Sunday, January 13, 2008


Isn't it interesting that Mitt Romney says he is TOTALLY AGAINST POLYGAMY - yet he lives his life looking forward to an afterlife where he'll be a SUPER POLYGAMIST with his own planet and his own Goddess Wives.

Mormon men are taught that after death (and if they are righteous) they will live forever as GODS over THEIR OWN PLANET - having unlimited sexual relations with MULTIPLE GODDESS WIVES so as to populate their own planet.

How can Mitt Romney say he is against something he believes is one of the greatest rewards in the afterlife. DO YOU really want a PRESIDENT who disavows something in his earthly life that he covets and aspires to in the afterlife?

Are you aware that Mitt Romney has performed death oath rituals hundreds of times in which he has drawn his thumb across his throat from side to side as if he were slitting his own throat and another where he has drawn his thumb across his abdomen as if he were disemboweling himself?

I am a former Mormon. I graduated from BYU. I was married in the Wash, DC temple.

I vehemently believe in freedom of religion. However, I am concerned that someone who professes questionable beliefs and who has participated in cult-like rituals involving grisly death-oath might become our President.

This information is not widely available to the general public. Mormons profess - what goes on in the temple is "sacred, not secret." Well if they are so sacred and "not secret" then why was I asked to make death oaths swearing I would not divulge what I had seen and experienced in the temple?

After participating in these rituals myself, I could no longer hold the Mormon faith in my heart and in my mind. As I exited the Wash, DC Mormon temple after going through the rituals for the first time I was asked by other Mormon's who accompanied me what I thought about what I had seen and experienced.

My response was that if those ceremonies/teaching were indeed of God, then I would rather go to hell with non-Mormons.

I feel that this information needs to be disseminated immediately. Voters must have this "sacred, not secret" information so they can make their own decisions about whether a practicing Mormon would be their choice under all circumstances of national security.

How meaningful will an oath of office be for someone who makes death oaths to their God in the name of their religion?

And what I find even more frightening - why is mainstream media treating these Mormon issues like the naked Emperor is marching by?

Dianne Pearce


Edward said...

Is anti-Mormonism the latest tactic of you annoying-as-hell Ron Paul spammers.


troywillardson said...

As a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints for 27 years (aka Mormon) I am amazed at the ignorance of the previous comment. As a Mormon man there isn’t anything in our church doctrine that says that in the afterlife men will have multiple wives, and the claimed temple rituals are false as well. In the temple families are sealed to their children for eternity. There are no signs of death. It is disgusting how wrong you. Dianne I know for a fact that you were not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as you have no clue what you are talking about. It is amazing and disgusting that someone who does not agree with the policies of someone running for president causes another person to blatantly lie about anothers religion. All you have to do is google her name to find her Anti-Mormon garbage. If you would like to know more about my church from actual church members I know they would be happy to tell you

Brigham said...

Dianne is full of it. #1, there is no doctrine that in an afterlife men will have multiple wives. (that would be nice, and I'd be all for it, but it isn't the case. The eternities are for one man and one woman bound together.) #2 there is no such death oath where you bring your thumb to your throat and gut. The reality is that if you are concerned that someone has a higher authority then the authority of the country....just ask ANY candidate: Do you believe in God. They will all say yes. Then ask, if your God came down and commanded you to break the constitution, would you do that? The answer is yes, of course would. The chances of any spiritual authority taking the reins is very slim for Obama as it is for Romney. They both believe and would submit to God, but that most likely would never happen. SO ITS A NON-ISSUE. Religion, in politics, should only play the role of determining our morals. Mormon morals are top in the nation. I've never smoke, drank, or had premarital sex. I'm fit, I speak 4 different languages, run a business, have written a book, and finishing med school. Is that a boast? Partially. But I'm just showing that ALL good mormons are amazing people.
Don't let this Dianne chick entertain you. Jay Leno is much better at that, and he doesn't lie! lol


Dave said...


Looks like the Mormons ain't crazy about what you have posted - wonder why?

Sure is important for them to keep their actual beliefs secret.

If I had been a supporter Romney would have lost me when he said that liberty requires faith and that believers had a friend in him. Knowing how wacky his beliefs are is just icing on the cake.

I spent considerable time with a couple of Mormon missionaries - learning the "level one" doctrine they teach to the uninitiated.

Never bought it (having been a "cradle" Catholic and having deprogrammed myself from that, made me indoctrination proof). I pointed out flaw after flaw in their arguments and they would always come back to "You've got to have faith."

That means disconnect your mind, abandon critical thinking and accept obvious untruths as "God's word." No thankee.

Thanks for spreading truth where you can. Believers will hate you for it, but truth is it's own reward.

They preach "And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

They don't mean it.

They mean "agree with what some dead charlatans taught my ancestors - and if one of these 'God given' beliefs (polygamy, inferiority of blacks) becomes too socially unacceptable, we have a living 'prophet' on hand to have a 'revelation' about it. Don't question it yourself, though. Not permitted. We'll excommunicate you and send ya straight to hell."kvgax

Gina said...

How Mormon's deal with data presented to them by those they call ANTI's:

1. How you interpret it is wrong...
2. You are too ignorant to really understand it because you are not a member....
3. You're not qualified to judge because you're no LONGER a member...
4. You are just a bigot for bringing the whole ugly truth to light ...
5. So’s yer Mama!
6. Laugh it all off and post some silly image.
7. You are telling a "half-true-lie".
8. Bait and switch.

beachlady said...

Good Job~! I too am trying to expose the mormon church "secrets" LOL!! I post over at too. Have a great day!

beachlady said...

Oh BTW I am beachlady on yahoo answers. Some mormons are so uninformed and are brainwashed...Dont worry about their ugly comments~ The truth is embarrasing! lol...

elcastigador said...

obviously any religion is wacky !!

think about catholicism when you take your communion you "actually" eat and drink human flesh and blood !!!

so what if his religious views are not "true" have you heard of a motmon doctrine that says kill this group of person or hate your neighbours?? no obviously not !

so what's the point except some outrageous hatred !!

by the way hatred will not help people discover the truth

Dave said...

Funny about that hatred.

The only hatred I have seen on this thread is from defenders of Mormonism. They hate hearing the truth exposed.

Far as Catholicism is concerned, maybe you don't understand what "deprogrammed" means. Briefly, it means that I no longer believe that garbage. Interesting though that elcastigador is so full of "love" that he(she) decided the best way to proceed was to attack somebody else's religion. If this thread was about Catholicism - and it's fallacies - I'd have plenty to say about it myself, so go ahead and spew.

When you try to defend the indefensible, it's far easier to distract than engage. You can deny, you can counterattack, you can obfuscate, you can lie - but rewriting history and denying reality only work with the sheep.

Unworthy said...

the members of LDS who have posted that they do not practice death oaths are not lying. The endowment ceremony went "under construction" in 1990. Wording was changed that offended (the women no longer have to "keep the law of their husbands" but rather "obey the law of the Lord"), all of the penalties were removed (which are what you call "death oaths") among other revisions. In 2005, there was a revision to the washing and the anointing; instead of washing and blessing each part of the body under the shield, and then have the officiant clothe the individual in his/her garment, each person dresses him/herself, and only the forehead is washed/anointed, while the rest of the body is "symbolically" washed/anointed.
In these defenders of LDS minds, they are not lying when they say noone partakes in such practices, because when revisions are made, no one is supposed to question them, just take them as divine revelation.
.... just thought I'd try to clear the air up a little bit. No, I am not mormon, nor do I agree with their beliefs/practices. At the same time there is no reason to bicker back and forth, when the problem is a miscommunication.

Dianne Pearce said...