Yes, Romney needs to answer questions about his religion

By : Dick Polman
Philadelphia Inquirer


Mitt Romney's own Republican Party has made religion fair game, and Romney will be asked how his faith would affect his policies.

Few Americans voiced concerns about the Mormon faith when Mitt Romney's father ran for president 40 years ago, probably because the guy flamed out so quickly. As a Republican colleague, Gov. James Rhodes of Ohio, remarked at the time, ''Watching George Romney run for the presidency was like watching a duck try to make love to a football.''

But Mitt Romney is a serious contender in 2008, rich and disciplined, and he's running in an era when presidential candidates are virtually expected to parade their religiosity. This is particularly true in the Republican camp, where religion and politics are now routinely intertwined; indeed, candidate George W. Bush upped the ante in 2000, when he said that his favorite philosopher was Jesus, ''because he changed my life.''

So it's no surprise Romney is facing questions about his lifelong devotion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the breakaway theology that considers itself humankind's ''one true church.'' He had hoped to stonewall this issue, insisting in a TV interview 18 months ago that ''I'm never going to get into a discussion about my personal beliefs.''

But today word is circulating that Romney will discuss his faith in an autumn speech - and seek to disarm the skeptics much the way John F. Kennedy in 1960 dampened fears that a Catholic president would take orders from Rome.

Romney is dealing with potential hostility, fair or not, on several fronts. Many Christian fundamentalists, particularly southern Baptists, dismiss Mormonism as a cult (thereby imperiling Romney in the GOP primaries, particularly in pivotal South Carolina). Many secular voters are uncomfortable with the church's passion for proselytizing and its superior attitude, particularly its scriptural insistence that all nonbelievers are worshiping ''the church of the devil.'' Pollsters say that at least 30 percent of voters won't back a Mormon.

Romney's biggest problem is that skeptics are simply weirded out. They cannot quite envision having a president who believes that a man named Joseph Smith dug up a book of golden plates, long buried in a hillside, with the help of an angel named Moroni in 1827; that these plates, written in Egyptian hieroglyphics, spelled out the precepts of the true Christian faith; that Smith translated these hieroglyphics by wearing decoder glasses and burying his head in a hat; that Jesus visited North America after the resurrection; that the Garden of Eden was really in Missouri.

As Romney himself recently told conservative talk show host Hugh Hewitt, ''I believe in my faith. I love my faith, and I would in no way, shape, or form try to distance myself from my faith or the fundamental beliefs of my faith.'' He was a church leader in Massachusetts, as were his forebears out West. And his great-grandfather had five wives, after being personally instructed to practice polygamy by Smith's successor, Brigham Young.

But does all this mean Romney is too weird to lead America? The truth is, most religions look weird to outsiders. Perhaps it's no more appropriate to ask Romney whether he rationally believes the Garden of Eden was in Missouri than it would be to ask a Catholic candidate whether he rationally believes that the wafer he eats on Sunday is the actual body and blood of Jesus, or to ask a Jewish candidate whether he rationally thinks that Moses parted the Red Sea. Most Americans, rational in their professional lives, accept religious doctrines as a matter of private faith, or simply as metaphor.

Romney will undoubtedly try to ''do a JFK'' when he opts to confront these issues. Kennedy told an audience of Protestant ministers that his religion would not influence his job. Romney, in his sketchy remarks thus far, has similarly insisted that his oath to uphold the Constitution would take precedent.

But Romney has a more difficult task. Whereas Kennedy mollified skeptics by declaring that ''I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,'' Romney can ill afford to say that. Conservative Christian voters, who wield great influence in Republican primaries, do not believe in ''absolute'' separation. Romney would commit political suicide if he echoed JFK; nor would he want to, for personal reasons. He has repeatedly signaled that religion belongs in the public square, and that the tenets of his faith have infused his conservative politics.

Those arguments might be enough to propel him through the primaries; the general election might be another story. Some questions do seem appropriate.

First, the Mormon faith puts a high premium on ''faith-promoting'' information, sometimes at the expense of unpleasant facts. As a high-ranking Mormon leader said in a famous 1981 speech, ''Some things that are true are not very useful.'' Would Romney be able to assure swing voters that he would not merely perpetuate the faith-based thinking, and the rejection of empirical reality, that has trapped us in a ruinous war?

Second, since the Mormons consider themselves stewards of ''a quintessentially American faith'' (Romney's words), and since Mormons believe Jesus will return and rule the world from U.S. territory, does this suggest that a President Romney might wave the flag a bit too fervently, at a time when we need to repair our relations around the world? The Mormon faith is heavily rooted in what is commonly called ''American exceptionalism,'' the belief that we are special and we know best. Would Romney govern accordingly, and, if so, would that be a help or a hindrance in the war on terror?

What matters, in other words, is not whether he really thinks Joseph Smith met an angel in 1827. The crucial issue is whether, or how, a devout Mormon would apply his faith on the job in 2009. His supporters have suggested that any such questions are symptoms of religious bigotry, but it is the Republican Party, over the past several decades, that has put religion front and center. They have made Mitt Romney fair game.

***Thoughts from the PostMormon Board****

This comment by Crime Dog was so good, I just had to share it:

He wants desperately to separate his faith and his politics, but people will not let him. Is that appropriate? Is it wrong to question him about his religious beliefs? Should that play into any decision about who should be the nation's Chief Executive?

Of course it should, if there is any legitimate suspicion that the candidate would consider his religious beliefs above what might be best for this nation. Many candidates are able to set aside their religious beliefs and consider what is best for our nation. Others are not. How do you know which is which? If a candidate states his belief in creation, and that the world is only 6,000 years old, that's a deal killer. He's not bright enough to be my president. He clearly considers his religious beliefs superior to reason and intelligence.

What if the candidate's religion requires him, as a condition of attaining God's highest glory, to go into its most sacred edifice, and therein to swear an oath of consecration and allegiance to the church and its leaders above all else? Suppose it requires him to swear an oath that he would suffer his life to be taken in the most revolting fashion before he would reveal the cult's secrets? Is that important for people to know when considering a presidential candidate? You'll have to decide that for yourself.

Either these temple rites and oaths are real, eternal, and life dictating, or they are not. Mitt needs to tell us which. If they are, then his allegiance and loyalty will first be to his church - not the nation. If they are not, then he tells the world that his church's most sacred rites carry the weight and importance of a fraternity rush.

All this talk about his religious beliefs on abortion, or where New Jerusalem will be located, simply obfuscate the two most important questions:

1) Can we trust this man to disregard his sacred, eternal oaths, and lead this country as a strict non-sectarian?

2) Should his belief in and loyalty to a cult-like religion such as Mormonism be a deal breaker? Would we overlook the religious beliefs of a Branch Davidian, Jehovah's Witness, Moonie, or even a devout Pentecostal?

We would be probably consider a guy who handles snakes, screams in tongues, and passes out regularly in the aisles of his church as too wacky to be a viable candidate for national office, even he was a slick, good looking, well-spoken, successful business man the other six days of the week. What makes him so different from someone who believes devoutly in temple rituals?


****MY THOUGHTS****

I have really no objection to Mitt Romney other than he cannot seem to use the brilliant mind he possesses to really look into his own church's history, doctrines, and DNA evidence that shows the Mormon faith is built upon pre-supposed theories of truth. In order to be a faithful member of the church, you must be willing to block out any and all sources of information that may damage that belief. And that, to me, seems like more of the same Bush-ism we have been dealing with already. Bush has often bragged about his lack of researching information for himself and instead relies upon members of his cabinet to do all of that for him. And when they are WRONG, he can conveniently blame them, fire them, or otherwise scapegoat them, and keep from absorbing the responsibility himself.

This is what I see in Romney: He believes the church is true. If anyone points out the faults in his belief, he scapegoats the leaders, the prophets, the anti-Mormon writers (i.e. anyone who disagrees with Mormon philosophy and has the nerve to write about it or talk about it to others). He has NOT, in fact, taken the time to research the claims himself, separating fact from fiction, and emerging with the truth. Instead, he has put his trust in others in order to maintain his beliefs, and I don't see how that makes him different from Bush.

Our current president maintains the belief that terrorism lurks around every corner, that Saddam's removal has everything to do with countering that threat, that our presence in Iraq is VITAL to fighting terrorism, and that it is necessary to override constitutional freedoms in order to protect the US from this threat. Anything showing otherwise is disregarded, and when it is finally proven that his logic is faulty, his claims are baseless, what does he do? He blames his advisers, blames the CIA, blames bad intelligence for his decisions. BUT THE MAN WON'T READ FOR HIMSELF. And I can't support that.

This country needs an intelligent person at the helm, who will be ready to give up their paradigm for the truth and pursue a course of action that will truly be in the best interest of the country, even if it means letting go of widely held beliefs that we as a nation are the mightiest thing on the planet and we can do no wrong. That kind of attitude is what is getting us killed overseas. That kind of superiority and pridefullness will be our downfall if we cannot look at facts objectively and set aside our personal wishes for the betterment of our world.

I totally agreed with Bill Maher on a recent episode of "Real Time".

He basically pointed out that Mormons believe in things that can (and have been) proven false. Joseph Smith started the church less than two centuries ago, and it's not difficult to prove that most of his teachings, if not all, are false. Case in point: The Mormons believe that the Native Americans are descendants of the lost tribes of Israel. DNA tests have proven that this is a false belief, no question about it. And the Mormon reaction is to try to discredit the research and call it "inconclusive", simply because it doesn't uphold their viewpoint YET. So, they will continue to hold out on the DNA question until it can be 100% conclusive, which will always be statistically impossible, and THEY KNOW THIS!

If Mitt Romney would just acknowledge that DNA shows Native Americans are not Israelites, I would vote for him. But first, he has to prove the ability to think for himself and not rely on "advisers", spiritual or otherwise...

Pushing a Couple into the Temple

By: Robert Kirby
Tribune columnist, (and a Mormon)

My nephew got married on Thursday. Even though he was raised LDS, it wasn't the traditional Mormon temple marriage. He married someone of another faith. So of course we boycotted the wedding.
I'm kidding. We went. Family is important. Bride and groom looked happy together. But the fact that they're young also makes them relatively clueless. They'll need all the family support they can get to make it work.
Not everyone gets that support. Last week, while riding TRAX, I listened (no choice really) as two couples across the aisle discussed the future weddings of their daughters.
The couples were active LDS Church members. A major clue was the voluble agreement that they would not pay for the weddings if said daughters didn't get married in the temple.
One couple said their daughter could just go to a justice of the peace during her lunch hour. The other said they might give their daughter bus fare to Vegas. Then they complimented each other on defending the faith.
I was pleased as well.
Among the unexpected benefits of riding TRAX are such occasional reminders that I'm not the stupidest person in the world.
It's been a while since I heard that "temple or nothing" wedding stuff. I thought it had gone the way of that dim-witted pronouncement of "better a dead daughter than a sexually violated one."

But a few days later, a friend said her mother had refused to let her get married in her grandmother's wedding dress when she found out it wouldn't be a temple marriage.
Gambling is technically a sin, but I'd still be willing to bet that Heavenly Father thinks micromanaging your daughter like that is a bunch of crap. If he were similarly controlling, he wouldn't have let two idiots have a daughter.
The fact that your daughter is getting married at all means she feels ready to start taking adult risks. Ideally, this is also the same time when parents should start thinking harder about shutting up. You make fewer mistakes that way.
This isn't about whether getting married in the temple is important. This is about believing coercion is an acceptable way of getting people there. If you don't believe me, call the temple and ask if you can bring a hostage next time.
You may think you're telling your daughter how important a temple wedding is, but what she's hearing is that she's not as important to you as your personal sense of propriety.
And regardless of how the marriage turns out, years from now, when she's looking back on the most important moment of her life, what she'll remember most about you was your priggish disapproval.

***My Thoughts***

To check out the article, and the 100+ comments left behind, click here

It's nice to know that not all Utah Mormons think the same way. Kirby has some great articles and books out about Mormons and their lifestyles and perceptions. One of my favorites is Sunday of the Living Dead, in which he points out the absurd conventions of the typical Mormon life.

I spend time thinking about my niece's wedding, sometime off in the distant future, where the only people who will be able to attend are her parents, and my mom. Her own little brother will likely miss it, even thought he is Mormon as well, unless he is back from his mission (that he will no doubt be expected to go on) or has received his endowments, he won't even be allowed to witness the 10 minute ceremony. It's a shame that this religion not only restricts non-members from entering the temple, it also denies younger siblings from watching their brothers and sisters get married, just because they would gain knowledge of the green apron, baker's hat (for men), chin-strap veil (for women), and the robes symbolizing the Melchezidek priesthood bestowed upon BOTH men and women when they go through the endowment session. These items are REQUIRED to be worn over the wedding clothes in the sealing room, and therefore, can only be seen by those who have sworn to uphold the secrecy of these clothing items and the covenants made during the endowment session. After all, we can't expect 12 year olds to keep silent on how silly everyone looks in their robes and hats, wearing bright green aprons over their wedding dresses and suits, and practicing the 'patriarchal grip' over the altar as they kneel facing each other. So, they are denied the right to watch a FAMILY SEALING just because of their age.

When I got married, I got a bunch of grief for picking my brother who lived with my Dad over my brother who lived with me as my ring-bearer. I suppose if I had been worthy to have been married in the temple, all those folks who got to attend my wedding wouldn't have been allowed, but neither would ANY of my brothers or sisters, or even my Dad, or his parents, or my husband's brothers and sisters, or ANY of our aunts and uncles and cousins. What kind of family event is it, when only 7 of your side, and 8 of the other can even witness it? How can it possibly be called a 'Family Forever' religion, when the very first thing that happens is a division based on age, membership status, or worthiness?

I am about to officiate a wedding myself in a few days, for a couple who is choosing a Pagan-Wiccan theme for their wedding. The ONLY people who won't be there are the ones who choose NOT to go. For some reason, in the minds of those who are objecting, it isn't a real wedding unless it is held in a church, officiated by a man, and signed off on by a Christian entity. It's their loss, I say. It's going to be a beautiful ceremony, outdoors in a garden spot, surrounded by all the family that cares for them; young, old, believers and skeptics alike. All of that is set aside to witness the event itself, because that should be more important than checking membership cards at the door.

The Best Proof of Mormonism's False Teachings--Part 7

Regarding Blacks:

(1831 - 1844) JOSEPH SMITH Discoverer of the Golden plates
First Prophet and President and Founder of the Mormon Church:

"Had I anything to do with the negro , I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.''

1848 - 1877) BRIGHAM YOUNG 2nd Prophet and President

"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, sad, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly without the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

"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."

(1877 - 1887) JOHN TAYLOR 3rd Prophet and President

"...after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation a upon a the earth as well as God;.. "

(1901 - 1918) JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH 10th Prophet and President

"I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. "Darkies" are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church."

"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race.

"... and they have been 'despised among all people.' This doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith ..."

BRUCE R. McCONKIE of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles

The negroes are not equal with other races when the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned..."

...As a result of his rebellion, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes"

"Cain Ham, and the whole negro race have _ cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry."

MARK E. PETERSON of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles "At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse - as a punishment and as a sign to all others. " If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse, There isn't any argument, therefore, as to intermarriage with the Negro, is there? "Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it.

ORSON PRATT of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles "The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African Negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations of the earth

SPENCER W. KIMBALL:
"Lamanites" is the Book of Mormon term for Native Americans. The quote below is from a Mormon General Conference talk given by Spencer W. Kimball in 1960. Spencer W. Kimball became the president of the Mormon Church in 1975.

"The day of the Lamanites in nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. [...] The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl- sixteen- sitting between the darker father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents- on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated."

****My Thoughts****

I have a question. If Mormons believe, as the Second Article of Faith states:

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression."

Why is it that these 'prophets' claim that the black people were being punished because of Cain's?


Read on, my dear Mormon audience...
****

Regarding Women:


Heber C. Kimball taught:

"Some quietly listen to those who speak against the plurality of wives, and against almost every principle that God has revealed. Such persons have half-a-dozen devils with them all the time. You might as well deny 'Mormonism,' and turn away from it, as to oppose the plurality of wives. Let the Presidency of this Church, and the Twelve Apostles, and all the authorities unite and say with one voice that they will oppose the doctrine, and the whole of them will be damned." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 203

"I have noticed that a man who has but one wife, and is inclined to that doctrine, soon begins to wither and dry up, while a man who goes into plurality [of wives] looks fresh, young, and sprightly." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses Vol 5, page 22

"I think no more of taking another wife than I do of buying a cow." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Twenty Seventh Wife, Irving Wallace, p. 101.

Speaking to a group of departing missionaries... "Brethren, I want you to understand that it is not to be as it has been heretofore. The brother missionaries have been in the habit of picking out the prettiest women for themselves before they get here, and bringing on the ugly ones for us; hereafter you have to bring them all here before taking any of them, and let us all have a fair shake." - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, The Lion of the Lord, New York, 1969, pp.129-30.

and again...

"I say to those who are elected to go on missions, remember they are not your sheep: they belong to Him that sends you. Then do not make a choice of any of those sheep; do not make selections before they are brought home and put into the fold. You under stand that. Amen" - Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.256.



****My Thoughts****

Who here is STILL going to argue that polygamy was for the interests and safety of the women?

It gets worse. Real Christians have a difficult time accepting Mormons as Christian because of their belief and teaching that Jesus was conceived in the same, regular manner as everybody else in the world. Today's Mormons are not taught this principle of belief until many months or even years of membership and advancement in the Mormon church. Many times, people in the faith often do not discover such teachings ever existed until they themselves are called to serve as Gospel Doctrine teachers or Elder's Quorum teachers. This is why anyone in a teaching capacity is urged to only present the materials in the approved manuals and not to use sources like books written by past prophets, or the Ensign magazine that all devout Mormons subscribe to. Strict control of information and strict control of teaching is what enables the church to let these teachings fall into the 'black hole of history', and allow sufficient plausibility of denial.

*****


"Jesus is the only person who had our heavenly father as the father of his body" (family home evening manual p.125-126 1972)
‘Christ was begotten by an immortal father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal father."(Mormon doctrine p.547)
"The birth of the savior was as natural as the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood—was begotten of his father, as were of our fathers." (Journal of Discourses vol.8 p.115)

"If none but gods will be permitted to multiply immortal children, it follows that each God must have one or more wives. God, the Father of our spirits, became the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. "(Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

"I will say that I was naturally begotten; so was my father, and also my Savior Jesus Christ. According to the Scriptures, he is the first begotten of his father in the flesh, and there was nothing unnatural about it. (Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 8:211)

Apostle and one of the best defenders of their errors was Bruce R. McConkie taught, "And Christ was born into the world as the literal Son of this Holy Being; he was born in the same personal, real, and literal sense that any mortal son is born to a mortal father. There is nothing figurative about his paternity; he was begotten, conceived and born in the normal and natural course of events, for he is the Son of God, and that designation means what it says" (Mormon Doctrine, p. 742).

"And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family. Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, pages 50-51) To make this clear what the Church understood this as "He [Brigham Young] said that our GOD was Father Adam He was the Father of the Savior Jesus Christ Our God was no more or less than ADAM. " ("Wilford Woodruff Journal," Feb. 19,1854)

"Christ was begotten of God. He was NOT born without the aid of man and that man was God!" (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1:18)

"The man Joseph, the husband of Mary, did not, that we know of, have more than one wife, but Mary the wife of Joseph had another husband." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 11:268)

Not to wonder since God is also participating in this practice "We have clearly shown that God the father had a plurality of wives…"(Orson Pratt The Seer p.172)

"Inasmuch as God was the first husband to her, it may be that He only gave her to be the wife of Joseph while in the mortal state, and that He intended after the resurrection to again take her as one of his own wives to raise up immortal spirits in eternity."( Orson Pratt, The Seer, page 158)

So much was this practiced that Jedediah M. Grant, Second Counselor to Brigham Young, asserted: "A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, page 346)

"Hence the Virgin Mary must have been, for the time being the lawful wife of God the Father: we use the term lawful Wife, because it would be blasphemous in the highest degree to say that He overshadowed her or begat the Saviour unlawfully," (The Seer, Apostle Orson Pratt p. 158).

*** My Thoughts***

Oh, yeah I promised to show the teaching about men inhabiting the moon.

******

from Brigham Young:
"I will tell you who the real fanatics are: they are they who adopt false principles and ideas as facts, and try to establish a superstructure upon, a false foundation. They are the fanatics; and however ardent and zealous they may be, they may reason or argue on false premises till doomsday, and the result will be false. If our religion is of this character we want to know it; we would like to find a philosopher who can prove it to us. We are called ignorant; so we are: but what of it? Are not all ignorant? I rather think so. Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon? When we view its face we may see what is termed "the man in the moon," and what some philosophers declare are the shadows of
mountains. But these sayings are very vague, and amount to nothing; and when you inquire about the inhabitants of that sphere you find that the most learned are as ignorant in regard to them as the most ignorant of their fellows. So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it; it was not made in vain. It was made to give light to those who dwell upon it, and to other planets; and so
will this earth when it is celestialized. Every planet in its first rude, organic state receives not the glory of God upon it, but is opaque; but when celestialized, every planet that God brings into existence is a body of light, but not till then. Christ is the light of this planet." - Journal of Discourses Vol. 13, p.271.

****And you thought Scientology was weird****

Brigham Young made a false prophecy?
"In the days of Joseph [Smith] it was considered a great privilege to be permitted to speak to a member of Congress, but twenty-six years will not pass away before the Elders of this Church will be as much thought of as the kings on their thrones." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, page 40.)

Brigham Young said God was progressing in knowledge.
"God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 120).

Brigham Young boasted.
"What man or woman on earth, what spirit in the spirit-world can say truthfully that I ever gave a wrong word of counsel, or a word of advice that could not be sanctioned by the heavens? The success which has attended me in my presidency is owing to the blessings and mercy of the Almighty . . . " (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 12, p. 127).

Brigham Young said you can't get to the highest heaven without Joseph Smith's consent.
"...no man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289).

****Hope you enjoy cuddling up with your Journal of Discourses tonight, as you attempt to make your excuses and reason out all of the false teachings of Brigham Young, the Mormon prophet. I bid you, adieu.