After several days of research into Robert Jeffress remarking Mormonism is a cult, I have researched the Mormon belief system. Several articles featuring Jeffress and his opinion, none of which I think are that worthy of reference since they are practically the same, coupled with information available on the internet about Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints; I have uncovered enough evidence that both Jeffress belief system and the Mormonism belief system could equally qualify as cults. A wealth of information can be achieved by speaking with Mormons and some evangelical Baptists practicing similar tenets as Jeffress’ church, google searches that produce in depth knowledge on the religions, and seeking out ex-members of both religions has been a journey. I do not hold any religious faith and completely disbelieve in any deity, however I placed my bias aside in order to learn and explore the surmountable amount of information and definition of a cult. It is my opinion and observance that all religion, at its very base, is a cult or has cult behavior within it.

Mormonism was started by Joseph Smith in apparently the same manner Scientology was created by L. Ron Hubbard. Smith’s writings are considered to be scripture, not unlike L. Ron Hubbard. Joseph Smith tried to start a settlement of the LDS but was ousted. At one point, he commanded a militia in Nauvoo, Illinois while at the same time trying to campaign for President of the United States. A paper in his town said that it would never happen because he practiced polygamy. The city counsel ordered the paper’s destruction. During all the mayhem, Smith declared martial law and agreed to surrender to the governor of Illinois who promised his protection but instead he was murdered while in custody. Smith wrote several books that Mormonism bases its faith upon, all of which claiming to come from god. He gleaned words using a pair of named seer stones and his wife busily transcribed his dictation. Brigham Young, a devoted follower of Joseph Smith, led the church after that establishing its base in Utah.

The LDS places great importance on baptism in the name of Christ, marriage is “celestial” and thusly married believers are given the gift to start populating other worlds in the expansive universe, that marrying one’s ancestors in the Mormon church is right and holy, and missionary work is required of adherents. In comparison with the conservative and extremist tenets, faith, and missionary requirements of the Baptist evangelicals like Jeffress, the alien concept that basically all religion was started by mortal people (I reminded several to note that the Apostle Paul wrote a great deal of tenets in the New Testament not unlike authors of other religions) expressing their prerogative. Somewhere between acceptance of relative similarities and acceptance of one’s freedom of religion guaranteed by the United States Constitution, the evangelicals cling to a superiority complex that their religion is truth and others are lies. The same could be said of Mormonism, too. The foundation of the matter at hand is that Paul wrote the Christian religion allegedly after the death of Jesus and is exalted by many as a holy man while Joseph Smith wrote the Mormon religion allegedly after finding golden plates that expressed Jesus was present among the native Americans. The dogma is built by one person, take L. Ron Hubbard for instance, who is then exalted by followers reflective of the same adulation attributed to a deity, yet apologetically refuted as idolatry.

There is little to no evidence that suggests that Joseph Smith and the Apostle Paul sacredly divined the word of a deity instead of presenting subterfuge for monetary gain and the very same can be said of Mohammad and poetic nature of the Qur’an. The same can be said of the creator of the “modern science of mental health”, though there are many places that it can be found that Hubbard actually did create the religion for monetary gain. The term “cult” used by Jeffress is derogatory, connoting his own theological system, and directed to influence political viewpoints by those who follow him or share his dogmatic priorities. With this tool of manipulation, Jeffress defines Mitt Romney by his theological preferences and not by what values, ideals and moralistic qualities Romney holds dear. The opinion demonstrates very effectually the very nature of the bigotry and prejudice of evangelical extremists’ dogmatic and absolutist ideal and core value. Regardless of who Mitt Romney might be outside his religion, the very fact he isn’t Christian enough for Jeffress also reveals the inability of most religious people to separate dogmatic principals from principals that reflect non-dogmatic values. The virtue of extremist evangelical Christians is reflective of the inflexibility and the failure of their dogma to evolve into modern times, borrowing elitist views of superiority and righteousness from nonsensical textual morality.

I do not endorse Mitt Romney, but I do recognize his victimization at the hands of Jeffress and those like him. I do find that religious and dogmatic ideals, values and morality is often uncomplimentary to reality. I also fail completely to share in his belief, or find the Mormon dogma and faith truthful and comforting. The angles of the religious nature of both religions, both of which claim to be the sole true religion, are equally hypocritical and prejudicial. The faiths both express that homosexuality is wrong, both angles have repeatedly fought marriage equality, and both are responsible for the labeling and sorting of sinful and sinless into the absolute boxes without application of common sense or independent thought. The fact that anyone running for office in a governmental position that must justify his religious views, defend his religious faith, or qualify due to religious doctrine is logically unsound. The campaigning religious people plying their political spin to win votes makes us no different than other theocracies decried by extremist Christians, yet applicable to their own theocratic statehood fantasies. As is pointed out by many a Christian, living under Shari’a law is not compatible with Christianity, failing to offer freedom of religion, choice and basic rights for women. Biblical law, as noted by atheists and non-Christian religious practitioners, fails to be compatible with freedom of religion, choice, and basic rights for women. This is why the Constitution was written, whether ultraconservatives believe it or not, without the mention of Christ, divinity, or religious tenets and dogma because that was unacceptable to the authors. Today two hundred years plus since the document was penned and instituted as law, the desires of the freethinkers of their time are victimized by the institution of theocracy imposed by those who would see various defined sinners suffer the full force of American Christian Shari’a law.

I can feel the spinning of the founding fathers in their graves.

Advertisements