We apparently are not alone in having a prophet.
Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family also seems to have a bit of clairvoyant talent - or at least a time travel machine. This sixteen page letter, itemizing every Obama repercussion from talk radio to child pornography was written (or will be written?) in 2012 by "A Christian."
Now, it's a little late now, and for that I apologize. If only more voters would have been made privy to this letter prior to voting for Barack Obama, we would be spared so many awful things. So far, the predictions have come true. Senator Obama is now President-elect Obama, after all.
First, understand that a vote for Barack Obama means a new far-left democratic majority in the U.S. Supreme Court. The three conservative justices left are going to be called "originalists" because, unlike liberals, they adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution. These "originalists" argued, in vain far too many times it seems, that their job as Justices is to interpret the Constitution, not come up with heretical new laws. That's the job of the heretical liberal Congress.
So, if you ever wondered how the world would come to a crashing end, Dr. James Dobson and Co. would like to enlighten you:
1. The most far reaching transformation of American society came from the Supreme Court’s stunning affirmation, in early 2010, that homosexual ‘marriage’ was a “constitutional right that had to be respected by all 50 states because laws barring same-sex ‘marriage’ violated the Equal Protection clause of the U.S. Constitution…This was a blatant example of creating law by the court, for homosexual ‘marriage’ was mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, nor would any of the authors have imagined that same-sex ‘marriage’ could be derived from their words.
Huh. I didn't know marriage was mentioned at all in the Constitution.
2. The Boy Scouts no longer exist as an organization. They chose to disband rather than be forced to obey the Supreme Court decision that they would have to hire homosexual scoutmasters and allow them to sleep in tents with young boys.
Forced to seek out homosexual scoutmasters. I can just imagine any interview that may go on:
"So. Are you gay?"
"Duh, of course."
"Hired."
"So, what are you doing Friday night?"
Come on! This would ask that a person NOT discriminate based on sexual orientation - which, sorry, should be the case.
And besides all of that, why is it okay to imply a homosexual man would try to get it on with "young boys"? Are we really intent to perpetuate this myth that all gay men are pedophiles?
Wow.
I mean, I get it. You wouldn't allow a grown man to sleep in a tent with young girls. You'd have the adults (all of them) sleep in...that's right, different tents. Not necessarily for the protection of the kids so much as for the protection of the adults as well. Easy enough. Moving on.
3. Elementary schools now include compulsory training in varieties of gender identity in Grade 1, including the goodness of homosexuality as one personal choice.
I still don’t get this. Should we instead continue to pretend homosexuality doesn’t exist? The schools, and I know this because my husband is going through the end process of becoming a teacher in California, understand how important it is to be a safe place.
Not talking about it in the schools won’t help. The schools need to help children understand and respect people, and you should too. Now, I don’t know that we’re going to have a conversation like this going on, but I mean, “A Christian” from the future seems to think it's likely, so I guess we can’t totally rule it out:
“Here’s Jack and Jill. They have ‘traditional’ sex.
“Here’s Dan and Dean. They have really cool ‘gay’ sex. It’s pretty awesome, actually. You should try it sometime. Here are some pictures!”
No.
This is more about respecting different people. And uh, if you live in California, you do have the right to opt your child out of comprehensive sex education. If your state doesn't allow it, you can work to have that changed. America is pretty cool that way.
4. The Freedom of Choice Act also reversed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, so infants can be killed outright just seconds before they would be born.
I think this is a nod to the "present" vote Obama gave as a Senator - uhm, yeah. Like he said, it was already law that you couldn't do it, and he didn't want to compromise Roe v. Wade. Me thinks Focus on the Family shot itself in the foot here.
And really, does anyone really believe this will happen? Anyone?
...
You might be surprised to read what will happen regarding Iraq, Russia, Iran, and Israel (Tel Aviv gets bombed, apparently. Huh)
...
5. Euthanasia is becoming more and more common.
Because Obama decided to introduce Universal Healthcare, after all, and it really sucks. Old people are thought more and more to have a duty to go home and die. I'll bet this news would thrill Dr. Kevorkian who could just set up practice specifically for speeding up the process.
6. Gas costs more than $7 per gallon, and many Democrats openly applaud this, since high prices reduce oil consumption and thus reduce carbon dioxide output.
I realize I'm not a registered Democrat, but as a liberal leaning heretic, I'm all for $7 a gallon gas. I was getting a little too excited - if you know what I mean - the day we paid $4.70 for a gallon of gas here in California - so close to $5 a gallon! SO CLOSE!
7. As a result, all radio stations have to provide equal time to contrasting views for every political or policy-related program they broadcast by talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity…and broadcasters like Dr. James Dobson. Every conservative talk show is followed by an instant rebuttal to the program by a liberal ‘watchdog’ group. Many listeners gave up in frustration, advertising (and donation) revenues dropped dramatically…Conservative talk radio, for all intents and purposes, was shut down by the end of 2010.
We're going to force conservative talk radio out of business for...offering the other side? I hate it when that happens.
Now, I know some of you might be waiting to hear about how electing Obama will lead to legalization of child pornography. It is not on the .pdf version of the document, but it is on this document. Why it's gone on the other version, I don't know. But it's worth reading. I really hope this isn't what people think.
8. In addition, law enforcement officials can no longer stop the distribution of child pornography, after the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the such distribution violated freedom of speech and interstate commerce laws.
Yeah. I don't get this one either. Maybe it was deleted in the .pdf document because it's just so ridiculous. At least I hope so.
Of course, the letter concedes,
Christians share a lot of the blame. In 2008, many evangelicals thought Senator Obama was an opportunity for ‘change,’ and they voted for him. They did not realize Obama’s far-Left agenda would take away many of our freedoms, perhaps permanently (it is unlikely the Supreme Court can be changed for perhaps 30 years. Christians did not realize that by electing Barack Obama – rated the most liberal U.S. senator in 2007 – they would allow the law, in the hands of a liberal Congress and Supreme Court, to become a great instrument of oppression.
But, I mean, Dr. James Dobson wouldn't really want the Supreme Court majority to belong to ultra-conservative right wing Republicans, would he?
Would he?
As a last note, I'd like to offer this quote from Doris Kearns Goodwin, presidential historian, regarding the 1800 election between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams:
"The other side - the Adam's people - said [Jefferson] was a 'howling atheist'...they said if he won, that rape and incest and murder would be taught in schools. Finally this Connecticut newspaper apologized in 1993."
Everyone's a prophet.
Still Sharing It With Our Husbands
8 months ago
13 comments:
"Huh. I didn't know marriage was mentioned at all in the Constitution."
Huh. I didn't know abortion was mentioned at all in the Constitution. Oh wait ... it isn't! But ever hear of Roe v. Wade?
Haven't you followed what happened in the California, Massachusetts and Connecticut Supreme Courts (irrespective of what you think of it)? Wasn't the point of Prop. 8 to actually put the definition of marriage into the California constitution to nullify their Supreme Court's ruling?
Dobson is whacked on some of his issues, but he actually has a point here, even if you don't consider his "prophecy" on this point to be a bad outcome.
So we're supposed to live by the letter of the Constitution rather than the spirit of it?
The job of the Supreme Courts (of any courts, really) is to interpret the law/Constitution. Even Dobson concurs with this statement. What Dobson is saying is that Supreme Court is making stuff up out of nowhere, creating laws based on nothing. That's not the case.
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF
Read page 4-6. Pay special attention to Perez v. Sharp, a decision which ruled that the ban on interracial marriage was unconstitutional and deemed marriage a right on page 6 (despite the overwhelming voice of the people, who even ten years later disagreed with the ruling:
The decision in Perez, although rendered by a deeply divided court, is a judicial opinion whose legitimacy and constitutional soundness are by now universally recognized.
Marriage as a rule is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, and while the people might try to restrict laws to apply to only a few citizens (be it Congress or people by way of a Propositional vote), the Courts are there to say if the people are being wrongfully discriminatory. They have in the past, and as aforementioned, the people have been wrongfully discriminatory. Not everyone believes what James Dobson does, and that’s okay. That’s part of what is so wonderful about living in America. We don’t live in a theocracy, and those like Dobson seem to forget that sometimes.
Should this go to the U.S. Supreme Court as Focus on the Family seems to believe it will (and I happen to agree), the Court will use California's, Massachusetts' and Connecticut's Supreme Courts ruling, as well as Perez v. Sharp I imagine, as precedent and decide, based on their interpretation of law, if it is correct or not.
well said.
it shouldn't be the job of the government to regulate relationships. they are a personal issue and always have been. the only issue at stake is that the "moral majority" doesn't want to afford the same rights to same-sex couples because they are morally opposed to their relationships.
to that, i say that i'm morally opposed to a lot of relationships that are questionably far more damaging than same-sex relationships, but it isn't my business to regulate them. instead of worrying about what could happen if non-hetero couples could marry, maybe the "moral majority" ought to be more concerned with what IS happening to the husbands, wives, and children of domestic abuse, to teen moms, to the families who lose their main source of income and health care...
so weird and kind of perverse to me that this letter keeps coming back to the moral outrage of homosexuality. putting aside that particular moral issue, WHY is it such an issue in light of the others?
Let's let the fear mongering get out of control... Pretty easy with the internet at our disposal huh?
Obama is black.
His middle name is Hussein and Obama and Osama sound an awful lot alike.
He's young and charismatic...
Let's get together with all our other God-fearing conservative to a fault buddies and paint a picture of Obama the Antichrist.
That's what I'm seeing here. The beginning of something that's going to blow up and get out of control, people are going to point fingers and bust out scripture, jump to conclusions and see things that aren't really there... People are going to draw convoluted lines, they're going to blow things out of proportion and tell us all that Armageddon is coming.
After all... If a letter from four years in the future can be believed then what else can we con people into believing?
That anyone would take such a document seriously frightens me.
Personally I'm not worried about the end of the world. Buffy the Vampire Slayer has staved off Armageddon so many times... I think she'll be able to handle a measly presidential candidate.
Just a quick note on the gas part: Down here in L.a: It's $2.08. It's $2.05 where a friend of ours lives in Tenn.
Jessica: I agree completely.
I think one of the problems is that a lot of people see homosexuals as a promiscuous people - I actually read an article that mentioned the reason gay marriage would de-sanctify "traditional" marriage is because gay people can't and wouldn't be monogamous.
Wow, right?
Noe: Maybe we should get Buffy to be President?
Imagine that one. An Obama-Buffy ticket. Hell yeah.
Mireyah: It's gone down considerably here as well. I think we're paying $2.29 the last I looked.
Yay!
Er, I mean, damn. Why can't it be $7?
I honestly still can't get past the fact that, uhm, divinely instituted or not, it wasn't too long ago that our church was practicing what is absolutely *not* traditional marriage (polygamy). I don't care if it was God's will or not. It wasn't traditional, and I would think most LDS would have a softer place in their hearts for those who believe differently in this case.
Don't worry, gas will skyrocket again soon. ;-)
What gets to me is that the LDS church is still practicing spiritual polygamy. How can they say that marriage has ALWAYS been defined as one man and ONE woman if they once defined it otherwise, and now still define it otherwise?? It just defies all logic.
Honestly, I think this has more to do with fear that if homosexuals can live in abstinance until they enter loving, monogomous relationships, they will have less of a leg to stand on not allowing them rights within the church. They will lose membership if people ever come to see homosexuality as a normal, natural part of some peoples' lives, and then they'll want to shy away from the churches that discriminate. The church will eventually need to evolve if it wants to keep gaining members, and if it doesn't want to flat-out lose members.
Amanda- While the church did practice polygamy, it is important to note that they forfeited the practice to become a state. They conformed to the values of the moral majority-which is what they are asking of others. One could argue that if mormons can't have more than one wife, then how come someone else gets to change the rules in the middle of the game?
Plural marriage, if I am correct, was practiced at different times when God commanded it - not just by mormons. Homosexuality was never commanded nor condoned anywhere in the scriptures. In fact, there can be no mistake that the prophets outright condemned the practice. So to suggest that the church will have to evolve and see "homosexuality as a normal, natural part of some peoples' lives" goes against all mormon theology. It would undermine entire the Plan of Salvation and render it futile.
Changing mormon doctrine would not draw people into the church. It would send them away in droves because the entire plan would no longer make sense.
laura: While it definitely played a part in the forfeiture of the Church's practice of polygamy, it wasn't so much the sole reason.
The government (the Republicans, actually, who were in power) didn't like polygamy, came in and said "if you want to remain a church, then you need to get stop this polygamy thing. Oh yeah, and if you do, you can have the state too."
http://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/struggleforstatehoodchronology.html
I know some will strongly disagree with me as this is the antithesis of Church doctrine, but I have issues believing polygamy was ever necessarily commanded (and yes, I know the Scriptures. I've yet to see one "command"). I know the Church teaches differently, but...eh, just...I'm not convinced. The whole practice makes me feel icky inside.
That said, you won't see many members agreeing with the assertion the Church conformed - they merely went along with President Woodruff's manifesto in order to keep the Temples and whatnot.
Still. Decent point - I hadn't thought of the argument in that way before. I think the point Amanda is trying to make is one I've made before:
LDS know what it's like to have your values and families torn apart by the so-called "moral majority." Because we were the minority at one point should give us some kind of compassion for others.
There are many – probably a majority – who don’t believe in marriage the way we teach it. Many Christians teach there is no marriage in heaven and to insist otherwise is blasphemy, since they believe all who are saved will be, in essence, married to Christ (a polygamous situation, if I dare say so).
What if they went after temple marriage? Perhaps a far-fetched argument, but one nevertheless.
There are many who insist gay marriage is just as good as "traditional" marriage (different, but just as good). It’s out of love, commitment, and creates an atmosphere of stability and security for all involved (including children, who even now are brought into gay households either from previous heterosexual marriages or foster care).
I understand the Church wants to make its stand crystal clear regarding marriage – that the act of homosexuality is wrong and will not be accepted within our walls. Fine! I’ve no problem with that at all. But, a lot of people outside the church feel differently. In fact, 9% more than did eight years ago. I’m one of those. Working to force people to conform to our beliefs will not soften hearts. It makes us look arrogant and rather un-Christlike.
The Church and Prophets can condemn the practice all they want, but it’s still taught, still practiced, still believed – just in a loophole, Celestial kind of sense, a place where the government cannot touch it.
You can say marriage is a matter of terms and definitions, but…well, I’m going to get into that today, so I’ll spare you here :)
Lisa, the point I was actually trying to make is that Mormons do still practice spiritual polygamy. Case and point: a man gets married in the temple. Years later, his wife dies or they divorce, though there is no grounds to excommunicate either party and the temple marriage is kept in tact. That man can afterwards marry another woman in the temple. He will be sealed to two women. He can do this as many times as he's spiritually eligible for in this life. He will be sealed to all those women in the afterlife. Now, on earth, he will of course never be governmentally, secularly married to more than one woman at a time, but he WILL be married to more than one woman according to the mormon church. In the case of divorce, the women he's religiously sealed to will both even be alive.
I know people who have done this. In fact, the couple who taught my husband and I our temple lessons before we were sealed in August of '05 were a couple made up of a divorced man still sealed to his first wife and also sealed to his second wife, whose first temple marriage was dissolved after her husband went to jail and he was excommunicated.
All I'm saying is that the LDS church does still practice polygamy in its own way, and believes that in the afterlife a man may be sealed to many women. They cannot logically claim that the definition of marriage is and always has been 'one man and ONE woman.'
I do still believe the church will evolve. Churches evolve all the time. I have no evidence that they will of course, and I'm not a psychic, so we will simply have to see one day if it changes. All I'm saying is that the Mormon church really shot itself over this one. If they'd stayed out of politics, there wouldn't be so much bad feeling going around.
Lisa -
No offense, but if I thought plural marriage was not instituted by God himself, it would be difficult for me to believe that Joseph Smith was actually a prophet in the first place. Why would God allow him to enact it for his own selfish desires without revoking his ability to receive revelation. If I thought that Joseph lied about something as huge as this - don't you think he loses credibility. I'm just amazed that you can feel this way but still believe in the church. Not to question your testimony - but it would be difficult to accept many of his other revelations, while singling out this one, don't you think.
Amanda: Yeah, I know about the spiritual thing. Bugs me tons.
Laura: That's kind of an issue, yes. Unfortunately.
It's not all that difficult for me to believe in the other things and have severe issues with that one.
Once a person is able to really identify with a situation, inasmuch as is possible, where they would "share" their husband, then this polygamy thing becomes...rather disturbing and...well.
I have my reasons.
Post a Comment