him — minutes before
Stephens, according to the State, identified Ray in profile passing down
the hall from the bathroom. McCraw also said the bathroom door next to
Stephen’s room was standing wide open, and there was no one in the
bathroom — where again, according to the State, Ray was then balancing
on the tub, about to squeeze the trigger.

William
Hamblin told the jury that he and fellow cab-driver McCraw were close
friends for about 25 years. Hamblin said he probably heard McCraw tell
the same rifle story 50 times, but only when McCraw had been drinking
and had his defenses down.

In
that story, McCraw said that Loyd Jowers had given him the rifle right
after the shooting. According to Hamblin, “Jowers told him to get the
[rifle] and get it out of here now. [McCraw] said that he grabbed his
beer and snatched it out. He had the rifle rolled up in an oil cloth,
and he leapt out the door and did away with it.” McCraw told Hamblin he
threw the rifle off a bridge into the Mississippi River.

Hamblin
said McCraw never revealed publicly what he knew of the rifle because,
like Jowers, he was afraid of being indicted: “He really wanted to come
out with it, but he was involved in it. And he couldn’t really tell the
truth.”

William
Pepper accepted Hamblin’s testimony about McCraw’s disposal of the
rifle over Jowers’s claim to Dexter King that he gave the rifle to Raul.
Pepper said in his closing argument that the actual murder weapon had
been lying “at the bottom of the Mississippi River for over thirty-one
years.”



Maynard
Stiles, who in 1968 was a senior official in the Memphis Sanitation
Department, confirmed in his testimony that the bushes near the rooming
house were cut down. At about 7:00 a.m. on April 5, Stiles told the
jury, he received a call from MPD Inspector Sam Evans “requesting
assistance in clearing brush and debris from a vacant lot in the
vicinity of the assassination. . . . They went to that site, and under
the direction of the police department, whoever was in charge there,
proceeded with the clean-up in a slow, methodical, meticulous manner.” .
. . Within hours of King’s assassination, the crime scene that
witnesses were identifying to the Memphis police as a cover for the
shooter had been sanitized by orders of the police.

One of the most significant developments in the Memphis trial
was the emergence of the mysterious Raul through the testimony of a
series of witnesses.

In
a 1995 deposition by James Earl Ray that was read to the jury, Ray told
of meeting Raul in Montreal in the summer of 1967, three months after
Ray had escaped from a Missouri prison. According to Ray, Raul guided
Ray’s movements, gave him money for the Mustang car and the rifle, and
used both to set him up in Memphis.

Andrew
Young and Dexter King described their meeting with Jowers and Pepper at
which Pepper had shown Jowers a spread of photographs, and Jowers
picked out one as the person named Raul who brought him the rifle to
hold at Jim’s Grill. Pepper displayed the same spread of photos in
court, and Young and King pointed out the photo Jowers had identified as
Raul. (Private investigator John Billings said in separate testimony
that this picture was a passport photograph from 1961, when Raul had
immigrated from Portugal to the U.S.)

The
additional witnesses who identified the photo as Raul’s included:
British merchant seaman Sidney Carthew, who in a videotaped deposition
from England said he had met Raul (who offered to sell him guns) and a
man he thinks was Ray (who wanted to be smuggled onto his ship) in
Montreal in the summer of 1967; Glenda and Roy Grabow, who recognized
Raul as a gunrunner they knew in Houston in the `60s and `70s and who
told Glenda in a rage that he had killed Martin Luther King; Royce
Wilburn, Glenda’s brother, who also knew Raul in Houston; and British
television producer Jack Saltman, who had obtained the passport photo
and showed it to Ray in prison, who identified it as the photo of the
person who had guided him.

Saltman
and Pepper, working on independent investigations, located Raul in
1995. He was living quietly with his family in the northeastern U.S. It
was there in 1997 that journalist Barbara Reis of the Lisbon Publico,
working on a story about Raul, spoke with a member of his family. Reis
testified that she had spoken in Portuguese to a woman in Raul’s family
who, after first denying any connection to Ray’s Raul, said “they” had
visited them. “Who?” Reis asked. “The government,” said the woman. She
said government agents had visited them three times over a three-year
period. The government, she said, was watching over them and monitoring
their phone calls. The woman took comfort and satisfaction in the fact
that her family (so she believed) was being protected by the government.

In
his closing argument Pepper said of Raul: “Now, as I understand it, the
defense had invited Raul to appear here. He is outside this
jurisdiction, so a subpoena would be futile. But he was asked to appear
here. In earlier proceedings there were attempts to depose him, and he
resisted them. So he has not attempted to come forward at all and tell
his side of the story or to defend himself.”

Carthel Weeden, captain of Fire Station 2 in 1968, testified
that he was on duty the morning of April 4 when two U.S. Army officers
approached him. The officers said they wanted a lookout for the Lorraine
Motel. Weeden said they carried briefcases and indicated they had
cameras. Weeden showed the officers to the roof of the fire station. He
left them at the edge of its northeast corner behind a parapet wall.
From there the Army officers had a bird’s-eye view of Dr. King’s balcony
doorway and could also look down on the brushy area adjacent to the
fire station.

The
testimony of writer Douglas Valentine filled in the background of the
men Carthel Weeden had taken up to the roof of Fire Station 2. While
Valentine was researching his book The Phoenix Program (1990), on
the CIA’s notorious counterintelligence program against Vietnamese
villagers, he talked with veterans in military intelligence who had been
re-deployed from the Vietnam War to the sixties antiwar movement. They
told him that in 1968 the Army’s 111th Military Intelligence Group kept
Martin Luther King under 24-hour-a-day surveillance. Its agents were in
Memphis April 4. As Valentine wrote in The Phoenix Program, they “reportedly watched and took photos while King’s assassin moved into position, took aim, fired, and walked away.”

Testimony
which juror David Morphy later described as “awesome” was that of
former CIA operative Jack Terrell, a whistle-blower in the Iran-Contra
scandal. Terrell, who was dying of liver cancer in Florida, testified by
videotape that his close friend J.D. Hill had confessed to him that he
had been a member of an Army sniper team in Memphis assigned to shoot
“an unknown target” on April 4. After training for a triangular
shooting, the snipers were on their way into Memphis to take up
positions in a watertower and two buildings when their mission was
suddenly cancelled. Hill said he realized, when he learned of King’s
assassination the next day, that the team must have been part of a
contingency plan to kill King if another shooter failed.

Terrell
said J.D. Hill was shot to death. His wife was charged with shooting
Hill (in response to his drinking), but she was not indicted. From the
details of Hill’s death, Terrell thought the story about Hill’s wife
shooting him was a cover, and that his friend had been assassinated. In
an interview, Terrell said the CIA’s heavy censorship of his book Disposable Patriot (1992) included changing the paragraph on J.D. Hill’s death, so that it read as if Terrell thought Hill’s wife was responsible.


Walter Fauntroy, Dr. King’s colleague and a 20-year member of
Congress, chaired the subcommittee of the 1976-78 House Select Committee
on Assassinations that investigated King’s assassination. Fauntroy
testified in Memphis that in the course of the HSCA investigation “it
was apparent that we were dealing with very sophisticated forces.” He
discovered electronic bugs on his phone and TV set. When Richard
Sprague, HSCA’s first chief investigator, said he would make available
all CIA, FBI, and military intelligence records, he became a focus of
controversy. Sprague was forced to resign. His successor made no demands
on U.S. intelligence agencies. Such pressures contributed to the
subcommittee’s ending its investigation, as Fauntroy said, “without
having thoroughly investigated all of the evidence that was apparent.”
Its formal conclusion was that Ray assassinated King, that he probably
had help, and that the government was not involved.

When
I interviewed Fauntroy in a van on his way back to the Memphis Airport,
I asked about the implications of his statements in an April 4, 1997 Atlanta Constitution
article. The article said Fauntroy now believed “Ray did not fire the
shot that killed King and was part of a larger conspiracy that possibly
involved federal law enforcement agencies, ” and added: “Fauntroy said
he kept silent about his suspicions because of fear for himself and his
family.”

Fauntroy
told me that when he left Congress in 1991 he had the opportunity to
read through his files on the King assassination, including raw
materials that he’d never seen before. Among them was information from
J. Edgar Hoover’s logs. There he learned that in the three weeks before
King’s murder the FBI chief held a series of meetings with “persons
involved with the CIA and military intelligence in the Phoenix operation
in Southeast Asia.” Why? Fauntroy also discovered there had been Green
Berets and military intelligence agents in Memphis when King was killed.
“What were they doing there?” he asked.

When
Fauntroy had talked about his decision to write a book about what he’d
“uncovered since the assassination committee closed down,” he was
promptly investigated and charged by the Justice Department with having
violated his financial reports as a member of Congress. His lawyer told
him that he could not understand why the Justice Department would bring
up a charge on the technicality of one misdated check. Fauntroy said he
interpreted the Justice Department’s action to mean: “Look, we’ll get
you on something if you continue this way. . . . I just thought: I’ll
tell them I won’t go and finish the book, because it’s surely not worth
it.”

At
the conclusion of his trial testimony, Fauntroy also spoke about his
fear of an FBI attempt to kill James Earl Ray when he escaped from
Tennessee’s Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary in June 1977. Congressman
Fauntroy had heard reports about an FBI SWAT team having been sent into
the area around the prison to shoot Ray and prevent his testifying at
the HSCA hearings. Fauntroy asked HSCA chair Louis Stokes to alert
Tennesssee Governor Ray Blanton to the danger to the HSCA’s star witness
and Blanton’s most famous prisoner. When Stokes did, Blanton called off
the FBI SWAT team, Ray was caught safely by local authorities, and in
Fauntroy’s words, “we all breathed a sigh of relief.”

The
Memphis jury also learned how a 1993-98 Tennessee State investigation
into the King assassination was, if not a cover-up, then an inquiry
noteworthy for its lack of witnesses. Lewis Garrison had subpoenaed the
head of the investigation, Mark Glankler, in an effort to discover
evidence helpful to Jowers’s defense. William Pepper then cross-examined
Glankler on the witnesses he had interviewed in his investigation:


Q. (BY MR. PEPPER) Mr. Glankler, did you interview Mr. Maynard Stiles, whose testifying —

A. I know the name, Counselor, but I don’t think I took a statement from Maynard Stiles or interviewed him. I don’t think I did.

Q. Did you ever interview Mr. Floyd Newsum?

A. Can you help me with what he does?

Q. Yes. He was a black fireman who was assigned to Station Number 2.

A. I don’t recall the name, Counsel.

Q. All right. Ever interview Mr. Norvell Wallace?

A. I don’t recall that name offhand either.

Q. Ever interview Captain Jerry Williams?

A. Fireman also?

Q. Jerry Williams was a policeman. He was a homicide detective.

A. No, sir, I don’t — I really don’t recall that name.

Q. Fair enough. Did you ever interview Mr. Charles Hurley, a private citizen?

A. Does he have a wife named Peggy?

Q. Yes.

A. I think we did talk with a Peggy Hurley or attempted to.

Q. Did you interview a Mr. Leon Cohen?

A. I just don’t recall without —

Q. Did you ever interview Mr. James McCraw?

A. I believe we did. He talks with a device?

Q. Yes, the voice box..

A. Yes, okay. I believe we did talk to him, yes, sir.

Q. How about Mrs. Olivia Catling, who has testified —

A. I’m sorry, the last name again.

Q. Catling, C A T L I N G.

A. No, sir, that name doesn’t —

Q. Did you ever interview Ambassador Andrew Young?

A. No, sir.

Q. You didn’t?

A. No, sir, not that I recall.

Q. Did you ever interview Judge Arthur Hanes?

A. No, sir.
So
it goes — downhill. The above is Glankler’s high-water mark: He got
two out of the first ten (if one counts Charles and Peggy Hurley as a
yes). Pepper questioned Glankler about 25 key witnesses. The jury was
familiar with all of them from prior testimony in the trial. Glankler
could recall his office interviewing a total of three. At the
twenty-fifth-named witness, Earl Caldwell, Pepper finally let Glankler
go:


Q. Did you ever interview a former New York Times journalist, a New York Daily News correspondent named Earl Caldwell?

A. Earl Caldwell? Not that I recall.

Q. You never interviewed him in the course of your investigation?

A. I just don’t recall that name.

MR. PEPPER: I have no further comments about this investigation — no further questions for this investigator.



Pepper
went a step beyond saying government agencies were responsible for the
assassination. To whom in turn were those murderous agencies
responsible? Not so much to government officials per se, Pepper
asserted, as to the economic powerholders they represented who stood in
the even deeper shadows behind the FBI, Army Intelligence, and their
affiliates in covert action. By 1968, Pepper told the jury, “And today
it is much worse in my view” — “the decision-making processes in the
United States were the representatives, the footsoldiers of the very
economic interests that were going to suffer as a result of these times
of changes [being actived by King].”

To say that
U.S. government agencies killed Martin Luther King on the verge of the
Poor People’s Campaign is a way into the deeper truth that the economic
powers that be (which dictate the policies of those agencies) killed
him. In the Memphis prelude to the Washington campaign, King posed a
threat to those powers of a non-violent revolutionary force. Just how
determined they were to stop him before he reached Washington was
revealed in the trial by the size and complexity of the plot to kill
him.

The vision behind the trial

In his sprawling, brilliant work that underlies the trial, Orders to Kill
(1995), William Pepper introduced readers to most of the 70 witnesses
who took the stand in Memphis or were cited by deposition, tape, and
other witnesses. To keep this article from reading like either an
encyclopedia or a Dostoevsky novel, I have highlighted only a few.
(Thanks to the King Center, the full trial trascript is available online at http://www.thekingcenter.com/tkc/trial.html.)
What Pepper’s work has accomplished in print and in court can be
measured by the intensity of the media attacks on him, shades of Jim
Garrison. But even Garrison did not gain the support of the Kennedy
family (in his case) or achieve a guilty verdict. The Memphis trial has
opened wide a door to our assassination politics. Anyone who walks
through it is faced by an either/or: to declare naked either the empire
or oneself.

The
King family has chosen the former. The vision behind the trial is at
least as much theirs as it is William Pepper’s, for ultimately it is the
vision of Martin Luther King Jr. Coretta King explained to the jury her
family’s purpose in pursuing the lawsuit against Jowers: “This is not
about money. We’re concerned about the truth, having the truth come out
in a court of law so that it can be documented for all. I’ve always felt
that somehow the truth would be known, and I hoped that I would live to
see it. It is important I think for the sake of healing so many people
— my family, other people, the nation.”

Dexter King, the plaintiffs’ final witness, said the trial was about why his
father had been killed: “From a holistic side, in terms of the people,
in terms of the masses, yes, it has to be dealt with because it is not
about who killed Martin Luther King Jr., my father. It is not
necessarily about all of those details. It is about: Why was he
killed? Because if you answer the why, you will understand the same
things are still happening. Until we address that, we’re all in trouble.
Because if it could happen to him, if it can happen to this family, it
can happen to anybody.

“It
is so amazing for me that as soon as this issue of potential
involvement of the federal government came up, all of a sudden the media
just went totally negative against the family. I couldn’t understand
that. I kept asking my mother, `What is going on?’

“She
reminded me. She said, `Dexter, your dad and I have lived through this
once already. You have to understand that when you take a stand against
the establishment, first, you will be attacked. There is an attempt to
discredit. Second, [an attempt] to try and character-assassinate. And
third, ultimately physical termination or assassination.’

“Now
the truth of the matter is if my father had stopped and not spoken out,
if he had just somehow compromised, he would probably still be here
with us today. But the minute you start talking about redistribution of
wealth and stopping a major conflict, which also has economic
ramifications . . . “

In
his closing argument, William Pepper identified economic power as the
root reason for King’s assassination: “When Martin King opposed the war,
when he rallied people to oppose the war, he was threatening the bottom
lines of some of the largest defense contractors in this country. This
was about money. He was threatening the weapons industry, the hardware,
the armaments industries, that would all lose as a result of the end of
the war.

“The
second aspect of his work that also dealt with money that caused a
great deal of consternation in the circles of power in this land had to
do with his commitment to take a massive group of people to Washington. .
. . Now he began to talk about a redistribution of wealth, in this the
wealthiest country in the world.”

Pepper
went a step beyond saying government agencies were responsible for the
assassination. To whom in turn were those murderous agencies
responsible? Not so much to government officials per se, Pepper
asserted, as to the economic powerholders they represented who stood in
the even deeper shadows behind the FBI, Army Intelligence, and their
affiliates in covert action. By 1968, Pepper told the jury, “And today
it is much worse in my view” — “the decision-making processes in the
United States were the representatives, the footsoldiers of the very
economic interests that were going to suffer as a result of these times
of changes [being actived by King].”

To
say that U.S. government agencies killed Martin Luther King on the
verge of the Poor People’s Campaign is a way into the deeper truth that
the economic powers that be (which dictate the policies of those
agencies) killed him. In the Memphis prelude to the Washington campaign,
King posed a threat to those powers of a non-violent revolutionary
force. Just how determined they were to stop him before he reached
Washington was revealed in the trial by the size and complexity of the
plot to kill him.

Dexter
King testified to the truth of his father’s death with transforming
clarity: “If what you are saying goes against what certain people
believe you should be saying, you will be dealt with — maybe not the
way you are dealt with in China, which is overtly. But you will be dealt
with covertly. The result is the same.

“We
are talking about a political assassination in modern-day times, a
domestic political assassination. Of course, it is ironic, but I was
watching a special on the CIA. They say, `Yes, we’ve participated in
assassinations abroad but, no, we could never do anything like that
domestically.’ Well, I don’t know. . . . Whether you call it CIA or some
other innocuous acronym or agency, killing is killing.

“The
issue becomes: What do we do about this? Do we endorse a policy in this
country, in this life, that says if we don’t agree with someone, the
only means to deal with it is through elimination and termination? I
think my father taught us the opposite, that you can overcome without
violence.

“We’re
not in this to make heads roll. We’re in this to use the teachings that
my father taught us in terms of nonviolent reconciliation. It works. We
know that it works. So we’re not looking to put people in prison. What
we’re looking to do is get the truth out so that this nation can learn
and know officially. If the family of the victim, if we’re saying we’re
willing to forgive and embark upon a process that allows for
reconciliation, why can’t others?”

When
pressed by Pepper to name a specific amount of damages for the death of
his father, Dexter King said, “One hundred dollars.”

The Verdict

The
jury returned with a verdict after two and one-half hours. Judge James
E. Swearengen of Shelby County Circuit Court, a gentle African-American
man in his last few days before retirement, read the verdict aloud. The
courtroom was now crowded with spectators, almost all black.

“In
answer to the question, `Did Loyd Jowers participate in a conspiracy to
do harm to Dr. Martin Luther King?’ your answer is `Yes.'” The man on
my left leaned forward and whispered softly, “Thank you, Jesus.”

The
judge continued: “Do you also find that others, including governmental
agencies, were parties to this conspiracy as alleged by the defendant?’
Your answer to that one is also `Yes.'” An even more heartfelt whisper:
“Thank you, Jesus!”

Perhaps
the lesson of the King assassination is that our government understands
the power of nonviolence better than we do, or better than we want to.
In the spring of 1968, when Martin King was marching (and Robert Kennedy
was campaigning), King was determined that massive, nonviolent civil
disobedience would end the domination of democracy by corporate and
military power. The powers that be took Martin Luther King seriously.
They dealt with him in Memphis.

Thirty-two years
after Memphis, we know that the government that now honors Dr. King
with a national holiday also killed him. As will once again become
evident when the Justice Department releases the findings of its
“limited re-investigation” into King’s death, the government (as a
footsoldier of corporate power) is continuing its cover-up — just as it
continues to do in the closely related murders of John and Robert
Kennedy and Malcolm X.

David
Morphy, the only juror to grant an interview, said later: “We can look
back on it and say that we did change history. But that’s not why we did
it. It was because there was an overwhelming amount of evidence and
just too many odd coincidences.

“Everything
from the police department being pulled back, to the death threat on
Redditt, to the two black firefighters being pulled off, to the military
people going up on top of the fire station, even to them going back to
that point and cutting down the trees. Who in their right mind would go
and destroy a crime scene like that the morning after? It was just very,
very odd.”

I
drove the few blocks to the house on Mulberry Street, one block north
of the Lorraine Motel (now the National Civil Rights Museum). When I
rapped loudly on Olivia Catling’s security door, she was several minutes
in coming. She said she’d had the flu. I told her the jury’s verdict,
and she smiled. “So I can sleep now. For years I could still hear that
shot. After 31 years, my mind is at ease. So I can sleep now, knowing
that some kind of peace has been brought to the King family. And that’s
the best part about it.”

Perhaps
the lesson of the King assassination is that our government understands
the power of nonviolence better than we do, or better than we want to.
In the spring of 1968, when Martin King was marching (and Robert Kennedy
was campaigning), King was determined that massive, nonviolent civil
disobedience would end the domination of democracy by corporate and
military power. The powers that be took Martin Luther King seriously.
They dealt with him in Memphis.

Thirty-two
years after Memphis, we know that the government that now honors Dr.
King with a national holiday also killed him. As will once again become
evident when the Justice Department releases the findings of its
“limited re-investigation” into King’s death, the government (as a
footsoldier of corporate power) is continuing its cover-up — just as it
continues to do in the closely related murders of John and Robert
Kennedy and Malcolm X.

The
faithful in a nonviolent movement that hopes to change the distribution
of wealth and power in the U.S.A. — as Dr. King’s vision, if made
real, would have done in 1968 — should be willing to receive the same
kind of reward that King did in Memphis. As each of our religious
traditions has affirmed from the beginning, that recurring story of
martyrdom (“witness”) is one of ultimate transformation and cosmic good
news

 

Martin Luther King‘s murderer — newly released photos and …
… when gunned down while standing on the balcony of the Lorraine Motel. … restaurant owner was sued in civil court as part of a conspiracy to murder Martin Luther King.

www.digitaljournal.com/article/305238

  • Background to the assassination

  • Local conspiracy
  • The crime scene
  • The rifle
  • Raul
  • A broader conspiracy
  • Cover-up

Mitt Romney and the Kingdom of the Cult – The Truth About Mormonism and The Book of Mormon

Truth about Mitt Romney – Mormonism and the Book of Mormons – Romney Video Goes Viral

  1. Romney Mormon video goes viral

    Politico‎ – 5 hours ago
    A day before the election, a video that depicts a visibly angry Mitt Romney defending his faith has become a viral hit. The clip, which according
 

Internet evangelist condemns Billy Graham for supporting Mitt Romney

Brian Triplett
by Brian Triplett – in 269 Google+ circles – More by Brian Triplett

Oct 25, 2012 – Mitt Romney’s run for president and for chan. sons of Satan when high profile men of God like Billy Graham and supposed Christian leaders

 undefined

Doctrines of the Latter Day Saints of deception (Mormons/LDS)

(most of the following bullet statements were extracted from the Kingdom of the Cults, by Dr. Walter Martin). The Mormons believe in many gods – these gods

What Do Mormons Believe? An Introduction – Part 1 – YouTube

 

What Do Mormons Believe? An Introduction – Part 1 – YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b06GvLyE8sIOct 8, 201015 minUploaded by CrosstalkAmerica
Jill is the Managing Editor on Walter Martin’s 45 year bestseller, The Kingdom of the Cults, and co-founder
...

Billy Graham’s Website Removes ‘Mormonism’ From Cult List – ABC

abcnews.go.com/…/billygrahams-website-removes-mormonism-fro…

Oct 18, 2012 – Billy Graham has taken public steps to embrace Mitt Romney for What’s next, a charge of your position on satan from bad to good!

MORMONISM DECLARED WAR ON CHRISTIANITY : Apprising

apprising.org/2012/04/20/mormonism-declared-war-on-christianity/

Apr 20, 2012 – Martin classified Mormonism as a non-Christian cult because: is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.

Mitt Romney’s Mormon cult and Billy Graham’s Christian cult | True

Hosea 4:6

My people are destroyed
for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also
reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast
forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

 

Prominent African-American Southern Baptist Condemns

 Prominent African-American Southern Baptist Condemns Mormonism as Racist | Brian Kaylor, Dwight McKissic, Mitt Romney, SBC, Mormonism

ethicsdaily.com/prominent-african-american-southern-baptist-conde…

 A prominent African-American Southern Baptist pastor hopes messengers at next week’s annual meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention will pass a
resolution condemning Mormonism as racist.
The move by Dwight McKissic, a pastor in Arlington, Texas, comes as some Southern Baptist leaders attempt to rally support for Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, whose Mormonism makes some conservative evangelicals weary. McKissic posted the full text of his proposed resolution, which he sent to the SBC’s Resolution Committee for consideration, earlier this
month on his blog. However, McKissic’s resolution on the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints could spark the most controversy as it places him at odds with claims made by other Southern Baptist leaders in the midst of a heated presidential campaign.
In the resolution, McKissic claims “growing awareness, acceptance and influence [of Mormonism] in  contemporary American culture” will lead
“some to study or accept the Mormon Religion as valid.” Thus, he urges Southern Baptists to speak out on the racial problems of the faith.
In addition to critiquing the Mormon adoption of authoritative books other than “the King James Holy Bible,” McKissic’s resolution claims that while “in 1978, the Mormon Church has denied and denounced racism
and agreed to permit Blacks to the priesthood, they are yet to denounce the racist teachings.”
McKissic ends his resolution by having Southern Baptists declare that
“we repudiate the racist teachings recorded in The Book of Mormon and The Pearl of Great Price.

“This issue must be dealt with if Southern Baptists are to be consistent with what they have historically taught about Mormonism;”
McKissic wrote, “and if they are to be viewed by Black Baptists as simply finding Mitt Romney’s Mormonism and the racist views of his Bible more tolerable than President Obama’s skin color; this is how this
discussion is being played out in Black barber shops, Black beauty
salons and Black churches. If Southern Baptists support this resolution,it will say to the Black Community that they find Mitt Romney’s
Mormonism and the racist views of his Bible abhorrent; but if they vote for him, it will be strictly because of philosophical and policy issues
and positions, and not a vote against President Obama’s complexion.”

Rick Santorum Called Mormonism ‘Dangerous Cult‘ In Minds Of

MORMONISM CULT – Exposing Mormonism Cult

Expose Mitt Romney, Mormon cult member

www.exposemittromney.com/



Expose Mitt Romney is dedicated to exposing the duplicitous campaign being run by this high ranking member of the Mormon cult.

Mormon plan to establish a world theocracy from America.

 

ormon

Rising Christian Imperialism Fueled by Dominion Theology.  The article is mainly about the danger of Far Right Christian  dominionists gaining control after the Obama failure brings about a Far  Right backlash in America.

Little did I know when I wrote it that there is already a plan in  place to establish a world theocracy from America. It is part of Mormon  prophetic doctrine. Now some might say that this is just some pipe dream  of a cult. However, if you read this article you might not be so  complacent. Mormons have been working toward that end for 160 years and  they have infiltrated high levels of government especially top secret  intelligence positions. One of their own Bishops, Mitt Romney, is still  one of the top contenders for President of the United States in 2012.

Title: Republican Mitt Romney and the “Mormon Plan for America” … LDS Prophet who was also priest and king over America. Not many Americans know that LDS founder …

Exposing Satanism Witchcraft and the New World Order

To this truth seeker, this quote is very troublesome for a couple of fairly obvious reasons. … Luciferian religion – and the parallels to Mormonism are totally stunning. …. to the FACTS of our Mormon history, nor the very real POSSIBILITY that the … was Sovereign Pontiff of Universal Freemasonry, and Head of the  Illuminati ..

The Oath of Vengeance against the American people and the … the United States Senate to have Reed Smoot, a Mormon … and avowed enemies of the American nation.” (Confessions of ...

1857massacre.com/MMM/oath_of_vengeance.htm

Mormonism is Luciferian & Masonic. April 25, 2012 (Designated GOP … who consider themselves Republicans will not vote for a Mormon. They know it is a cult, but



… day Saints (sometimes known as the “Mormon Church” by the media). She is currently taking a religion … “For in those days there shall also arise false

www.mormonbeliefs.org/3193/false-christs-false-prophet

“What evidence do you have that the Mormon Jesus and Satan … below (note that Sata n is also

Romney’s ‘Family Came From a Polygamy Commune,’ says

Brian Schweitzer: Mitt Romney’s ‘Family Came From a Polygamy

http://www.thedailybeast.com/…/brian-schweitzer-mitt-romnApr 19, 2012
I am not alleging by any stretch that Romney is a polygamist and Romney’s  father, George—who

Romney’s ‘Family Came From a Polygamy Commune,’ says Montana Gov.

Mitt Romney will likely struggle nationally, particularly with  women, because his father was “born on a polygamy commune in Mexico,”  said Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer.

FACT CHECK: Romney on his dad growing up poor – Yahoo! News

news.yahoo.com/fact-check-romneydad-growing-poor-205237369….

Miles Park Romney had five wives and 30 children, and fled to Mexico after passage of the 1882 Edmunson Act that barred polygamy. George Romney’s father .

ROMNEY FAMILY FILES: FLED TO MEXICO TO PRACTICE POLYGAMY

gratewire.com › General Open Forum

Smith knew the affect it might have on his community and after polygamy began to Mitt Romney’s father, George S. Romney was born in Mexico in the. Colonia ..

Daily Kos: Mitt Romney’s Dad was on Welfare

http://www.dailykos.com/story/…/-Mitt-Romney-s-Dad-was-on-Welfare

Sep 5, 2012 – Interesting note, that I originally saw from a post on Buzzflash, was that George Romney, Mitt Romney’s father, was on welfare early in his life, 

Mitt Romney’s father, George Romney, was public aid recipient as

http://www.boston.com/…romneyfathergeorgeromney…/story.html

Sep 19, 2012 – But his own father was once among public aid recipients. As the Globe has previously reported, George Romney’s family fled from Mexico in

Welfare Wasn’t Always A Dirty Word In The Romney Family : It’s All

Sep 19, 2012 – It was there that Mitt Romney’s grandfather Gaskell and father, George, were born into an increasingly prosperous family and Mormon ..


George Romney, born on polygamist colony, touted as immigrant

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/…/romney-born-george-craig.html.csp

Aug 30, 2012 – “It’s easy to forget that the story of my father’s success begins with the voters Thursday, drawing on his late grandfather, George Romney,

Introducing The 55 Wives Of Brigham Young

Brigham Young Wives

Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s successor as president of the Church of  Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and prophet to Mitt Romney, had a tremendous number of wives, 55 total.

Joseph Smith instructed Young that plural marriage was a divine  commandment that would bring a select number of righteous men tremendous  blessings for eternity.

The sheer variety of Brigham Young’s marriages makes it difficult to  make sense of them. He married — was sealed to, in Mormon parlance —  young (Clarissa Decker, 15) and old (Hannah Tapfield King, 65). He  married single women and widows. Perhaps most unusually, he was sealed  to his first two mothers-in-law. Perhaps most controversially, he married women who were already married, some to Mormon men in good standing.

Is Mormonism a cult?

by Matt Slick

Yes, Mormonism is a cultMormonism, also called The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS),  is not considered to be Christian by Christians.  In fact, Mormonism teaches the following non Christian, non biblical doctrines.  (Note that all the documentation is taken from Mormon writers and Mormon scriptures.)

  • God used to be a man on another planet, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321; Joseph Smith, Times and Seasons, vol. 5, p. 613-614; Orson Pratt, Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 345; Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 333).
  • God resides near a star called Kolob, (Pearl of Great Price, p. 34-35; Mormon Doctrine, p. 428).
  • “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s…” (Doctrines and Covenants 130:22).
  • God is in the form of a man, (Joseph Smith, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p. 3).
  • “God  himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits  enthroned in yonder heavens!!! . . . We have imagined that God was God  from all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so  that you may see,” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345).
  • After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god, (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345-347, 354.)
  • There is a mother god, (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 443).
  • God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children, (Mormon Doctrine, p. 516).
  •   The trinity is three separate Gods: The Father, the Son, and the Holy  Ghost. “That these three are separate individuals, physically distinct  from each other, is demonstrated by the accepted records of divine  dealings with man,” (Articles of Faith, by James Talmage, p. 35.).

In contrast to these teachings, Christianity the Bible teaches that God has always been God and was never a man (Psalm 90:2).   The Bible no where says he lives near another star or that the Father  has a body of flesh and bones — which Christ contradicted in John 4:24 and Luke 24:39.  We do not have the potential of becoming gods because there are no gods formed (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8; 45:5).  The Trinity is one God (Deut. 6:4), not three.

There are numerous books written about Mormonism from a biblical perspective, exposing its false teachings.

Of  course, we do not hate the Mormons and we pray for their repentance  from believing in false gods.  But, Mormonism is not Christian.

The Order of the Illuminati: Its Origins, Its Methods and Its Influence

secretarcana.com/…/the-order-of-the-illuminati-its-origins-its-method…

As the number of people asking that question has grown, facts about the Order … tasks to accomplish in order to prepare them to take action in the “real world”. … A definite alliance between the Illuminati and Freemasonry became possible in …… Illuminati process reminds me a lot of Mormonism/LDS church style which no .

Statement by the Southern Baptist Church on the Mormon church

By Adam Miller / Baptist Press

Friday, February 26, 2010

As one Mormon candidate launches his White House bid, the Southern Baptist official … points out, the Latter-day Saints … is that Mormons do not know the real Jesus of the Bible.

Southern Baptist Convention warns Christians about  teachings of Mormonism

Apapepress

February 15, 2007

By Allie Martin

Rob Bowman with the North American  Mission Board of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) says Christians need to  be aware that the beliefs of the Mormon Church are inconsistent with biblical  Christianity. As one Mormon candidate launches his White House bid, the Southern  Baptist official is urging Christians to take advantage of materials his  denomination offers that teach the truth about Mormonism.

As former  Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney officially announced his presidential  candidacy this week, a cover story in USA Today looked at the beliefs of the  Mormon Church, formally known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day  Saints.

Rob Bowman,  manager of the apologetics and interfaith evangelism department of the SBC’s  North American Mission Board (NAMB), thinks Christians would be wise to take an  even closer look at the Mormons, lest any be deceived about the nature and  tenets of that religious group. He says although the Mormon Church wages an  expensive public relations campaign, using terms familiar to appeal to  evangelicals, the core teachings of the church do not line up with scripture and  are inconsistent with evangelical Christianity.

For this  reason, Bowman says the SBC has for decades offered, through its various  entities, information resources focusing on the Mormon Church. Many of these  resources detail the differences between Christian and Mormon beliefs — of which  there are many, the NAMB official observes.

For example,  Bowman notes, “In 15 short years, [Mormon Church founder] Joseph Smith went from  being a thoroughgoing monotheist, a believer in one god, to a thoroughgoing  polytheist, teaching the existence of many gods.” Also, he points out, the  Latter-day Saints teach that humans can achieve godhood by joining the church  and taking part in specific deeds and ceremonies.

Such  divergent beliefs are among the reasons, the NAMB official asserts, why  Christians must know the Bible, so as not to be fooled by non-biblical Mormon  teachings. As for the Mormon Church members themselves, he adds, “Our concern is  that they don’t really know the God of the Bible. So we’re concerned for their  salvation.”

The concern  of Bible-believing Christians is that Mormons do not know the real Jesus of  scripture, Bowman explains. The SBC’s desire, he says, is not only to see  evangelicals learn about the differences between Mormonism and Christianity but  also to see Mormons come to know Jesus and have an authentic relationship with  Him.

Evangelical  Theologian: Bottom Line is Mormons are not Christians

Michelle Vu

Christian Post  Reporter

July 27 2007

Mormons  believe in a false gospel and are not Christians, concluded one of the nation’s  preeminent evangelicals in what appeared to be the close of an online debate  over Mormonism.

“Here  is the bottom line. As an Evangelical Christian – a Christian who holds to the  ‘traditional Christian orthodoxy’ of the Church – I do not believe that  Mormonism leads to salvation,” wrote Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr., president of  Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, on Wednesday evening.

“To the  contrary, I believe that it is a false gospel that, however sincere and kind its  adherents may be, leads to eternal death rather than to eternal life,” he  stated.

Mohler’s response is part of an ongoing “blog dialogue” sponsored by the Web  site Beliefnet.com. Since June 28, the evangelical scholar and prominent Mormon  science-fiction writer Orson Scott Card have been debating whether Mormons can  be considered Christians.

During  the course of the debate, Card focused on whether Mormons are moral people, good  citizens and why Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney should be supported  by evangelicals. He emphasized that Mormons share many of the same values as  evangelical Christians and believe Jesus Christ is the only path to salvation.

However, Mohler noted that whether a Mormon has similar moral values to  evangelical Christians is beside the point because Beliefnet.com had asked  whether Mormons can be considered Christians based on traditional Christian  orthodoxy.

“It  appears that we are not really discussing the same question,” noted Mohler in  his latest blog response.

“The  debate has never been about whether Mormons are good Americans or would make  good neighbors,” he wrote.

“I dare  say that most American Evangelicals and traditional Roman Catholics would find  more in common with Mormons in terms of child-rearing, sexual morality, the  protection of marriage and family, and a host of other issues, than they would  with liberal Catholics or liberal Protestants,” acknowledged Mohler.

But  Mormonism from its beginning has rejected traditional Christian orthodoxy, which  is part of the core Mormon identity, pointed out the highly-respected  theologian. The subtitle of The Book of Mormon is “Another Testament of Jesus  Christ.”

“A  ‘testament,’ that is, other than that accepted by the historic Christian  churches,” Mohler highlighted.

Mohler  – who is often seen on “Larry King Live” and other popular news show  representing the Christian voice – concluded that Mormonism is not just another  form of Christianity and is incompatible with “traditional Christian orthodoxy.”

Mormon  defender Card readily agrees with Mohler that Mormons do not fit into the  Christian category as defined by traditional Christian orthodoxy. However, he  argues that Mormons should be considered “nontraditional Christians.”

“Despite our deep differences of belief over the nature of God and his plans for  his children, we recognize that those who believe in the other Christian faiths  have taken a giant step closer to fulfilling the intentions of our Lord,” wrote  Card on Thursday. “They are, in heart and mind, Christians.”

He  further added, “We ask only the same favor in return. Let’s take that word  ‘traditional’ and make use of it. Instead of saying that we are ‘not  Christian’…let us agree that Mormons are ‘nontraditional Christians.’”

Card  looked back on Christian history when Protestant Christian denominations were  not accepted as part of the traditional church according to the Catholic  viewpoint, and was even condemned guilty of heresy.

He  concluded: “Call us ‘nontraditional Christians’ and continue to encourage your  communicants not to believe our doctrines. We’ll happily continue to call you  ‘traditional Christians’ and teach people why they should believe our  doctrines.”The Mormon defender ended by calling for unity in a world where Christians are  persecuted and expressed appreciation that Dr. Mohler affirmed that Mormons  should be equally considered for American public offices regardless of  theological difference.

Basic beliefs of Mormons  explained

By Mike Licona
NAMB,  Director, Apologetics and Interfaith Evangelism
Updated Monday, April 07, 2008

Mormonism started in 1830 with 24-year-old  year old Joseph Smith Jr. According to Smith, he had several experiences, during  which God, Jesus, and the angel Moroni gave him instructions. Part of the  instructions was to dig up some gold plates buried by the angel Moroni around  A.D. 400 on a hill just outside of Smith’s town of Palmyra, New York. Smith dug  up the plates, claimed they were written in “Reformed Egyptian,” and that God  had given him the ability to translate them. This translation became known as  the Book of Mormon, an account of the ancient inhabitants of North America  between 600 B.C. and A.D. 400.

Mormons have four sources of authority: the  Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants.  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has become one of the  fastest-growing religions in the world. The church owns Brigham Young  University.

Mormon beliefs are fundamentally different  from biblical Christianity.

1. God. Once a human as we are now, and  progressed to become God. He is one of many gods.

2. Man. Has the ability to progress and  become a god just as Jehovah did.

3. Marriage. Polygamy is no longer advocated,  although it once was encouraged.

4. Jesus. The son of God, but not part of the  Godhead. Mormons do not believe in the Trinity.

Mormons are very sincere about their faith.  Conversations with Mormon missionaries promise to be cordial. Mormon scholars,  such as those at Brigham Young University, are well aware of the challenges  which face Mormonism.

What do Mormons tell you when they visit?

When Mormons visit you, they usually will not  focus on the doctrines previously mentioned. In fact, they probably will not  even bring them up during the first few meetings. Instead they will seek to find  common ground with you on many of the doctrines Christians believe. For example,  they may begin by saying that God revealed the Old Testament through Moses and  the prophets. Then Jesus came, was crucified and resurrected. His disciples  wrote books and letters that became the New Testament. We all agree on these  facts.

Then the differences begin. They will tell  you that before Jesus’ ascension into heaven, He appeared to the inhabitants of  North America and gave them the gospel as well. His message and the history of  these inhabitants from 600 B.C. to A.D. 400 are recorded in the Book of Mormon.

Furthermore, they will tell you that since  the apostles were not replaced when they were killed, the Church went into  apostasy. In other words, it abandoned the true faith, and consequently, a  restoration was necessary. Mormons believe that God chose Joseph Smith to bring  that restoration; therefore, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is  the true Church.

How to answer Mormons

Mormons are well equipped to answer many of  the issues Christians bring to their attention and have answers adequate to  silence the average critic. The Mormon missionaries who come to your door are  cordial and will listen to what you have to say. Enjoy the opportunity to share  your faith with them, but be prepared by having good answers. Although there are  many issues, which you may bring to the Mormons’ attention, focus on four that  are of primary importance:

A. The Bible is reliable. Mormons claim that  the Bible has been corrupted over the years as evidenced by the many different  translations. How do we know that the Bible we have today is the same as it was  2,000 years ago? The original words of the Bible have been preserved with  remarkable purity and that its accuracy has been confirmed by both history and  archaeology. Variances among English translations do not call into question the  preservation of the Bible over the years. Until you have shown this to a Mormon,  it is useless to point out that some Mormon doctrines differ from the Bible.  They will only respond that the Bible is unreliable.

B. There is no archaeological confirmation of  the Book of Mormon. While the spade of the archaeologist has confirmed many  places and peoples mentioned in the Bible, it has not been at all favorable to  the Book of Mormon. Although Mormons will confidently assert that archaeology  has confirmed the Book of Mormon’s accuracy time and time again, professional  archaeologists have arrived at quite a different conclusion.

C. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. The Book  of Abraham is one of the books in the Pearl of Great Price, one of Mormonism’s  scriptures. Joseph Smith purchased some ancient Egyptian papyri and claimed it  was an original book penned by Abraham himself while in Egypt. He translated it  allegedly by the same gift, which God had given him to translate the Book of  Mormon. Professional Egyptologists have translated the papyri since their  rediscovery in 1967. Their translations bear no resemblance to Smith’s  translation, exposing him as a charlatan.

D. Evidence for Mormonism? Mormons are  convinced that Mormonism is true because the inward testimony of God tells them  so. If you are going to be effective when talking to Mormons, it is crucial that  you address this issue. Otherwise, no amount of solid evidence, which testifies  against Mormonism, will be of help to them.

(EDITOR’S NOTE – The North  American Mission Board’s apologetics web site, http://www.4truth.net, carries much more  information about many brands of religion.

Romney’s LDS  faith makes him a ‘cult’ member, Texas pastor says

By Peggy Fletcher Stack
The Salt Lake Tribune

09/26/2008

   WASHINGTON –  Evangelicals who believe the country needs a Christian in the White House but  promoted Mitt Romney’s candidacy during the Republican primaries were  hypocrites, according to a Texas pastor.

    Romney, a Mormon, is  not a Christian, the Rev. Robert Jeffress said, but a member of a “cult.”

    “I believe we should  always support a Christian over a non-Christian,” Jeffress, pastor of First  Baptist Church of Dallas, told a packed audience of journalists at last  weekend’s Religion Newswriters Association (RNA) annual meeting. “The value of  electing a Christian goes beyond public policies. . . . Christians are uniquely  favored by God, [while] Mormons, Hindus and Muslims worship a false god. The  eternal consequences outweigh political ones. It is worse to legitimize a faith  that would lead people to a separation from God.”

    Jeffress made his  remarks during a luncheon debate with Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for the  American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational  organization that focuses on religious-liberty issues. The DeMoss Group, a  Christian public-relations firm in Duluth, Ga., sponsored the event.

    Sekulow, who also  disagrees with Mormon theology but supported Romney’s candidacy, argued he would  rather have a president who promoted a conservative political agenda than one  who shared his doctrinal positions. 

“Jimmy Carter ran as a  born-again Christian,” Sekulow reasoned, “but his presidency did nothing for the  issues I care about.”

    Mark DeMoss, the  company’s president, opened the session by describing his decision to lead  Romney’s outreach to conservative Christians. DeMoss said he had come to admire  Romney, despite their theological differences, but was amazed at the vehement  opposition to the Mormon’s candidacy among Evangelicals.

    “When making the  choice of candidate for president, I don’t care how different the person’s  theology is from mine, just like I don’t care about my doctor’s theology or the  guy’s who built my house or the architect’s,” DeMoss said in an interview this  week. “I’m challenging people who would oppose a Mormon because he’s a Mormon,  but I’m also challenging people who would instantly embrace a Southern Baptist  because he’s a Southern Baptist. Both conclusions are bad.”

    DeMoss said he  doesn’t mind when people come to different conclusions about which candidate to  support, but hopes as least “they’re thinking.”

    The lively debate  seemed to prove his point.

    “It was one of the  more spirited lunch discussions we’ve ever had at RNA,” said RNA president Kevin  Eckstrom, who noted that the journalist organization did not organize the event.  “A lot of people were uncomfortable with what Dr. Jeffress said about Mormons,  but what we were hoping for was something provocative that would get people  talking, and certainly this did it.”

    Many reporters said  they had never heard the word “cult,” which Jeffress repeatedly called the LDS  Church, used so “freely and recklessly,” said Eckstrom, editor of Religion News  Service in Washington, D.C. But Jeffress used the same word to describe  “Catholics, Hindus, Buddhists and virtually everyone else.”

    It was useful for  reporters to be aware of such strident views, Eckstrom said, because they are  “completely mainstream in a lot of evangelical quarters.”

    First Baptist of  Dallas “is not a backwater pulpit somewhere. It is a major church in Texas and  in Southern Baptist circles,” Eckstrom said. “It’s a huge institution and a lot  of followers. He’s not just spouting these opinions for himself but proud of the  fact that he was going back to his congregation and declare every other religion  was wrong, and at least 10,000 people hear this position every week.”

    The Church of Jesus  Christ of Latter-day Saints insists that it is a Christian faith, though not a  traditional brand of Christianity. LDS officials today declined to comment on  Jeffress’ statements until they see a transcript of the remarks, spokeswoman Kim  Farah said. 

Apologetics

The leader of this hate mongering, white-supremacist, racist cult is Arnold Murray. He teaches the common Mormon (LDS) doctrine that men preexisted time.

GOP Hopeful Mike Huckabee  – Mormons Believe Jesus, Devil Are Brothers … the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Huckabee … was a cult. “I’m …

www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316507,00.html

Mike Huckabee Makes Amends on Mormonism: The evangelical, who previously trafficked in anti-Mormon tropes, validated Romney’s religion in his RNC speech

My ancestors came west with the Mormon wagon train. I was born andf lived in Utah. If you believe in the Bible, the Mormon religion is a false religion

Black Mormons Face Tough Election Choice Between Romney And

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…/blackmormons-election-romn…

Jahnabi Barooahby Jahnabi Barooahin 286 Google+ circlesMore by Jahnabi Barooah

Jun 12, 2012 – “I’ve been black my whole life and a Mormon for 30 years and never thought Until 1978, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints barred  blacks from its all-male priesthood. After that landmark shift 34 years  ago, missionaries found some success winning black converts, but  African-Americans still represent only about 3 percent of the Mormons’ 6  million U.S. members. The Black race is curse and should slaves

This letter ought to shock anyone into recognizing the racism of the LDS church. Letter to Gov. George Romney from Bishop Delbert Stapley
http://www2.ldsfreedom.org/sites/default/files/delbert_stapley.pdf

What the Book of Mormon say about Race

  1. 1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary) “. . . she was exceedingly fair and white.”
  2. 1 Nephi 12:23 (Prophecy of Lamanites after Christ) “. . . became a  dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all  manner of abominations.”
  3. 1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) “. . . they were white, and exceedingly  fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were  slain.”
  4. 2 Nephi 5:21 “. . . a sore  cursing . . . as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome,  that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a  skin of blackness to come upon them.”
  5. 2 Nephi 30:6 (Prophecy to Lamanites) “. . . scales of darkness shall  begin to fall . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people.”  (Changed to pure and delightsome in 1981)
  6. Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) “. . .whom ye hate because of their  filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . .”
  7. Jacob 3:8-9 “. . .their skins will be whiter than yours . . . revile  no more against them because of the darkness of their skins . . .”
  8. Alma 3:6 “. . . skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the  mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them  because of their transgression and their rebellion. . .”
  9. Alma 3:8 (Cursed) “. . .that their seed might be distinguished from  the seed of their brethren . . .that they might not mix . . .”
  10. Alma 3:9 “. . . whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”
  11. Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) “. . . set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . .”
  12. Alma 3:19 (Amlicites cursed) “. . . brought upon themselves the curse …”
  13. Alma 23:18 “. . . [Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”
  14. 3 Nephi 2:14-16 “. . . Lamanites who had united with the Nephites  were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them,  and their skin became white like unto the Nephites . . . became  exceedingly fair . . .”
  15. 3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) “. . . they were as white as the  countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness  thereof did exceed all the whiteness . . . nothing upon earth so white  as the whiteness thereof . . . they were white, even as Jesus.”
  16. Mormon 5:15 (Prophecy about Lamanites) “. . .shall become a dark, a  filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which  ever hath been amongst us . . .”
  17. Mormon 5:17 “They were once a delightsome people . . .”

Mitt Romney, being a priest and a high ranking bishop must believe that these racist scriptures in the Book of Mormon are true.  In order to be a bishop or a Mormon you must believe in the Book of Mormon. It stands to reason that Mitt Romney is Racist or else he would renounce Joseph Smith teachings and the Book of Mormon.

White Blood Mixed with Negro Blood Brings Death on the Spot

Journal of Discourses 10:110-111;“Shall  I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white  man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of  Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will  always be so.” – Brigham Young, Salt Lake City, March 8, 1863

Romans 8:1; “There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.”

Brigham Young the Second Prophet said this:

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth,  uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly  deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is  generally bestowed upon mankind….Cain slew his brother.  Cain might  have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of  human beings.  This was not to be, and the Lord put a  mark upon him,  which is the flat nose and black skin.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 7,  p. 290).
“In our first settlement in Missouri, it was said by our enemies that we  intended to tamper with the slaves, not that we had any idea of the  kind, for such a thing never entered our minds. We knew that the  children of Ham were to be the “servant of servants,” and no power under  heaven could hinder it, so long as the Lord would permit them to welter  under the curse and those were known to be our religious views  concerning them.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 172).
“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the  white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed  of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This  will always be so.” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

How could any person of color embrace Mormonism? It is a blatantly racist religion and Lawrence O’Donnell lets loose about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlQEtksXJRI&feature=related

If Mormons believe in an all knowing and infallible God, how do they  reconcile teaching polygamy and black inferiority as a religious truth  — as an edict their prophets received direct  from the mouth of God but  then after 1978 it’s no longer a religious truth.  If Mormons believe  in God that ought to tell them that these men posing as prophets are not  prophets but ordinary men, making up stuff, attributing it to God, in  order to get you to believe it’s true.

The truth doesn’t change.  If was God’s truth as transmitted through  Mormon prophets pre-1978 how did it become an untruth after 1978?  I’ll  tell you how — it was never truth in the first place and it was not of  God in the first place (it was of man).  I submit Mormonism is a made up  proposition brought to us by a couple of men calling themselves  prophets/latter day saints.

I recommend the following 2 part Frontline documentary to everyone for an indepth look at the history of Mormonism.  http://video.pbs.org/video/1460817958

If the Book of Mormon is false, then Joseph Smith must have been a false prophet. … admitted to me that they knew Mormonism was a false religion

I do not think it is a coincidence that many of the main beliefs of the Mormon religion are the exact opposite of what we believe in as Christians. These false beliefs .

Mormonism is a false Religion. Posted in the Top Stories Forum … just a few things that they believe and that are written in the book of Mormon.

Is Joseph Smith a false prophet, or the real deal? Former Mormon … Christ until they are able to recognize that their religion .

Understanding Mormonism: The Sex Cult

Mormonism is a Freemasonry demonic cult (founded in 1830 by charlatan, con-man, sex-pervert and 33rd degree  Freemason, Joseph Smith). The Mormon cult 

ARNOLD MURRAY ~ SHEPHERDS CHAPEL in Cults & Sects Forum

cbrefugeecamp.yuku.com/…/ARNOLDMURRAY-SHEPHERDS-CH…

Sep 7, 2011 – I wouldn’t go as far as calling him a closet Mormon, but Dob is absolutely correct about the connection. Have you ever read the Mormon Book of Abraham? be God’s word than to ever take your word or Arnold Murray’s word


Closet Mormon Pastor Arnold Murray Refuted, Exposed & Debunked – Wolf in

► 15:00► 15:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHG9ZBSuixAMay 17, 201215 minUploaded by vudumojo
The Truth About Arnold Murray. asure you that it is not me..i am sometimes  surprised that i can connect the ..

The Quarterly Journal Index: Feature Articles

And Ye Shall Be As God – The Mormons‘ Strange Salvation Arnold Murray and the Shepherd’s Chapel – Examining the Strange Teaching of the Grandfather of Denial Arnold ….. The Lamsa Connection – The Origin of Wierwille’s False Christ ..

“Cults & Religions” – Information – Cults and Doctrines

gospelbiblepaths.50webs.com/index_6.html

And text links from most listings,  connect them with other listings relative to their subject matter; providing Practice of The Church of Jesus Christ  of Latter–day Saints (LDS) whereby living members are …… Shepherds Chapel, Arnold Murray: ..

Evangelical Baptist Pastor: ‘Mormonism Is a Cult, Mitt Romney Is Not

Oct 7, 2011 – Robert Jeffress, the evangelical pastor of First Baptist Dallas, said Mitt Romney is not a Christian and Mormonism is a cult, after introducing Rick

CULTWATCH – Mormonism

www.cultwatch.com/mormon.html

Mormomism  claims to be a branch of Christianity, but this comparison of their  beliefs show they are something wildly different. Some will be shocked,  but it is ..

Mormons also believe:

God was once a man just like us but became God

God had actual sex with Mary

ALL other religions are of the Devil

Blood atonement

United Order

The entire Temple Endowment

The Garden of Eden being in Missouri

The sun and the moon are inhabited, because God would never let so much space go to waste.

The flood story and the Tower of Babel story are literal.

Evolution is false.

Apparent dinosaur fossils are the machinations of Satan. He shaped rocks  as if they had been bones of past giants to deceive the very elect.

Satan can’t enter the temple.

Satan has control of the waters.

Satan can’t read your mind.

In the celestial kingdom we’ll all have personal seer stones.

The Elders will save the constitution.

Christ will establish new Zion in Missouri.

Just a few of the hundreds of sites on what Mormons believe…

Do you really want Mitt Romney in office? Why not a Scientologist­ or Satanist?.­.

http://www.lifeaftermormonism.net/profiles/blogs/101-nonpublic-or-weird-beliefs-of-mormons

http://www.top10craziestmormonbeliefs.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ip4qQnz2fFo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKqqGX0DEMM&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuSde2jGhm8&feature=related

Mormon Underwear. Known to some is the fact that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or Mormon Church) wear a special kind of underwear in …

www.ldschurchtemples.com/mormon/underwearCached

Mormon underwear, you may ask what does this have to do with the Mountain Meadows Massacre? Well the underwear as far as I know is insignificant in reference to the

Joseph Smith and Kabbalah: The Occult Connection

An award winning historical examination of Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of Mormonism, and his relationship with the occult traditions of Gnosticism,

The Mormon Plan for America & the Rise of Mitt Romney

Learn why Mormonism and the United States Presidency Won’t Ever Mix

God of the Bible & Mormon god Compared

The Heavenly Father of Mormonism is not spirit – John 4:24

Testing for Truth

How you can know and trust what God has to say in His word

All about Joseph Smith

Church leaders have said that without the vision of Joseph Smith, they’d  have nothing so let’s take a look at some of the things of Joseph

Videos of What They’re Hiding: Mormon Temple Rituals on Hidden Camera

Heavenly Mother, Goddess Wife

Ishtar, an Assyrian and Babylonian Goddess known as the

Mitt Romney, Lies and The Mormon Church 2/3

Reprint by Nomad  http://nomadicpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/07/mitt-romney-lies-and-mormon-church-23.html

In Part One,  we traced the strange origins of the Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith and  asked if the entire religion was a hoax perpetrated on 19th century  victims. Let’s begin part two with what would seem at first glance to be  a question with an obvious answer.

Is lying aceptable to the present-Day Mormon Church?

This is perhaps a more  essential question since, no matter how it may have begun, the true  value of any religion lies in what it has become and what it teaches its  followers. And as far I can tell, no religion officially accepts the practice of lying. (Even Satanists are probably supposed to be truthful to one another, I’d imagine.)

The strongest criticism of the Mormon Church comes, not from other religions, atheists or outsiders, but from ex-Mormons. Former ex-high priest Park Romney, the cousin of the presidential candidate,  has been quite open about this subject. He told BBC,

“There’s  compelling evidence that the Mormon Church leaders knowingly and  willfully misrepresent the historical truth of their origins and of the  Church for the purpose of deceiving their members into a state of mind  that renders them exploitable.”

What that precise evidence was is not mentioned. Outside of the history  of the formation of the religion, there are other things that Church  leaders would prefer not to reveal.

Former Mormon missionaries have reported that the statements they made in order to convert others were extremely misleading. The alleged practice is called Lying for the Lord, which is summed up best in this way.

For the  Mormon, loyalty and the welfare of the church are more important than  the principle of honesty, and plausible denials and deception by  omission are warranted by an opportunity to have the Mormon organization  seen in the best possible light. .. “Lying for the lord” is part of  Mormonism’s larger deceptive mainstreaming tactics, and conversion  numbers would drastically lower if important Mormon beliefs were fully  disclosed to investigators.

Naturally the whole idea of Lying for the Lord is disputed by the elders of the Church. It simply doesn’t  exist, they say, and if missionaries misrepresent the religion is  merely because they are a bit too eager or they are not fully versed.  Perhaps, that’s true.

However, Loren Franck, a full-time Mormon missionary from 1975 to 1977, freely admits that she lied for the church regularly.  Some of the lies she listed were simply a matter of doctrinal  differences between the traditional Christian Church and the Mormon  faith. Others were more serious misrepresentations of the faith.

For decades,  the Mormon Church has tried to blend with mainstream Christianity.  Accordingly, during my mission a quarter-century ago, I worked hard to  convince prospects that Mormons believe in the biblical Jesus.

(As we shall see, her statement  conflicts with what Mormon president Gordon B. Hinckley stated  categorically- that the Mormon idea of Jesus was unique and unlike the  traditional view held by most Christians. He implied that true  enlightenment can only come through Joseph Smith and not through the Bible.)

All of this dances around the real question. What is it about the Mormon faith that missionaries feel that they must conceal?

The Principle of Eternal Progression

One staggering fact that Franck mentions that missionaries hide from potential converts is the doctrine that people can become gods. And conversely, God was once a man. Not only that, God was born on a planet called Kolob or at least He has a throne in the neighborhood. (h/t to Nathan.) At least that’s according to the Pearl of Great Price, an early collection of church-recognized doctrines, produced by Smith. It is considered part of the canon of Mormonism.

Regarding  the God-man relationship, modern Church leaders tend to dissemble about  this particular point but this Mormon tenet was taught by all of the  early fathers. The book, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith explains:

After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god.

The  fifth LDS President Lorenzo Snow in 1840 reportedly said,  

“As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.”

Orson Hyde, a leader in the early Latter Day Saint movement and an original member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, sketched this unusual image of God:

“Remember  that God, our heavenly Father, was perhaps once a child, and mortal like  we ourselves, and rose step by step in the scale of progress, in the  school of advancement; has moved forward and overcome, until He has  arrived at the point where He now is.” Franck said, as a missionary, it  was understandably not discussed with potential converts.

Given  its explosive nature, this tenet was rarely shared with prospective  converts. Missionaries try to entice people into Mormonism gradually,  and presenting the doctrine of plural gods -and the Lord as a bit too  human- is seldom the best way. Several contacts learned the concept from  their pastors or read about it on their own, but it was new to most  prospects. For most traditional Christians, the concept of God and Man  being only a matter of degrees in progression is certainly blasphemous.

Most Christians would reflexively reject the notion with a shudder.

Attitudes towards Christianity

Many people who know a little about Mormonism know that, unlike traditional Christian faiths, members  of this faith do not use the symbol of the cross. There are many  reasons given for this. But the usual one is that they prefer to  concentrate on the birth and resurrection of Christ rather than his  death on the cross.
Of all the symbols of Christianity, the cross is the most identifiable. In fact, there are many more important differences between the Christian faith and Mormonism.

Despite  the current public relations campaign  Mormons have long been taught  that their religion is superior to all other religions, including  Christianity. 
As one source explains:

Mormons  teach that the church fell into darkness shortly after Christ’s  ascension and was only restored through the person and actions of Joseph  Smith, some eighteen hundred years later. The only true Christians in  this view are Mormons.

Mormon’s 15th president Gordon B.Hinckley, as reported in LDS Church News in 1998,  stated that the Christ he believed in is not the same Christ as the one followed by those outside the LDS Church.

“For the  Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this, the Dispensation of  the Fulness [sic] of Times. He, together with His Father, appeared to  the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove  that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages”

For  Hinckley, Smith’s divine visions allowed him access to a a higher  truth. The phrase “the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages”  could be interpreted as the disciplines of Christ, Paul, Matthew, Luke  and the others.  In that case, the statement would be very controversial  indeed. The whole New Testament would be called into question.
In  any event, the differences between Christian and Mormon faiths are  routinely glossed over by missionaries. Yet the truth is that Mormon  Church considers Christianity (as we know it ) as a corrupted religion.

As one source explains:

Early Mormon  leaders were quite candid about the differences between LDS doctrine  and Christian doctrine. One example is the 1820 First Vision account  Hinckley cited which is also recorded in LDS Scripture. In relating this  vision, Mormon Church founder, Joseph Smith, makes a similar point to  Hinckley’s. Smith said that Jesus told him that all of the creeds of  existing Christianity were “an abomination in his sight.” These  Christian creeds would, of course, include those that describe the  essential attributes and identity of the Jesus worshipped by traditional  Christians.

The third president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, John Taylor, in Journal of Discourses, states:

“There is  not nation now that acknowledges that hand of God; there is not a king,  potentate, nor ruler that acknowledges his jurisdiction. We talk about  Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense. Men talk  about civilization; but I do not want to say much about that, for I have  seen enough of it. Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have  seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass  and a tinkling symbol; it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work that the Christianity of the nineteenth century.”

Another early leader who offered similar opinions was Orson Pratt. Pratt was an original member of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles, a part of the church hierarchy organized by the movement’s founder. He expressed his undisguised dread of the Christian religion in this statement.

“This class  of men, calling themselves Christian, uniting with the various forms of  the pagan religion, adopting many of their ceremonies and institutions,  became very popular, and finally some of the pagans embraced  Christianity and were placed, as it were, upon the throne, and what they  termed Christianity became very popular indeed. How long has this order  of things existed, this dreadful apostacy, this class of people that  pronounced themselves Zion, or Christians, without any of the  characteristics of Zion? It has existed for some sixteen or seventeen  centuries.”

This  is naturally something that missionaries do not openly reveal. Despite  the recent assertions to the contrary, Mormons do not consider  themselves to be another Christian sect, like say Lutherans, or  Methodists. It is, according to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, the only  form of Christianity and all others are inferior.

“The Church  of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not see itself as one  Christian denomination among many, but rather as God’s latter-day  restoration of the fullness of Christian faith and practice…Other forms  of Christianity…are viewed as incomplete…

This  way of thinking is paralleled by followers of Islam who revere (but not  worship) Moses, Abraham and Jesus, even Mary. islam added Mohammed as  the prophet of their faith and the Mormons added Joseph Smith as their  prophet.
The twelfth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1973 until his death in 1985, Spencer Woolley Kimball wrote in his book, Miracle of Forgiveness:

“One of  the most fallacious doctrines originated by Satan and propounded by man  is that man is saved alone by the grace of God; that belief in Jesus  Christ alone is all that is needed for salvation.”

How  this can possibly square with Christianity is difficult to comprehend.  No other denomination of Christianity could ever make such a statement.  The Nicene Creed which established the perimeters of the Christian faith in the year 325 states as a Christian oath:

And [I  believe] in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten,  begotten of the Father before all worlds, light of light, very God of  very God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, by whom all  things were made: Who for us men and for our salvation came down from  heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and  became man. . . .

As  Minister Anselm Kyongsuk,  in the book Dialectic of Salvation: Issues in Theology of Liberation, points out:

“At the  heart of Christian faith is the reality and hope of salvation in Jesus  Christ. Christian faith is faith in the God of salvation revealed in  Jesus of Nazareth.

It is not an exaggeration then to say that the Mormon religion is essentially un-Christian.

While  he does not speak for the Mormon Church, one Mormon, David V. Mason, an  associate professor of theater at Rhodes College, frankly admitted this  fact. In an op-ed piece published in The New York Times, Mason declares:

“I’m  perfectly happy not being a Christian…I want to be on record about  this. I’m about as genuine a Mormon as you’ll find – a templegoer with a  Utah pedigree and an administrative position in a congregation of the  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am also emphatically not a  Christian.”

He also questioned why anybody would wish to be a Christian.

“Being a  Christian so often involves such boorish and mean-spirited behavior that  I marvel that any of my Mormon colleagues are so eager to join the  fold.

Missionaries and Church  leaders would like traditional Christians to believe that the difference  between the religions are superficial. However, a Mormon is no more  Christian than any follower of Abrahamic line, like Judaism or Islam. 

Attitudes about Race

If a reason for missionaries to be less than frank is their realization that the Book of Mormon contains many things that a Christian could not accept, there are also things in the book that a non-Christian or secularist outsider would also reject.

One  particular example is the early church’s racist teaching. The passage  from the Mormon holy book appears to explain the reason why some people  are black:

2 Nephi  5:21; “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore  cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their  hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore,  as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they  might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of  blackness to come upon them.”

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290, 1859, supports this racist view in clear terms.

“You see  some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely,  disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of  nearly all of the blessings of the intelligence that is generally  bestowed upon mankind.

Young connected the mark of Cain as the color of the black skin.

The first  man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will  be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his  brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a  termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.  Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is  pronounced upon the same race — that they should be the “servants of  servants;” and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the  Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.”

According  to this discourse by the leader of the Mormon church and successor to  Smith, slavery of the Negro was God’s decree, a divine punishment. This  was not the only racist remark made by Young. Here’s another quote made  in 1863:

“Shall I  tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man  who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain,  the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will  always be so.”

But as it turned out,  And as late as 1978, men of African descent were banned from its  priesthood by the LDS church. This priestly position was open to nearly  all Mormon males and the gateway to sacramental and leadership roles.  Additionally the LDS church had also barred black men and women from  temple ceremonies that promised access in the afterlife to the highest  heaven. Why? Because people of African descent were denied access to  heaven, at least until 1978. (It must have been quite a shock for all  people in Mormon heaven. They had been promised an exclusive paradise,  after all.)

In  light of just these points of religious principles, it is no wonder  that Mormon missionaries are taught to use deception when speaking to  outsiders about their religion. Imagine trying to explain the racist  bans to a black Christian.
Here’s an interesting video which appears to show a missionary training seminar conducted by Latter-day Saint author and speaker Bob Millet. The topic is how to answer difficult questions.
So to answer the or
ginal: Is lying acceptable in the Mormon faith?
The  answer is like so many answers. No… and Yes. No, not officially. But  yes. It is permissible- for a higher good, like conversion- to leave out  information that may present a challenge to explain, to spin the truth  somewhat, to shape it. Aside from the missionary work, are there any  other examples of this? Yes, I could find one other but it is a major  oneAnd So It Came to Pass (or did it?)

In the opening of this post, I quoted Gordon  B.Hinckley who stated in 1998, the founder Joseph Smith’s vision  allowed him to see Jesus with greater clarity than all of the previous  Christian ministers.
However, apparently the Church leadership has in recent years begun  to question those visions and, in an apparent attempt to mainline their  religion into traditional Christian faiths, the leaders have been  scratching out the more controversial aspects of Smith’s (and Young’s)  spiritual views. 

Here are a list of the revisions to the Mormon study guide, Gospel Principles. It’s interesting to see what has been added and removed.

Astoundingly,  many of the unique teachings of the LDS Church have been excised. It’s  like cutting off the unicorn’s horn for the sake of a pony. For example,  there’s this revision.

All good things come from God. Everything that He does is to help His children become like Him—a god.

Additionally all mention of Heavenly parents have been changed to Heavenly Father. In chapter 3 of the manual:

By following His teachings, we can return to live with him and our heavenly parents   Father inherit a place in the celestial kingdom. He was chosen to be  our Savior when we all attended the great council with our heavenly parents  Father. When he became our Savior, He did His part to help us return to  our heavenly home. It is now up to each of us to do our part and become  worthy of exaltation.

Why?  Because up until recently, all Mormons believed (as they were told)  that God was married. Now the Lord is bachelor, it appears. A divorcee  or perhaps a widower? God knows.

The  problem is, of course, that it will take a lot of revisions and those  aspects are deeply woven into the fibre of the faith. All of the early  Church leaders made definitive statements and all of those now must be  rewritten or deleted.

And  this, in turn, calls into question the whole idea of divine revelation.  Were Joseph Smith and Brigham Young divinely inspired or were they  wrong? It can’t be both. After all, can divine revelations actually be  revised by later generations for the sake of making the religion more  widely acceptable? Isn’t that sacrilege? How can this be explained?  And  where does it stop? The revisions are not even claiming to be divinely  inspired so how can they trump the visions and writings of the original  founder and the early church leaders?

It  also begs the question whether all those who came before and believed  the “wrong” things have found salvation. How can the faith of then and  the faith of now ever be reconciled?

And,  for Mormons, it is only fair to ask, after all of the revisions are  completed (if ever), what will be left of the faith? How will it be any  different than any other Christian denomination, like Presbyterians, for  example? How can the LDS leadership expect blind devotion when the  principles of the faith can be change every season?

In George Orwell’s  book, Nineteen-Eighty Four,  the ruling autocratic government did very much the same thing. One day,  everything you thought was true and unshakable, was suddenly dismantled  by  the Ministry of Truth  and its opposite was put in its place. There’s was no outcry because it  was all automatically accepted as “the new truth.” (Of course, it was  never “new” in any sense. It was actually the replaced, revised truth  and the old truth, once replaced, now no longer existed. Not only was  the truth replaced but the history of that truth was also added.)
All  past mention of the former information was deleted from the official  (and sole) record. Truth is what the leadership dictated it to be and  there is nothing in the world that can possibly contradict their  version. As Orwell writes:

If the Party  could thrust its hand into the past and say of this or that event, it  never happened — that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and  death?

The idea is basically that if you can erase all evidence of the past, you can create a new past, cleaned and trouble-free.

So far the Mormon church has been able to get away with this tactic without much outrage by the congregation. The same strategy has not been a very successful for candidate Mitt Romney. 

____________________________________

In the final post in this series, for the sake of argument, we ignore all of the evidence to the contrary and agree that the Church does not  condone lying. However, if we are prepared to believe this, we are  faced then with the challenging problem of Mormon Bishop Mitt Romney’s  conduct in the 2012 campaign and the sound of silence from Mormon  leadership.

Brigham Young The Worst Mass Murderer – 120 men,women and children from Arkansas Slaughter – 1857 Massacre

1857massacre.com/MMM/byoung.htm

“And  if the Gentiles wish to see a few tricks, we have “Mormons” that can  perform them. We have the meanest devils on the earth in our midst, and  we intend to

You visited this page on 8/27/12.


The 1857 Mountain Meadows Massacre

Aug 31, 2008 – Brigham Young 1; “The Mountain Meadows Massacre stands without a parallel The year 1857 was a time of particularly high tension.

Mountain Meadows massacre – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Meadows_massacre

The Mountain Meadows massacre was a series of attacks on the In early 1857, several groups of emigrants from the northwestern Arkansas region started


“CHILDREN OF THE MASSACRE”
MAY MEET IN REUNION.
______
Arkansas’ Great Tragedy, the
Mountain Meadows Slaughter
in Utah Recalled.

______The Emigrants Murdered by Mormons
in 1857 Were Arkansas Pioneers.

______

How J. P. Fancher of Berryville, Ark., Has Kept Track of the Surviving Children in His State, Missouri and Texas,  Working for Government Aid Seeking to Bring About a Reunion — Formation and Departure of the Emigrant Train —  Hostility of the Mormons — Arrival at Mountain Meadows — The Massacre, as Told in the Confession of Bishop Lee  of the Mormon Church — Servitude of Children Spared From the Slaughter — Their Rescue and Return to Arkansas.
This is the story of the greatest tragedy connected with the history of the State of Arkansas — the Mountain Meadows  massacre — and of the strange afventures, rescue and after life of the few survivors of the great tragedy, the children  of Arkansas parents.

The latest effort in the direction of bringing about a reunion of these survivors of the Mountain Meadows massacre.  Should this prove practicable, one of the most picturesque and pathetic spectacles possible would then be presented.

Some point in the State of Arkansas will be chosen for the reunion, if it is found that the survivors of the Mountain  Meadows massacre can again be brought together. It would be the first time they have met in a body since that day, many  years ago, when, rescued from the Mormons and brought back to their native State, they were received by old neighbors,  friends and kinfolk as though coming back from the dead.


For more than a quarter of a century one man in Carroll County, Arkansas, has watched over the firtunes of these  survivors of a historic tragedy with almost a fatherly interest. That man is James Polk Fancher, and the objects of  his persistent care are the little remnant of that train of emigrants who escaped the bloody fate of their parents and  friends at the Mountain Meadow massacre in the southern part of the Territory of Utah nearly forty years ago. The  nephew of the brave commander of the train, and related to many other victims of the unparalleled butchery of more than  100 defenseless men, women and children, Mr. Fancher, the present County Clerk of Carroll County, has had good reason  to exercise a kindly guardianship over that now scattered and diminished band of orphans whose infant eyes beheld one  of the most terrific spectacles of inhumanity ever perpetuated in any land.

“Polk” Fancher, as everybody in Carroll County calls the Berryville attorney and official, has never lost any of his  zeal for the seventeen boys and girls spared by the Mormons and their Indian allies on that bloody day in September,  1857, when the Arkansas emigrants “surrendered” to John D. Lee and his trecherous associates after a week of fighting  accompanied by horrors that to-day make the minds of thousands of people shudder when the Mountain Meadow massacre is  mentioned. It was more than twenty-five years ago when Polk Fancher began to urge the claims of the survivors for  Congressional aid. He thought the national Government should assume some parental care over the few persons who lost  the dearest interests of life and every heritage of material wealth in that awful destruction of the train of emigrants.  Many other prominent citizens of Nirthwest Arkansas have hoped that Congress would take some action in favor of the  Mountain Meadow survivors.


It’s  not surprising that Mormons howl in protest–screaming “SACRED!” at the  top of their latter-day lungs–when honest efforts are made to examine  the history of their secret, violence-laden Mormon temple oaths and  rituals.

One of the more notorious ones in this regard was the  infamous “Oath of Vengeance,” which Mormons swore against the United  States government.

Into the first two decades of the 20th  century, faithful, temple-attending Mormons, secretly took this Oath of  Vengeance. The U.S. Senate considered it a serious enough threat to  convene hearings on this Mormon temple vow and other matters related to  the LDS church.

Below are some pertinent historical details  regarding this Oath of Vengeance that Mormons are not inclined to talk  about in openly:

“Following Joseph Smith’s martyrdom [actually,  Smith, armed with a pistol, was shot to death in a jailhouse gunfight  after being place behind bars for ordering the destruction of a  newspaper press], Brigham Young [Smith’s successor] introduced an oath  in the [Mormon temple] endowment which required members [of the church]  to swear vengeance ‘upon this nation.’ It became the subject of a United  States Senate investigation.

“Reed Smoot was a Mormon Apostle  who had been elected a Senator from Utah. In 1903 a protest was filed in  the United States Senate to have [the] Hon. Smoot removed from office,  on the grounds that he had taken this treasonous oath in the endowment  ritual.

“The

complete  record of this episode was published in ‘U.S. Senate Document 486 (59th  Congress, 1st Session) Proceedings Before the Committee on Privileges  and Elections of the United States Senate in the Matter of the Protests  Against the Right of Hon. Reed Smoot, a Senator from the State of Utah,  to hold his Seat,’ 4 vols.[+1 vol. index] (Washington: Government  Printing Office, 1906).”

When  questioned about it under oath during U.S. Senate hearings, Smoot  refused to divulge this secret Mormon temple Oath of Vengeance. (for a  “New York Times” account of Smoot’s cover-up in this regard, see: “Smoot  Would Not Tell of Endowment Secrets,” in “New York Times,” 23 January  1905, at: http://1857massacre.com/MMM/PDF/Smoot_01-23-1905_NYTimes.pdf ; and “Oath of Vengeance,” at: http://1857massacre.com/MMM/oath_of_vengeance.htm😉
This secret Mormon temple ritual’s multi-generational Oath of Vengeance against the U.S. government was worded as follows:

“You and each of you do covenant and promise that you will pray and never cease

to pray to  Almighty God to avenge the blood of the prophets upon this nation, and  that you will teach the same to your children and to your children’s  children unto the third and fourth generation.”(“Oath of Vengeance,” at: http://www.lds-mormon.com/veilworker/oathvenge.shtml)
With  word leaking out of its existence, the Mormon church eventually removed  this Oath of Vengeance was from its secret temple rituals.

Below  is an overall history of this vow of vengeance and retribution against  their own government, as temple-attending Mormons promised to obey it:

“One  of the oaths which was formerly taken in the temple ritual was the  source of so much trouble that the Mormon leaders finally removed it  entirely from the ceremony. This oath was printed in ‘Temple Mormonism,’  pa. 21, as follows: ‘You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow  that you will pray, and never cease to pray,  and never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of the  prophets on this nation, and that you will teach this to your children  and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.’\

“A  great deal of testimony has been given concerning this oath, and  although all of the witnesses did not agree as to its exact wording,  there can be little doubt that such an oath was administered to the  Mormon people after Joseph Smith’s death. John D. Lee related that the  following occurred after Joseph Smith’s death:

“’ . . . Brigham  raised his hand and said, ‘I swear by the eternal Heavens that I have  unsheathed my sword, and I will never return it until the blood of the  Prophet Joseph and Hyrum, and those who were slain in Missouri, is  avenged. This whole nation is guilty of shedding their blood, by  assenting to the deed, and holding its peace.’ .. . . Furthermore, every  one who had passed through their endowments, in the Temple, were placed  under the most sacred obligations to avenge the blood of the Prophet,  whenever an opportunity offered, and to teach their children to do the  same, thus making the entire Mormon people sworn and avowed enemies of  the American nation (‘The Confessions of John D. Lee,’ p. 160).

“Some  Mormon apologists have maintained that there was no ‘Oath of Vengeance’  in the temple ceremony, but the ‘Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon’  makes it very plain that there was such an oath. Under the date of  December 6, 1889, Apostle Cannon recorded the following in his diary:

“’About  4:30 p.m. this meeting adjourned and was followed by a meeting of  Presidents Woodruff, Cannon and Smith and Bros. Lyman and Grant. . . .  In speaking of the recent examination before Judge Anderson Father said  that he understood when he had his endowments in Nauvoo that he took an  oath against the murderers of the Prophet Joseph as well as other  prophets, and if he had ever met any of those who had taken a hand in  that massacre he would undoubtedly have attempted to avenge the blood of  the martyrs.’ (‘Daily Journal of Abraham H. Cannon,’ December 6, 1889,  pp. 205-06).

“Apostle Cannon went on to relate that [eventual  Mormon church president] Joseph F. Smith was about to murder a man with  his pocket knife if he even expressed approval of Joseph Smith’s death.

“The  Oath of Vengeance probably had a great deal to do with the massacre at  Mountain Meadows, in which about 120 men, women, and children were  killed, and other murders which were committed in early Utah (see  ‘Mormonism—Shadow or Reality?’ pp. 493-515, 545-59).

“Just after  the turn of the century the Mormon leaders found themselves in serious  trouble because of the oath of vengeance. They were questioned at great  length concerning this oath in the ‘Reed Smoot Case.’ The Oath of  Vengeance remained in the temple ceremony, however, even after the ‘Reed  Smoot Case’ was printed . . . . It must have been removed sometime  between then and 1937, because in a lecture delivered on February 28,  1937, Francis M. Darter complained that ‘The Law and prayer of  Retribution, or divine judgment, against those who persecute the Saints,  has been entirely removed from Temple services. . . . The reason why it  was taken out, says one Apostle, was because it was offensive to the  young people.’ (‘Celestial Marriage,’ p. 60).

“. . . [T]he oaths  taken in the temple were originally very crude. . . . [O]ne example here  [From the Smoot hearings]—i.e., the testimony of J. H. Wallis, Sr., who  had been through the temple about 20 times:

“MR. WALLIS: ‘ . . . [A]nother vow was what we used to call the “oath of vengeance.’ . . .

“MR. TAYLER: ‘Stand up, if it will help you, and give us the words, if you can.’

“MR.  WALLIS (standing up): ‘That you and each of you do promise and vow that  you will never cease to importune high heaven to avenge the blood of  the prophets upon the nations of the earth or the inhabitants of the  earth.’ (‘The Reed Smoot Case,’ vol. 2, pp. 77-79).

“The next day Mr. Wallis corrected his testimony concerning the oath of vengeance:

“MR.  WALLIS: ‘In repeating the obligation of vengeance I find I made a  mistake; I was wrong. It should have been ‘upon this nation.’ I had it  ‘upon the inhabitants of the earth.’ It was a mistake on my part.  (ibid., pp. 148-49).

(“Temple Work,” at: http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech22b.htm#532)
Rest assured, you will not hear Mitt Romney speaking publicly about any of this.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2012 05:21PM by steve benson.

Options: ReplyQuote

Posted by: Uncle Dale (  )

Date: April 05, 2012 05:45PM

steve benson Wrote:

——————————————————-

> how constitutional was the Mormon secret temple

>”Oath of Vengeance”? . . .Just about as constitutional as were the secret

Endowment House oaths, on avenging the blood of

Joe and Hyrum Smith upon the people of Illinois.

“Long shall his blood which was shed by assassins…”

Just about as constitutional as the First Presidency’s

Message of July 4, 1838, delivered at Far West.

Just about as constitutional as the Church’s setting

David Whitmer apart and ordaining him Secretary of War.

Just about as constitutional as Joe organizing an armed

para-military expedition, and crossing state lines, to

threaten violence upon the Gentiles of Jackson and

Clay counties, Missouri, in the summer of 1834.

Just about as constitutional as Brigham Young declaring

martial law in Utah Territory in 1857, and forbidding the

passage of outsiders (U.S. troops, the Fanchers, etc.)

through his domain.

Just about as constitutional as the Quorum of Fifty

appointing secret USA ambassadors to foreign countries.

Just about as constitutional as Brigham running appointed

federal judges out of Utah Territory prior to 1858.

Need I continue?

UD

Options: ReplyQuote

Posted by: 3X (  )

Date: April 05, 2012 05:49PM

Big on the Constitution?I am regularly confronted by LDS bloggers who opine, “If people only knew how much Mormons _love_ the Constitution.”

UhHuh …

Options: ReplyQuote

Posted by: cludgie (  )

Date: April 06, 2012 12:58AM

I’ve often tried to make your point about the oath, but they look at me stupidly. King James Bible Online

The Luciferian Rapture Doctrine and Its Diabolical Zionists/Jesuits Connection – Its Secrets and Worldwide Influence

The rapture theory is not Biblical and was founded as an Anti-Reformation tool of the Catholic Church.

The word rapture comes from the Latin word rapio which mean – to steal, take by force, plunder, snatch, and rape. Jerome mis translated the word he translated the Vulgate from Greek.  Rapio and  harpazo have totally different meanings.

The purpose of the rapture theory was to destroy the reformation or control protestantism, recapture the Holy Land and establish the New Word Order and the One world government.

Barbara Rossing said in her book The Rapture Racket,

” the Rapture is a fraud of monumental proportions, as well as a disturbing way to instill fear in people.

“Whether prescribing a violent script for Israel or survivalism in the United States, this theology distorts God’s vision for the world,” Rossing writes. “In place of healing, the Rapture proclaims escape. In place of Jesus’s blessing of peacemaking, the Rapture voyeuristically glorifies violence and war …. This theology is not biblical. We are not Raptured off the earth, nor is God.

Where did the rapture theory originate and why?

Reformers such as Luther, Calvin, Huss, Zwingli, Melanchthon, Bullinger and others had identified the Catholic Church as Mystery Babylon in Revelation and the Popes as the Anti-Christ. Millions of sincere Catholics were leaving the mother church and joining the reformation movement.. The church set out to neutralize and destroy the protestant movement.. What they could not do through brute force and the military inquisitions they did through political espionage, spiritual intrigue, and using mind control techniques by secret societies. Most of the books published on the rapture are brainwashing the readers mind. All of the books written by Tim Lahaye’s, John Hagee’s, Jack van Impe, Jerry Jenkins , John Walvoord and movies such as the Omega Code and Megiddo are design for mind control. This anti-protestant doctrine is taught in many universities and seminaries such as Dallas Theological Seminary, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Southwestern Assemblies of God, Zion Bible College, Moody Bible Institute, Global University, Liberty and Regent University and well as a host of other leading colleges and universities The rapture cult has the largest following than any cult in the US or Europe.

Why were sincere Catholics, priests and monks leaving the Catholic Church.?

People were leaving because of corruptions in the church. If one look at the Babylonian sun worship, and the present Roman Catholic Mass there are many similarities. Baal worship seem to have taken over the Catholic Church. The icon of the virgin mother and child with halos (representing the sun), Mary as the queen of heaven, (Isis – queen of heaven) confessionals, wafer worship, transubstantiation, and priests as exclusive mediators of God were all derived from the Satanic Babylonian religion. Roman Catholicism became a mixture of witchcraft, Judaism, paganism, and perverted Christianity. When this corruptions was exposed by the reformers, Rome was outraged, and staged Holy Inquisitions, design to rid the world of heretics. The Inquisition included torturing and murdering people who didn’t not agree with the Catholic views. Ten of thousands of people were killed and some historians even put the numbers in the millions. Later, in response to the Vatican’s oppressive dogma, Martin Luther, a former Augustinian monk, nailed his 95 theses to the wall of a church in Germany, heralding Protestantism. . The Vatican was shaken as Protestantism spreads rapidly through Europe. In order to stamp out the spiritual rebellion, Pope Paul III ordered Ignatius de Loyola to found the Order of Jesuits, which would act as the intelligentsia and secret militia of the Vatican. Loyola had already founded the occult Illuminati, which he then placed under the umbrella of the Vatican ” Ignatius a Merovingian Jew from Loyola Spain was a member of the Alumbrados before he founded the Illuminati and the Jesuits. The Merovingian Jews claim to be decedents of Jesus and Mary of Magdalene. Thus you have books and movies like DaVinci Code, Prieure de Sion, Passover Plot, Holy Blood Holy Grail, Bloodline of the Holy Grail, being produced and circulated by Hollywood Kabbalist movie studios and publishing houses controlled by the Illuminati. These books are blasphemous teachings design to nullify the true Gospel of Jesus. Many of the Popes, Cardinals, Bishops and Priest were Merovingian Jews whose agenda was to destroy true Christianity and pervert the true gospel.

The Jesuits Oath:

“I furthermore promise and declare that I will, when opportunity present, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do, to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition; and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics, rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the walls, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poisoned cup, the strangulating cord, the steel of the poniard or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity, or authority of the person or persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Faith, of the Society of Jesus.”It was when Pope Paul III convened the Council of Trent that the church formally addressed the protestant reformation with edicts, dogmas and doctrines. A disciple of Ignatius, Francisco Ribera came up with a theory that would take the attention off the Pope as being the Anti-Christ and put it on some future individual. This was the beginning of the Rapture doctrine. The Jesuits infiltrated the protestant movement, developed protestant theology, and purposely mis interpreted scriptures relating to Bible prophecy. They also controlled the educational system and bribe and blackmailed governments of Europe and America to promote their agenda. Two other groups that were instrumental the origin and development of the rapture theory were the Knights Templars (Masons) and the Knights of Malta (Knights of Columbus).

Barbara Aho said in her article (The Merovingian Dynasty) “it was also the The avowed objective of the Templars was to protect the Christians who came to visit the Holy Places: their secret objective was the re-building of the Temple of Solomon on the model prophesied by Ezekiel.
“This re-building, formally predicted by the Judaizing Mystics of the earlier ages, had become the secret dream of the Patriarchs of the Orient. The Temple of Solomon, re-built and consecrated to the Catholic worship would become, in effect, the Metropolis of the Universe.”

Protestant churches that have stop protesting, Evangelical seminaries have stop teaching truth, religious broadcaster, TV evangelists, religious writers, teachers, and preachers who promote the rapture have been seduced by Jesuits theology and manipulated by the kabbalist practitioners, thus they are part of the world-wide Anti-protestant, anti-reformation, and Anti-Christ conspiracy.

If you are reading this document, I strongly suggest you print it out, send it to your friends and family members because it would be taken off this web site by workers of the prince of darkness. May the Spirit of God lead you into all truth. God Bless.

The Thirteenth Tribe:

Arthur Koestler documents the Caucasian ancestry of Ashkenazim Jews. TheThirteenthTribe. The Khazar Empire and its Heritage. Arthur Koestler. Mr. Koestler speculates about the ultimate faith of the Khazars and their impact on the racial composition and social heritage of modern Jewry. He produces a large body of meticulously detailed research in support of a theory that sounds all the more convincing for the restraint with which it is advanced. Yet should this theory be confirmed, the term “anti-Semitism” would become void of meaning, since, as Mr. Koestler writes, it is based “on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims. The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.

The vast majority of Jews in the world is of Eastern European – and thus perhaps mainly of Khazar – origin. If so, this would mean that their ancestors came not from the Jordan but from the Volga, not from Canaan but from the Caucasus, once believed to be the cradle of the Aryan race; and that genetically they are more closely related to the Hun, Uigur and Magyar tribes than to the seed of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Should this turn out to be the case, then the term “anti-Semitism” would become void of meaning, based on a misapprehension shared by both the killers and their victims. Maybe the two world wars and the Holocaust were pretext for the New Khazaria or Israel hoax.The story of the Khazar Empire, as it slowly emerges from the past, begins to look like the most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.(Arthur Koestler,The Thirteenth Tribe, p. 17).

Old Khazaria existed from about 500 A.D. to about1000 A.D.

Old Khazaria adopted the religion of Talmudic Judaismabout 740 A.D.

Khazaria was reborn on May 14, 1948.

The most cruel hoax which history has ever perpetrated.

New Khazaria.

As long as Apostate Israel (New Khazaria) exist…there will never be any peace in the Middle East. Modern-day Jewry is of Eastern European/Aryan descent and thus they are not Semitic. Let the truth be told everywhere. Why should American Soldiers die to protect a Hoax?

DesertPeace: PRIVATIZING TERROR AND OUTS…CY IN IRAQ

Blackwater’s Erik Prince – ties to evangelicalism (Israel

Blackwater Founder And Rapture Apocalyptic Event Promoter, Implicated in Murders

“A former Blackwater employee and an ex-US Marine who has worked as a security operative for the company have made a series of explosive allegations in sworn statements filed on August 3 in federal court in Virginia. The two men claim that the company’s owner, Erik Prince, may have murdered or facilitated the murder of individuals who were cooperating with federal authorities investigating the company. The former employee also alleges that Prince “views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe,” and that Prince’s companies “encouraged and rewarded the destruction of Iraqi life

Tim Lahaye and the Blackwater Connection

Go to fullsize imageGo to fullsize imageGo to fullsize imageGo to fullsize image

Oct 10, 2007  Loewenstein believes that Erik Prince is a Christian fundamentalist who with his group of Blackwater bandits are causing death and

Blackwater: Life (and Death) Above the Law | NowPublic News Coverage

Erik Prince is the founder of Blackwater mercenaries

Erik Prince is the son of a billionaire Michigan industrialist named Edgar Prince. His father was a generous contributor to right-wing evangelical “Protestant” causes and Erik became a major contributor to Catholic organizations….He founded Blackwater in 1998.

Erik began his political career working as an intern for Gary Bauer at the Family Research Council and also worked in the Bush I White House, although he thought that this administration was too liberal. Prince disapproved of the Bush I administration to the extent that in 1992 he supported Patrick Buchanan for President, something that got him into trouble with his sister Betsy.

Erik Prince is a Catholic. He most likely became Catholic when he married his first wife, who died of cancer shortly after they were married. Interestingly enough, most of the leadership at Blackwater is also Catholic, albeit a conservative wing of the church that is quite reactionary. Erik Prince is personally connected to conservative Catholic groups like Catholic Answer, Crisis magazine, and a Grand Rapids-based group, the Acton Institute. But Prince has not abandoned his Protestant/Evangelical roots and is a close friend of Watergate criminal turned believer Chuck Colson. They have shared the podium on several occasions, even once at Calvin College. According to Scahill, Prince is aligning himself with a new Catholic/Evangelical alliance called “Evangelicals and Catholics Together.” The ECT manifesto states:
===============================================
[link to reformation.org]

Tim LaHaye and the Council for National Policy

In 1981, Tim LaHaye was the founder of a highly secretive conservative think tank called the Council for National Policy dedicated to turning the nation to the right. One of the founding members was named Edgar Prince, father of Erik Prince, the secretive founder of the Blackwater mercenaries:

ARMY. NAVY. AIR FORCE. MARINES. BLACKWATER!!

The 5th branch of the CONfederate military is called BLACKWATER after the area in Camden County, North Carolina, where the mercenaries train. Of course they don’t call themselves mercenaries but private contractors. Their founder, Erik Prince, is described by the media as a RIGHT WING EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN!!

A decade ago, the company barely existed; and yet, its “diplomatic security” contracts since mid-2004, with the State Department alone, total more than $750 million. Today, Blackwater has become nothing short of the Bush administration’s well-paid Praetorian Guard. It protects the U.S. ambassador and other senior officials in Iraq as well as visiting congressional delegations; it trains Afghan security forces and was deployed in the oil-richCaspian Sea region, setting up a “command and control” center just miles from the Iranian border. The company was also hired to protect FEMA operations and facilities in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, where it raked in $240,000 a day from the American taxpayer, billing $950 a day per Blackwater contractor.

Tim LaHaye and the Council for National Policy

In 1981, Tim LaHaye was the founder of a highly secretive conservative think tank called the Council for National Policy dedicated to turning the nation to the right. One of the founding members was named Edgar Prince, father of Erik Prince, the secretive founder of the Blackwater mercenaries:

“But Erik Prince’s philanthropy has certainly not been limited to Catholic causes. The Prince family was deeply involved in the secretive Council for National Policy, described by the New York Times as “a little-known club of a few hundred of the most powerful conservatives in the country [which has] met behind closed doors at undisclosed locations for a confidential conference” three times a year “to strategize about how to turn the country to the right.” The Council was started in 1981 by the Rev. Tim LaHaye, one of the founders of the modern right-wing Christian movement in the United States and author of the apocalyptic Left Behind novels.”‘ The idea was to build a Christian conservative alternative to the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations, which LaHaye considered too liberal. CNP membership is kept secret, and members are instructed that ‘The media should not know when or where we meet or who takes part in our programs, before or after a meeting.’

Hal Lindsey is known as the father of modern “Bible” prophecy. His famous Late Great Planet Earth sold over 35 million copies and spawned the billion dollar end-times industry, whose books and videos repeat his dispensational theme, and are patterned after his novel writing style. Lindsey actually is a Jesuit in disguise as 2 of his daughters attendedJesuit Gonzaga University.
That Left Behind series was nothing more than Illuminati propaganda for the Christian community. It has no basis fact on how Biblical prophecy will truly unfold.

Luciferian Rapture Doctrine Books and Teachers

Twilight's Last Gleaming -DVD

strategic perspectives

The Nazarzine Your Christian Electronic Magazine

Schumer the Zionist NY Politician said Obama’s ‘counter-productive’ Israel policy ‘has to stop’.

Schumer Obama Israel

New York Zionist Senator and Israeli plant Chuck Schumer harshly criticized the Obama Administration’s attempts to exert pressure on Israel today, making him the highest-ranking Democrat to object to Obama’s policies in such blunt terms.

Schumer, along with a majority of members of the House and Senate, signed on to letters politely suggesting the U.S. keep its disagreements with Israel private, a tacit objection to the administration’s very public rebuke of the Jewish State over construction in Jerusalem last month.

But Schumer dramatically sharpened his tone on the politically conservative Jewish Nachum Segal Show today, calling the White House stance to date “counter-productive” and describing his own threat to “blast” the Administration had the State Department not backed down from its “terrible” tough talk toward Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Schumer, a hawkish ally of Israel since his days as a Brooklyn Congressman, described “a battle going on inside the administration” over Middle East policy.

“This has to stop,” he said of the administration’s policy of publicly pressuring Israel to end construction in Jerusalem.

Republicans Zionist ‘troubled’ by US policy onIsrael

JERUSALEM — The Obama administration’s policy on Israel is misguided, puts too much emphasis on the issue of settlements and ignores the bigger threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, a U.S. delegation of Republican congressmen visiting Israel said Thursday.

Led by minority whip Eric Cantor from Virginia, the only Jewish Republican in Congress, the delegation of 25 Republicans say their weeklong mission to Israel is designed to show solidarity with the Jewish state and promote Mideast peace. A group of Democratic congressmen are expected to visit next week.

Google logo PNG IconFeed logo PNG IconReddit logo PNG IconTwitter logo PNG IconStumbleupon logo PNG IconTechnorati logo PNG IconNewsvine logo PNG Icon

share http://www.wikio.com Blog Directory Subscribe with Bloglines

Top Blogs blogarama - the blog directory

Current Events & News Blogs - Blog Rankings Site Meter
world hot news,International, Politics,   Business,Criminal,  Infotainment, Sports,  Technology, Entertainment,  Gossip Politics (Opinion) - TOP.ORG Best Indian websites ranking Hihera.com Blog Directory Social Media Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory GoLedy.com DigNow.net Dr.5z5 Open Feed Directory TopBlogDir.blogspot.com button

Top100 Bloggers - Top Blog Directory - Blog Top list

Bookmark and Share

BIBLE TALK christianity religion BIBLEPROBE Catholic Uncategorized BIBLE C. Dollar Evangelical KABBALLAH theology Charles Blake Charles Stanly church Eddie Long Politics benny hinn Billy Graham Charles Green conspiracy current events Jack Van Impe John Hagee Kenneth Copeland Mason Pentecostal qabalah rod parsley Steve Keohane T.D. Jakes Billy Joe Daugherty Bishop T.D. Jakes CABALAH Floyd Flake happy caldwell Harold Ray Kenneth Hagin Pat Robinson Paul Morton Pope Pope Benedict XVI Richard Roberts Richard Shakarian Swindol T.Lahaye TRUTH TV evangelist Vatican WORD apostasy jesse duplantis Mark Chironna ministry Pope John Paul II Freemason joel olsteen robert Schuller Russell Bean S. Lukens babylon BULLINGER Illuminati MUNROE NWO true worship WOODROW clarence larkin cliff ford daniel bohler drosnin michael Fredick Price J. Reyes jack van impe ministries john hagee zionism MURDOCK Russell Bean,Joseph Reyes,S. Lukens Tim Lahaye Anti-Christ Doctrine H.Lindsey Jane Hanson – Aglow International Jesuits John Hagee Ministries Kenneth copeland ministries kenneth hagin ministries lighthouse production lighthouse world ministries Christian Science hinson Knight of Columbus Knight of Malta worship Frank Wright knights templar Thomas Ice Bishop Charles Blake end-time-events munroe,murdock,woodrow,bullinger,meyer Roberta Combs Christian Coalition Assemblies of God branch of david Christian Word Ministries Doug Kreiger frontier research publications Golden Dawn ice & demy jan markell jimmy swaggard Jonah Immanu Morning Star Ministries NRB Olive Tree Ministries saints harvest ministries TBN Catholicism Christian COGIC Dallas Theological Seminary garth coonch GJCN Global University God Grant Jefferies Grant Jeffery history InTouch j.vernon mcgee James DeLoach James Kennedy Jeruselam john macternan john walvoord law logos publishing National Association of Evangelicals Oral Roberts Southwestern Assemblies of God University Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Stephen Smith Terry Risenhoover Tony Smith truthnet van kampen blackie gonzalez charles phillips DaVinci Code GOSPEL Israel jerry rose Jesus Jews for Jesus lambert dolphin Liberty University Messianic Ministry Moody Bible Institute mormanism New World Order prophecy Regent University Rick Warren Robert Tilton Cabbala DISPENSATION Druids Futurism hilton sutton John Nelson Darby living occult Priory Sion Reformation Rex Humbard roberth de’andrea Rosicrucian susan minot ZOA Armageddon books cult false-doctrine Omega Code rapture ready Temple Barack Obama Gravel Harpazo Hillery Clinton Jeruselam Temple Joe Biden John Edwards John Mccain Middle East Conflict Mike Huckabee mind control Mitt Romey mystical rapture rapture Ron Paul Sam Brownback Tommy Thompson Armageddon cult rapture end-times Haaretz Hope of the World Left Behind new thought prophecy online SECRET RAPTURE The-Word truth about rapture last days events news Revelation ribera Ten Commandments The-Pope tribulation True Israel YouTube President Baal worship Lords Day megiddo post tribulation pre-tribulation scientology Second Coming AIPAC Anti-Protestant Blessed Hope book Christian Zionism Dwight L Moody Franklin Graham Gary Bauer Haram al-Sharif Janet Parshall Luther Oxford University Press Southern Baptist America Values Anti-Reformation Ignatius Press Ignitius Loyola International Fellowship of Christians and Jews Millennium pagan Ralph Reed rapture cult Return of Jesus Ten Commandment Commission The Rapture William Blackstone Bridges for Peace Holy Land International Christian Embassy Israel Christian Advocacy Council Jerry Savelle Ministries International Joyer Meyer Ministries Life mormonism Temple Mount Cyrus Scofield Juanita Bynum Ministry Larry Huch Ministries Lord Northampton Marilyn Hickey MEMBI secrets ron paul Sunday Creflo Dollar World Changers Ministries JINSA Joseph A Seiss Joseph Chambers Mystical religious order Paw Creek Ministries Sabbath the-Bible Wm. E. Blackstone zionism Arno Froese grace new age prayer presidential debate second advent Bishop Eddie Long Dan Bohler sunday-day of rest apostacy BnaiBrith Napolian Hill Norman vincent Peale Secret Knowledge death Al-Aqsa Mosque Dave Hunt John Chambers Secret Dan Kohler Lords Day Alliance Matthew Henry Rick Joyner Baphomet Bob Jones Dwright L. Moody end-times events immortality meditation Muslem justification re-incarnation Adam Clark Anti-Christ Islam Oprah prosperity Self Improvement spirit third temple Frinklin Graham prosperity,wealth,money soul Sunday sacredness Third Jerusalem Temple salvation the Secret law of attraction Luciferian MONEY wealth Dr. Quimbys Hermes Hinduism Jacob Boehme Budda Theosophical



Created by WordPress.com Tag Cloud Generator by //engtech



Left Behind by the Jesuits – The Truth About The Secret Rapture Secret Origin –


By Steve Wohlberg

Modern Christianity has largely forgotten the importance of the Protestant Reformation, which took place during the 1500s. “The sixteenth century presents the spectacle of a stormy sunrise after a dismal night. Europe awoke from long sleep of superstition. The dead arose. The witnesses to truth who had been silenced and slain stood up once more and renewed their testimony. The martyred confessors reappeared in the Reformers. There was a cleansing of the spiritual sanctuary. Civil and religious liberty were inaugurated. The discovery of printing and revival of learning accelerated the movement. There was progress everywhere. Columbus struck across the ocean and opened a new hemisphere to view. Rome was shaken on her seven hills, and lost one-half of her dominions. Protestant nations were created. The modern world was called into existence.”1

For almost a thousand years, Europe had been ruled by the iron hand of Rome. Only a few Bibles existed then, and Christianity was largely permeated with superstition. Faith in Jesus Christ, heartfelt appreciation for His love, and a simple trust in His death on the cross, were almost unknown. The New Testament truth about grace, full forgiveness, and the free gift of eternal life to believers in the Son of God (Romans 6:23), had been buried under a mass of tradition. Then Martin Luther arose like a lion in Germany. After a period of tremendous personal struggle, Martin Luther began teaching justification by faith in Jesus Christ (being declared “just” by God), rather than through reliance on “creature merits,” or any human works (Romans 1:16; 3:26, 28; 5:1).

Luther’s Discovery

Eventually, Martin Luther turned to the prophecies. By candlelight, he read about the “little horn,” the “man of sin,” and “the beast,” and he was shocked as the Holy Spirit spoke to his heart. Finally, he saw the truth and said to himself, “Why, these prophecies apply to the Roman Catholic Church!” As he wrestled with this new insight, the voice of God echoed loudly in his soul, saying, “Preach the word!” (2 Timothy 4:2). And so, at the risk of losing his life, Martin Luther preached publicly and in print to an astonished people that Papal Rome was indeed the Antichrist of Bible prophecy. Because of this dual message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ apart from works and of Papal Rome being the Antichrist, the river of history literally changed its course. Hundreds of thousands of people in Europe and in England left the Catholic Church.

“‘There are two great truths that stand out in the preaching that brought about the Protestant Reformation,’ American Bible Commentator, Ralph Woodrow, reminds us, ‘The just shall live by faith, not by the works of Romanism and the Papacy is the Antichrist of Scripture.’ It was a message for Christ and against Antichrist. The entire Reformation rests upon this twofold testimony.’”2 It has been said that the Reformation first discovered Jesus Christ, and then, in the blazing light of Christ, it discovered the Antichrist. This mighty, Spirit-filled movement, for Christ and against the Antichrist, shook the world.

H. Grattan Guinness wrote these memorable words: “From the first, and throughout, that movement [the Reformation] was energized and guided by the prophetic word. Luther never felt strong and free to war against the Papal apostasy till he recognized the pope as Antichrist. It was then that he burned the Papal bull. Knox’s first sermon, the sermon that launched him on his mission as a reformer, was on the prophecies concerning the Papacy. The reformers embodied their interpretations of prophecy in their confessions of faith, and Calvin in his ‘Institutes.’ All of the reformers were unanimous in the matter, even the mild and cautious Melanchthon was as assured of the antipapal meaning of these prophecies as was Luther himself. And their interpretation of these prophecies determined their reforming action. It led them to protest against Rome with extraordinary strength and undaunted courage. It nerved them to resist the claims of the apostate Church to the utmost. It made them martyrs; it sustained them at the stake. And the views of the Reformers were shared by thousands, by hundreds of thousands. They were adopted by princes and peoples. Under their influence nations abjured their allegiance to the false priest of Rome.

“In the reaction that followed, all the powers of hell seemed to be let loose upon the adherents of the Reformation. War followed war: tortures, burnings, and massacres were multiplied. Yet the Reformation stood undefeated and unconquerable. God’s word upheld it, and the energies of His Almighty Spirit. It was the work of Christ as truly as the founding of the Church eighteen centuries ago; and the revelation of the future which He gave from heaven—that prophetic book with which the Scripture closes—was one of the mightiest instruments employed in its accomplishment.”3

A Counter-Reformation

In 1545, the Catholic Church convened one of its most famous councils in history, which took place north of Rome in a city called Trent. The Council of Trent actually continued for three sessions, ending in 1563. One of the main purposes of this Council was for Catholics to plan a counterattack against Martin Luther and the Protestants. Thus the Council of Trent became a center for Rome’s Counter-Reformation. Up to this point, Rome’s main method of attack had been largely frontal—the open burning of Bibles and of heretics. Yet this warfare only confirmed in the minds of Protestants the conviction that Papal Rome was indeed the Beast which would “make war with the saints” (Revelation 13:7). Therefore a new tactic was needed, something less obvious. This is where the Jesuits come in.

On August 15, 1534, Ignatius Loyola (in the title picture) founded a secretive Catholic order called the Society of Jesus, also known as the Jesuits. The Jesuits definitely have a dark history of intrigue and sedition, that’s why they were expelled from Portugal (1759), France (1764), Spain (1767), Naples (1767), and Russia (1820). “Jesuit priests have been known throughout history as the most wicked political arm of the Roman Catholic Church. Edmond Paris, in his scholarly work, The Secret History of the Jesuits, reveals and documents much of this information.”4 At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church gave the Jesuits the specific assignment of destroying Protestantism and bringing people back to the Mother Church. This was to be done not only through the Inquisition and through torture, but also through theology.

The Jesuit Commission

At the Council of Trent, the Jesuits were commissioned by the Pope to develop a new interpretation of Scripture that would counteract the Protestant application of the Bible’s Antichrist prophecies to the Roman Catholic Church. Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a brilliant Jesuit priest and doctor of theology from Spain, basically said, “Here am I, send me.” Like Martin Luther, Francisco Ribera also read by candlelight the prophecies about the Antichrist, the little horn, that man of sin, and the Beast. But because of his dedication and allegiance to the Pope, he came to conclusions vastly different from those of the Protestants. “Why, these prophecies don’t apply to the Catholic Church at all!” Ribera said. Then to whom do they apply? Ribera proclaimed, “To only one sinister man who will rise up at the end of time!” “Fantastic!” was the reply from Rome, and this viewpoint was quickly adopted as the official Roman Catholic position on the Antichrist.

“In 1590, Ribera published a commentary on the Revelation as a counter-interpretation to the prevailing view among Protestants which identified the Papacy with the Antichrist. Ribera applied all of Revelation but the earliest chapters to the end time rather than to the history of the Church. Antichrist would be a single evil person who would be received by the Jews and would rebuild Jerusalem.”5 “Ribera denied the Protestant Scriptural Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) as seated in the church of God—asserted by Augustine, Jerome, Luther and many reformers. He set on an infidel Antichrist, outside the church of God.”6 “The result of his work [Ribera’s] was a twisting and maligning of prophetic truth.”7

Following close behind Francisco Ribera was another brilliant Jesuit scholar, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine (1542-1621) of Rome. Between 1581 and 1593, Cardinal Bellarmine published his “Polemic Lectures Concerning the Disputed Points of the Christian Belief Against the Heretics of This Time.” In these lectures, he agreed with Ribera. “The futurist teachings of Ribera were further popularized by an Italian cardinal and the most renowned of all Jesuit controversialists. His writings claimed that Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power. The futurists’ school won general acceptance among Catholics. They were taught that Antichrist was a single individual who would not rule until the very end of time.”8 Through the work of these two tricky Jesuit scholars, we might say that a brand new baby was born into the world. Protestant historians have given this baby a name—Jesuit Futurism. In fact, Francisco Ribera has been called the Father of Futurism.

Defining the Issue

Before we go much farther, let’s define some terms. Historicism is the belief that Biblical prophecies about the little horn, the man of sin, the Antichrist, the Beast, and the Babylonian Harlot of Revelation 17, all apply to the developing history of Christianity and to the ongoing struggle between Jesus Christ and Satan within the Christian Church, culminating at the end of time. Historicism sees these prophecies as having a direct application to Papal Rome as a system whose doctrines are actually a denial of the New Testament message of free salvation by grace through simple faith in Jesus Christ, apart from works. Historicism was the primary prophetic viewpoint of the Protestant Reformers. In direct opposition to Historicism, and rising up as a razor-sharp counterattack on Protestantism, was that of the Jesuits with their viewpoint of Futurism, which basically says, “The Antichrist prophecies have nothing to do with the history of Papal Rome, rather, they apply to only one sinister man who comes at the end.”

Thus Jesuit Futurism sweeps 1,500 years of prophetic history under the proverbial rug by inserting its infamous GAP. This theory teaches that when Rome fell, prophecy stopped, only to continue again right around the time of the Rapture, thus the “gap” was created. The ten horns, the little horn, the Beast, and the Antichrist have nothing to do with Christians until this “last-day Antichrist” should appear. According to this viewpoint, there were no prophecies being fulfilled during the Dark Ages!

Inroads in Protestantism

For almost 300 years after the Council of Trent, Jesuit Futurism remained largely inside the realm of Catholicism, but the plan of the Jesuits was that these theological tenets be adopted by Protestants. This adoption process actually began in the early 1800s in England, and from there it spread to America. The story of how this happened is both fascinating and tragic. As I briefly share some of the highlights, I want to clarify that I am not judging the genuineness of these Christian men. They may have been sincere, yet at the same time deceived in some areas of their theological understanding.

“The Futurism of Ribera never posed a positive threat to the Protestants for three centuries. It was virtually confined to the Roman Church. But early in the nineteenth century it sprang forth with vehemence and latched on to Protestants of the Established Church of England.”9 Dr. Samuel Roffey Maitland (1792-1866), a lawyer and Bible scholar, became a librarian to the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is very likely that one day he discovered Ribera’s commentary in the library. In any event, in 1826 he published a widely-read book attacking the Reformation and supporting Ribera’s idea of a future one-man Antichrist. For the next ten years, in tract after tract, he continued his anti-Reformation rhetoric. As a result of his zeal and strong attacks against the Reformation in England, the Protestantism of that very nation which produced the King James Bible (1611) received a crushing blow.

After Dr. Maitland came James H. Todd, a professor of Hebrew at the University of Dublin. Todd accepted the futuristic ideas of Maitland, publishing his own supportive pamphlets and books. Then came John Henry Newman (1801-1890), a member of the Church of England and a leader of the famous Oxford Movement (1833-1845). In 1850, Newman wrote his “Letter on Anglican Difficulties,” revealing that one of the goals in the Oxford Movement was to finally absorb “the various English denominations and parties” back into the Church of Rome. After publishing a pamphlet endorsing Todd’s futurism about a one-man Antichrist, Newman soon became a full Roman Catholic, and later even a highly honored Cardinal. Through the influence of Maitland, Todd, Newman, and others, a definite “Romeward movement was already arising, destined to sweep away the old Protestant landmarks, as with a flood.”10

Then came the much-respected Scottish Presbyterian minister, Edward Irving (1792-1834), the acknowledged forerunner of both the Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements. Irving pastored the large Chalcedonian Chapel in London with over 1,000 members. When Irving turned to the prophecies, he eventually accepted the one-man Antichrist idea of Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, yet he went a step further. Somewhere around 1830, Edward Irving began to teach the unique idea of a two-phase return of Christ, the first phase being a secret rapture prior to the rise of the Antichrist. Where he got this idea is a matter of much dispute. Journalist Dave MacPherson believes Irving accepted it is a result of a prophetic revelation given to a young Scottish girl named Margaret McDonald.11 In any case, the fact is, Irving taught it!

In the midst of this growing anti-Protestant climate in England, there arose a man by the name of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882). A brilliant lawyer, pastor, and theologian, he wrote more than 53 books on Bible subjects. A much-respected Christian and a man of deep piety, Darby took a strong stand in favor of the infallibility of the Bible in contrast with the liberalism of his day. He became one of the leaders of a group in Plymouth, England, which became known as the Plymouth Brethren. Darby’s contribution to the development of evangelical theology has been so great that he has been called The Father of Modern Dispensationalism. Yet John Nelson Darby, like Edward Irving, also became a strong promoter of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture followed by a one-man Antichrist. In fact, this teaching has become a hallmark of Dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is the theory that God deals with mankind in major dispensations or periods. According to Darby, we are now in the “Church Age,” that is, until the Rapture. After the Rapture, then the seven-year period of Daniel 9:27 will supposedly kick in, and this is when the Antichrist will rise up against the Jews. In fact, John Nelson Darby laid much of the foundation for the present popular removal of Daniel’s 70th week away from history and from Jesus Christ in favor of applying it to a future Tribulation after the Rapture. Thus, in spite of all the positives of his ministry, Darby followed Maitland, Todd, Bellarmine, and Ribera by incorporating the teachings of Futurism into his theology. This created a link between John Nelson Darby, the Father of Dispen-sationalism, and the Jesuit Francisco Ribera, the Father of Futurism. Darby visited America six times between 1859-1874, preaching in all of its major cities, during which time he definitely planted the seeds of Futurism in American soil. The child of the Jesuits was growing up.

Futurism in America

One of the most important figures in this whole drama is Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a Kansas lawyer who was greatly influenced by the writings of Darby. In 1909, Scofield published the first edition of his famous Scofield Reference Bible. In the early 1900s, this Bible became so popular in American Protestant Bible schools that it was necessary to print literally millions of copies. Yet, in the much-respected footnotes of this very Bible, Scofield injected large doses of the fluid of Futurism also found in the writings of Darby, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera. Through the Scofield Bible, the Jesuit child reached young adulthood. The doctrine of an Antichrist still to come was becoming firmly established inside 20th-century American Protestantism.

(Martin Luther, as well as all of the other Reformers, were unanimous in their interpretation of the Antichrist as the papacy.)

The Moody Bible Institute and the Dallas Theological Seminary have strongly supported the teachings of John Nelson Darby, and this has continued to fuel Futurism’s growth. Then in the 1970s, Pastor Hal Lindsey, a graduate of Dallas Theological Seminary, released his blockbuster book The Late Great Planet Earth. This 177-page, easy-to-read volume brought Futurism to the masses of American Christianity, and beyond. The New York Times labeled it “The number one best-seller of the decade.” Over 30 million copies have been sold, and it has been translated into over 30 languages. Through The Late Great Planet Earth, Jesuit Futurism took a strong hold over the Protestant Christian world.

Left Behind

Now we have Left Behind. In the 1990s, Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins took the future one-man Antichrist idea of Hal Lindsey, Scofield, Darby, Irving, Newman, Todd, Maitland, Bellarmine, and Ribera, and turned it into “The most successful Christian-fiction series ever” (Publishers Weekly). Hal Lindsey’s book, The Late Great Planet Earth, was largely theological, which limited its appeal, while Left Behind is a sequence of highly imaginative novels, “overflowing with suspense, action, and adventure,” a “Christian thriller,” with a “label its creators could never have predicted: blockbuster success” (Entertainment Weekly). The much-respected television ministries of Jack Van Impe, Peter and Paul Lalonde, and Pastor John Hagee, have all worked together to produce LEFT BEHIND: The Movie. The entire project has even caught the attention of the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, resulting in an interview of LaHaye and Jenkins on Larry King Live. The Left Behind books have been made available on displays at WalMart, Fry’s Electronics, and inside countless other stores.

Again, let me clarify, I am not judging the genuineness of the authors of Left Behind and the leaders of these television ministries. They may be sincere, and have their own walk with God. But they are deceived into wrong ideas concerning Bible prophecy. God may even use Left Behind to influence people for Jesus Christ. But, in the full light of Scripture, prophecy, and the Protestant Reformation, something is terribly wrong. Left Behind is now teaching much of the same Jesuit Futurism as Francisco Ribera, which is hiding the real truth about the Antichrist. Through Left Behind, the floodgates of Futurism have been opened, unleashing a massive tidal wave of false prophecy which is now sweeping over America. Sadly, it is a false “idea whose time has come.”

The Prophetic Foundation

As we have already seen, the theological foundation for the entire Left Behind series is the application of the “seven years” of Daniel 9:27 to a future period of Tribulation. Are you ready for this? Guess who was one of the very first scholars to slice Daniel’s 70th week away from the first 69 weeks, sliding it down to the end of time? It was Francisco Ribera! “Ribera’s primary apparatus was the seventy weeks. He taught that Daniel’s 70th week was still in the future. . . It was as though God put a giant rubber band on this Messianic time measure. Does this supposition sound familiar? This is exactly the scenario used by Hal Lindsey and a multitude of other current prophecy teachers.”12

When most Christians look at the last 1,500 years, how much fulfilled prophecy do they see? None, zero, because almost everything is now being applied to a future time period after the Rapture. As we have seen, this GAP idea originated with the Jesuits, and its insertion into the majority of 21st century prophetic teaching is now blinding millions of hearts and eyes to what has gone before, and to what is happening right now inside the Church. “It is this GAP theory that permeates Futurism’s interpretation of all apocalyptic prophecy.”13 In love and in the Spirit of Jesus Christ, someone should publicly appeal to the major prophetic television ministries of today to re-evaluate their positions. Hopefully, like noble ships with a new command from their captain, they will yet change their course.

Jesuit Futurism has almost completely changed the beliefs of Protestant Historicism. “The proper eschatological term for the view most taught today is Futurism, which fuels the confusion of Dispensationalism. The futuristic school of Bible prophecy came from the Roman Catholic Church, specifically her Jesuit theologians. . . However the alternative has been believed for centuries. It is known as Historicism.”14 “It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist.”15

Who Had It Right?

Who had the right theology—those who were burned at the stake for Jesus Christ, or those who lit the fires? Who had the true Bible doctrine—the martyrs or their persecutors? Who had the correct interpretation of the Antichrist—those who died trusting in the blood of Christ, or those who shed the blood of God’s dear saints? Dear friend, Jesuit Futurism is now at war with the Protestant Reformation by denying its power-packed application of prophecy to the Vatican. “The futurist school of Bible prophecy was created for one reason, and one reason only: to counter the Protestant Reformation!”16 In fact, Jesuit Futurism is at war with the prophecies of the Word of God itself! And if that’s not enough, consider this. Jesuit Futurism originated with the Roman Catholic Church, which makes it the very doctrine of the Antichrist! And when Christian ministries and movies like A Thief in the Night, Apocalypse, Revelation, Tribulation, and Left Behind, proclaim an Antichrist who comes only after the Rapture, what are they really doing? I shudder to even say it. Are you ready for this? They are sincerely and yet unknowingly teaching the doctrine of the Antichrist!

Now you know why truth has been left behind. You are now able to see The Left Behind deception. I appeal to you in the loving name of Jesus Christ, the Crucified One—Don’t fall for it.

Francisco Ribera and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, two Jesuit scholars, published works that taught that the Scriptures written by Paul, Daniel, and John had nothing whatsoever to say about the Papal power

Adding to the Futuristic interpretation of prophecy, John Nelson Darby added the theory of dispensationalism, or the idea tht God deals with mankind in major dispensations or periods of time.

Cyrus Scofield, the famed publisher of the Scofield Reference Bible, liberally interspersed the footnotes of his Bible with large doses of Futurism. These footnotes are still widely accepted by many theologians today.

Why the Jesuits created Israel

Zionist plan for Israel predated the pope’s banker Rothschild. It is a religious plan to deceive of the Jesuits’.

Zionism, not Jewish but Jesuit

1517, All over Europe the Pope was called The Antichrist. This prophetic teaching (historicist) was playing havoc with the Roman church. Millions were escaping and obeying the Lord’s command to “come out of her” (Rev. 18:4).

LIEola commissioned one of his Jesuits named Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) to write an opposing view. He wrote a 500 page commentary on the Book of Revelation. The main premise of his commentary was that:

(1) Antichrist was one man . . . not a dynasty.
(2) He would be an atheist or infidel.
(3) He would not be revealed until 7 years before the end of time.
(4) He would sit in a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem and make a covenant with the Jews.
(5) He would call himself God etc., etc.
(6) The Christians were hindering his appearance but they would be “caught up” raptured to Heaven before his appearance — the “Left Behind” madness!!

This became the official Roman Catholic position on Antichrist. This new idea (futurism) very conveniently shifted the focus from the Papacy to some fanciful individual way off in the distant future. John Nelson Darby became its main proponent in the English speaking world.

In order to make this “prophecy” come true he had to “invent Jews” (Rothschilds) and somehow get them back to Palestine.

The mighty nation of ancient Israel perished by the Roman sword in 70 A.D., in exact fulfillment of the words of Jesus The Temple was leveled to the ground and not one stone was left upon another that was not thrown down.

Inventing “Jews” was no problem for Rome. Even at the time of Christ there was a whole nation that called themselves Jews . . . but were phonies. They were the Samaritans who lived to the north of Jerusalem. Jesus even had an interview with a Samaritan woman at a well (Gospel of John ch. 4). One of them, Simon the Sorcerer, actually went to Rome and founded the Roman Catholic church.

Zionism began in earnest after WW I with the British Conquest of Palestine. Still, most of those Samaritan Jews were not interested in going there. After all, most of them were living comfortably in Germany and they had no interest in helping Ribera fulfill his futurism.

Hitler and WW II in 1948 helped found the State of Israel and the survivors of the Holocaust had no where else to go.
http://www.reformation.org/mideast_crisis.html
http://www.reformation.org/synagogue-of-satan.html

Bible Prophecy Truth – Rapture or Second Coming?

Blog Directory

Antichrist Conspiracy

Read the plans of Zionists in Israel and the United States for a renewed military Read the evidence that the Jesuits inspired and have continued to ..

POPE IMPLICATED IN COVER-UP OF WISCONSIN SEX ABUSE CASE

View ImageView Image

Catholic Priests and Nuns Raped and Molested Thousands of Children in Ireland–

Go to fullsize image

For ruther reading on this topic, select on of the links below:

http://www.remnantofgod.org/7yr-trib.htm

http://www.christiantrumpetsounding.com/7_yr_antichrist.htm

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/Pretrib4.htm

http://desertdove3.tripod.com/id50.html

http://www.tprconline.com/index.php?topic=4509.25;wap2

https://joeland7.wordpress.com/2007/06/14/mystical-rapture-it-catholic-jesuits-illuminati-connection/

http://journals.aol.com/coollbreezz/biblegram/entries/2007/08/03/mystical-rapture-its-origin-power-and-world-wide-influence/1872

http://members.tripod.com/~GCR/orginofpretrib.html

http://www.worldslastchance.com/biblestudies_rapture.php

http://www.secret-rapture.com/

http://www.geocities.com/great_trib_truth/

http://www.come2jesus.info/rapture.htm

http://www.velocity.net/~edju/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/barnwell/barnwell71.html

http://www.evalverdeministries.org/The_Truth_Concerning_the_Rapture.htm

http://joeland7.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html

http://joeland7.blogspot.com/2007/06/mystical-rapture-its-jesuits-and.html

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/tribulation.html

share

http://www.wikio.com Blog Directory Subscribe with Bloglines // <![CDATA[// <![CDATA[
document.write(““)
// ]]>
Top Blogs blogarama - the blog directory Current Events & News Blogs - Blog Rankings Site Meter


world hot news,International, Politics,   Business,Criminal,  Infotainment, Sports,  Technology, Entertainment,  Gossip Politics (Opinion) - TOP.ORG Best Indian websites ranking Hihera.com Blog Directory Social Media Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory GoLedy.com DigNow.net Dr.5z5 Open Feed Directory TopBlogDir.blogspot.com button // <![CDATA[// Top100 Bloggers - Top Blog Directory - Blog Top list

Obama: No Green Light for Israel to attack Iran- Sarah Palin’s News – Jews Against Zionism – Pres. Jimmy Carter Speaks Israel’s Apartheid – Truth About Gaza

Obama: No green light for Israel to attack Iran

President Obama meets Tuesday with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin near Moscow.    

President Obama meets Tuesday with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin near Moscow.

MOSCOW, Russia (CNN) — The United States is “absolutely not” giving Israel a green light to attack Iran, U.S. President Barack Obama told CNN Tuesday.  

“We have said directly to the Israelis that it is important to try and resolve this in an international setting in a way that does not create major conflict in the Middle East,” Obama said, referring to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Obama has been in Moscow for a summit aimed at trying to reset the U.S.-Russian relationship.

On Sunday, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden appeared to leave the door open for Israel to attack Iran if it saw fit.

“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else,” Biden said on ABC’s “This Week.”

Obama said Tuesday that Biden had simply been stating a fact, not sending a signal.

“I think Vice President Biden stated a categorical fact, which is we can’t dictate to other countries what their security interests are. What is also true is that it is the policy of the United States to resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear capabilities in a peaceful way through diplomatic channels,” he said.

The State Department took a similar line on Monday.

Clinton calls on Iran and Arabs Nations to Accept Pseudo-Israel as Heirs of Palestine – Modern-day Israel in Prophecy – Video – Truth about Rapture –

www.soldiersspeakout.com.  

 

Israeli Soldiers Testify: We Used Gazans as Human Shields!