An Article by:

by Susan Rosenthal

(Susan Rosenthal, MD, is a veteran American physician - Justice Lover)

When you are sick or injured, you want to know what’s wrong and what can be done. You want a diagnosis. A correct diagnosis reveals what is wrong, what is the preferred treatment and what is the likely outcome. For example, a diagnosis of pneumonia indicates a serious lung infection that can usually be cured with antibiotics.

While medical diagnoses are based on science, psychiatric “diagnoses” are not at all scientific. They do not reveal what is wrong, what is the preferred treatment, and what is the likely outcome. Nor are they reliable. Different psychiatrists who examine the same patient typically offer different “diagnoses.” Moreover, psychiatric “diagnoses” move in and out of favor, depending on a variety of social factors.

Psychiatric “diagnosis” is actually a labeling process, where the patient’s symptoms are matched with a grouping of symptoms listed in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders (DSM). As we shall see, this psychiatric “bible” was developed and is maintained by financial and political interests.¹

Sigmund Freud

Who decides what is normal or healthy and what is deviant or sick?
Before the 20th century, life stresses were generally seen as spiritual problems or physical illnesses, and people turned to religious advisors and physicians for help. Medical doctors treated “hysteria” and “nerves” as physical problems. Psychiatry was restricted to the treatment of severely disturbed people in asylums.² The first classification of psychiatric disorders in the United States appeared in 1918 and contained 22 categories. All but one referred to various forms of insanity.

In 1901, Sigmund Freud revolutionized psychiatry by breaking down the barrier between mental illness and normal behavior. In The Psychopathology of Everyday Life,³ Freud argued that commonplace behaviors — slips of the tongue, what people find humorous, what they forget and the mistakes they make — indicate repressed sexual feelings that lurk beneath the surface of normal behavior.

By linking everyday behavior with mental illness, Freud and his followers released psychiatry from the asylum. Between 1917 and 1970, as psychiatrists cultivated clients with a broad range of problems, the number of psychiatrists practicing outside institutions swelled from eight percent to 66 percent.⁴

The social movements of the 1960’s opposed psychiatry’s focus on inner conflict and emphasized the social sources of sickness instead. Dr. Alvin Poussaint recalls the 1969 convention of the American Psychiatric Association (APA).

“After multiple racist killings during the civil rights movement, a group of black psychiatrists sought to have murderous bigotry based on race classified as a mental disorder. The APA’s officials rejected that recommendation, arguing that since so many Americans are racist, racism in this country is normative.”⁵

Growing the industry

In 1980, the APA overhauled the DSM. The Task Force established to create the new manual declared that any disorder could be included,
“If there is general agreement among clinicians, who would be expected to encounter the condition, that there are significant number of patients who have it and that its identification is important in the clinical work it is included in the classification.”⁶

In other words, the new DSM was not based on science, but on the need to maintain existing patients and include new ones who might seek help for any number of problems. A profitable and self-perpetuating industry was born. The more people could be encouraged to seek treatment, the more conditions could be entered into the DSM, and the more people could be encouraged to seek treatment for these new conditions.

By 1994, the DSM listed 400 distinct mental disorders covering a wide variety of behaviors in adults and children. Significantly, racism, homophobia (fear of homosexuality) and misogyny (hatred of women) have never been listed as mental disorders. In 1999, the chairperson of the APA’s Council on Psychiatry and the Law confirmed that racism “is not something that is designated as an illness that can be treated by mental health professionals.”⁷ Homosexuality was listed as a mental disorder until activists campaigned to have it removed.⁸

The women’s liberation movement condemned labeling symptoms of oppression as mental illnesses. In They Say You’re Crazy: How the World’s Most Powerful Psychiatrists Decide Who’s Normal, Paula Caplan explains,

“In a culture that scorns and demeans lesbians and gay men, it is hard to be completely comfortable with one’s homosexuality, and so the DSM-III authors were treating as a mental disorder what was often simply a perfectly comprehensible reaction to being mocked and oppressed.”⁹

Caplan describes efforts to prevent “Masochistic Personality Disorder” from being included in the DSM. This disorder assumes that women stay with abusive spouses because like to suffer, not because they lack the resources to leave. Despite protest, “Masochistic Personality Disorder” was added to the 1987 edition of the DSM, although it was later dropped.

The inclusion of “Pre-Menstrual Dysphoric Disorder” (PMDD) in the DSM also raised a protest. According to Caplan,

“The problem with PMDD is not the women who report premenstrual mood problems but the diagnosis of PMDD itself. Excellent research shows that these women are significantly more likely than other women to be in upsetting life situations, such as being battered or being mistreated at work. To label them mentally disordered — to send the message that their problems are individual, psychological ones — hides the real, external sources of their trouble.”¹⁰

As soon as PMDD was listed in the DSM, Eli Lilly repackaged its best-selling drug, Prozac, in a pink-pill format, renamed it Serafem, and promoted it as a treatment for PMDD. By creating Serafem, Lilly was able to extend its patent on the Prozac formula for another seven years.

A marketing gold mine

The DSM is a marketing gold mine for the drug industry. The FDA will approve a drug to treat a mental disorder only if that disorder is listed in the DSM. Therefore, each new listing is worth millions in potential drug sales. Most of the experts who construct the DSM have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies, and every new edition of the DSM contains more conditions than the previous one.

Once the DSM lists a new mental disorder, drugs for that disorder are heavily marketed for everyone who might fit the symptom checklist. (Doctors are also encouraged to prescribe these drugs for “off-label use,” which means to anyone they think might benefit.) Not surprisingly, the numbers of people “diagnosed” with a mental condition rise rapidly after a drug is approved to treat that condition.

In 2005, a major study announced that “About half of Americans will meet the criteria for a DSM-IV disorder sometime in their life…”¹¹ How is this possible? Has it become normal to be mentally ill, or has the definition of mental illness expanded beyond reason? Both could be true.

Capitalism damages people in many ways. It’s also true that the more people can be labeled as sick, the more profits can be made from selling them treatments. In Creating Mental Illness, Alan Horowitz warns,

“…a large proportion of behaviors that are currently regarded as mental illnesses are normal consequences of stressful social arrangements or forms of social deviance. Contrary to its general definition of mental disorder, the DSM and much research that follows from it considers all symptoms, whether internal or not, expected or not, deviant or not, as signs of disorder.”¹²

Most people know the difference between normal behavior (such as grief over the death of a loved one) and abnormal behavior that could indicate an internal disorder (such as prolonged grief for no apparent reason). However, the DSM does not consider what happens in people’s lives. With one exception (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder), the DSM lists and categorizes symptoms outside of any social context. As a result, DSM-based surveys artificially increase the numbers of people suffering from mental disorders and, therefore, the market for drug treatments.

DSM-inflated rates of mental illness are typically accompanied by the warning that not enough people are getting treatment.¹³ The question of whether or not they are actually sick is never raised.

Social control

Psychiatry has a long history of medicating the oppressed, including children, for social control.¹⁴

Using DSM criteria, at least six million American children have been diagnosed with serious mental disorders, triple the number in the early 1990’s. The rate of boys aged 7 to 12 diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder more than doubled between 1995 and 2000 and continues to rise.

A 2007 survey of 8- to 15-year-olds discovered that nine percent met the DSM criteria for attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The survey found that fewer than half of these children had been diagnosed or treated, “suggesting that some children with clinically significant inattention and hyperactivity may not be receiving optimal attention.” Noting that poor children were least likely to receive medication, the authors of the study recommend “further investigation and possible intervention.”¹⁵

Instead of addressing the stressful social conditions that agitate children, psychiatry imposes conformity through medication. To force compliance with this oppressive system, access to insurance benefits, medical care and social services depends on “having a diagnosis.”

The psychiatric-pharmaceutical industry treats illness as strictly individual and internal — the result of faulty genes or chemical imbalances. In reality, human problems exist in a social context.

Most of the symptoms listed in the DSM describe human responses to deprivation and oppression (anxiety, agitation, aggression, depression) and the many ways that people try to manage unbearable pain (obsessions, compulsions, rage, addictions). Depression is strongly linked with poverty,¹⁶ and alleviating poverty can lift depression.¹⁷

Under capitalism, addressing the social causes of misery is politically risky and unprofitable. So psychiatry extracts the individual from society, splits the brain from the body, severs the mind from the brain and drugs the brain.¹⁸

A sick society

Capitalism is a system that requires the majority to have no control over their lives and to believe that this condition is normal. Therefore, all reactions to inequality and deprivation must be viewed as signs of personal inadequacy, biological defect, mental illness — anything other than reasonable responses to unreasonable conditions.

During slavery days, experts argued that Black people were psychologically suited for a life of slavery, so there must be something wrong with those who rebelled.¹⁹ In 1851, the diagnosis of “drapetomania”(runaway fever) was developed to explain why slaves try to escape.²⁰ Not much has changed. Today, exploitation and oppression are considered normal, and those who rebel in any way are considered to be sick or deviant and in need of medication or incarceration.

What’s the diagnosis for a sick society? We know what’s wrong. Most people are kept in sick social conditions so that a few can maintain their wealth and power. What is the treatment? Putting human needs first would eliminate most human misery. Who will deliver the medicine? The majority must organize to take collective control of society.

I don’t expect this diagnosis to appear in the DSM anytime soon.

(Emphasis by Justice Lover)

1. Kirk, S.S. & Kutchins, H. (1992). The selling of DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Aldine De Gruyter. #
2. Horowitz, A.V. (2002). Creating mental illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. #
3. Freud, S. (1901/1991). The psychopathology of everyday life. New York: Penguin #
4. Shorter, E. (1997). A history of psychiatry: From the era of the asylum to the age of Prozac. New York: John Wiley & Sons. #
5. Poussaint, A.F. & Alexander, A. (2000). Lay my burden down: Suicide and the mental health crisis among African-Americans. Boston: Beacon Press, p.125. #
6. Spitzer, R.L., Sheeney, M. & Endicott, J. (1977). DSM III: Guiding principles. In Psychiatric diagnosis, (Eds). Rakoff, V., Stancer, H. & Kedward, H. New York: Brunner Mazel. #
7. Egan, T. (1999). Racist shootings test limits of health system and laws. New York Times, August 14, p.1. #
8. “DSM and homosexuality: A cautionary tale.” in Kirk, S.A., Kutchins, H. (1992). The selling of DSM: The rhetoric of science in psychiatry. New York: Aldine De Gruyter p 81-90 #
9. Caplan, P. (1995). They say you’re crazy: How the world’s most powerful psychiatrists decide who’s normal. New York: Addison-Wesley, pp.180-181. #
10. Caplan, P.J. (2002). Expert decries diagnosis for pathologizing women. Journal of Addiction and Mental Health. September/October 2001, p.16. #
11. Kessler, R.C., Berglund, P., Demler, O., Jin, R. & Walters, E.E. (2005). Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. Vol.62, No.6, pp.593-602. #
12. Horowitz, A.V. (2002). Creating Mental Illness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p.37. #
13. Talen, J. (2005). Survey says nearly half of all Americans will be affected by a mental illness, some before adulthood. Newsday, June 7. #
14. Breggin, P.R. & Breggin, G. R. (1994). The war against children: How the drugs, programs, and theories of the psychiatric establishment are threatening America’s children with a medical ‘cure’ for violence. New York: St. Martin’s Press. #
15. Froehlich TE, et.al. (2007). Prevalence, recognition, and treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in a national sample of US children. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. Vol.161, pp.857-864. #
16. Duenwald, M. (2003). “More Americans Seeking Help for Depression.” New York Times, June 18. #
17. Costello EJ, Compton SN, Keeler G, Angold A.(2003). Relationships between poverty and psychopathology: a natural experiment. JAMA. Oct 15, Vol.290, No. 15, pp.2023-9. #
18. Ross, C.A., & Pam, A., (1995). Pseudoscience in biological psychiatry: Blaming the body. New York: Wiley. #
19. Poussaint, A.F. & Alexander, A. (2000). Lay my burden down: Suicide and the mental health crisis among African Americans. Boston: Beacon Press. #
20. Cartwright, S. (1851). Report on the diseases and physical peculiarities of the Negro race. New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal. May, p. 707. #

Tags: mental health, politics, psychology, religion
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Religion, mental health
No Comments »

Monique Davis needs to resign from her seat in the Illinois State Senate.

Due to social journalism, the State Senator has been exposed as a rather outspoken bigot, who scorns religious minorities without pause or hesitation. When listening to testimony given to a committee upon which Davis sat, she erupted in an outburst directed upon Rob Sherman – an atheist who was testifying on matters relating to the separation of church and state – in which she screamed, “It’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists,” among other things.

There are several extrapolations that can be drawn from such a bewildering statement. Most saliently, Davis has revealed that she believes free thought and expression to be dangerous and out of place in the various public spheres belonging to American civil society. She obviously thinks that some forms of speech – namely, those with which she fails to agree – should be curtailed, in order for such thoughts not to reach impressionable members of society.

There are, of course, other inferences to be drawn from Davis’ hate speech, but they all seem to reinforce a thematic congruency that can be reduced as follows: Monique Davis is not a good American.

In support this conclusion, consider the following: She is a bigot who wants to interfere with the religious practices that are predicated upon beliefs whose veracity she disputes. Further, since she obviously fails to possess the intellectual faculties necessary for her to produce arguments in opposition to a particular system of beliefs, she is reduced to cruelly shouting at those whose beliefs she denies, citing hysterically fabricated consequences that will ensue if her opponent’s abilities to publicize his or her arguments are not curtailed. Therefore, her only recourse is to fear monger in an attempt to illicit the censorship of her adversaries.

At the very least, Monique Davis must be censured by her legislative colleagues. The venomous hate that she spews must by rebuked, and she must face public humiliation. If there is anything dangerous to which children can be exposed, it is the bigotry and the hatred that Davis embodies. This does not indicate that we should curtail her ability to speak publicly. However, responsible members of the political body, in which she has procured a seat, need to clearly state that her speech – which is at odds with our most fundamental values as Americans – is not demonstrative of the guiding-principles that instruct the Illinois State Senate as it deliberates over public policy.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, freedom of religion, government, illinois, illinois legislature, journalism, monique davis, politics, religion, Russell Coles Blog
Categories: Commentary, Russell Cole's Blog, Politics, Religion, Atheism, journalism
No Comments »

Hello,

Just reading the religious proclamation [cited below], and I had some additional specifications to add to your institution of marriage, which we seem to suggest is a defining aspect of this timeless culture to which you refer. Since Solomon had 700 wives, I suppose there is Biblical justification for polygamy according to dimensions that I would have thought to have constituted gluttony on the part of the indulgent Hebrew Monarch. Therefore, your proposition that marriage is between a man and a woman needs correction: Marriage consists of a man and as many women as he can acquire. Why God only gave Adam one wife is probably related to physiological concerns that God had for Adam who was already missing a rib. Also, Abraham engaged in a rather peculiar practice in order to bare a descendant. The patriarch committed what I think qualifies as an act of rape, since it was after all a slave that he owned whom he imposed himself upon, in order to get past the inconvenience of having a wife who was barren.

The type of marriage that Christian Fundamentalists often mistake as a transcendental institution was more the byproduct of more recent events occurring during the industrial revolution when the emergent Bourgeoisie invented the modern ideology of sexuality and its correlates, such as the advent of heterosexuality, which they imposed upon the depraved masses in order to maintain the health and vigor of a population that was needed to serve effectively as cogs in the machinery constituting the modes industrial production.

Foucault’s revisionism is hard to accept when one is first exposed to it. However, his research is so thorough and compelling that eventually the student find himself convinced of its veracity.

The Family: A Proclamation to the World

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

In the premortal realm, spirit sons and daughters knew and worshiped God as their Eternal Father and accepted His plan by which His children could obtain a physical body and gain earthly experience to progress toward perfection and ultimately realize his or her divine destiny as an heir of eternal life. The divine plan of happiness enables family relationships to be perpetuated beyond the grave. Sacred ordinances and covenants available in holy temples make it possible for individuals to return to the presence of God and for families to be united eternally.

The first commandment that God gave to Adam and Eve pertained to their potential for parenthood as husband and wife. We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

We declare the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed. We affirm the sanctity of life and of its importance in God’s eternal plan.

Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. “Children are an heritage of the Lord” (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations.

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Tags: marriage, Modernity, religion, Social Change, society
Categories: Commentary, Society, Social Change, Religion
No Comments »

An Article by:

Russell Cole

After listening to Mitt Romney’s speech, where he explained his reasons for withdrawing from the Republican Primary as well as his concerns over the struggles America will face in the Twenty-first Century, I was reminded why I have suffered from an antagonism toward this outwardly seeming gentile man to such a poignant degree. Indeed, after listening to Romney speak on most any occasion, I would become temporarily consumed – and, thus, debilitated – with my anger and outrage; unpleasant emotions whose inculcation were directed upon this excessively pandering, 1950s adaptation of the popular Mattel Toy Company’s Ken Doll. Despite my unwavering animosity toward Romney – feelings that would spike from observing him on television; no matter in what capacity he was portrayed during these painful episodes – his concessionary remarks on the 7^th of February incited anger and disgust whose severity reached levels previously unattained during past instances when I was struck by the symptoms associated with my underlying disorder; an ailment that I suppose can be referred to as Romneopathy.

The severity of the attack I suffered was not brought about so much from listening to him declare that a Democratic President would unvaryingly surrender to terror.

I am not even sure what he means by this. I fail to understand to whom – or to what agent – one would surrender, because surely one cannot militarily capitulate to an emotion; and, (assuming Romney was invoking the other possible meaning of “terror,” in this context,) one, additionally, cannot surrender to an abstract political tactic.

It was not the slander Romney committed against liberal politicians who happen not to be entirely consumed with obsessive war-mongering. Rather, the acute surfacing of the symptoms concomitant with Romneopathy was incurred by his remarks in which he stated that Europe was facing a demographic crises due to the Europeans failing to believe in their Lord, or Creator.

I suspect that Romney was indicating that the rapid decline in religiosity among Europeans has created social situation where people are less inclined to have children.

According to Romney’s explanation for staling population growth, it is as though one needs to be presented with an incentive, such as the expectation, in the Afterlife, that one will receive his own celestial body, which he would, then, populate and reign over as a patriarch, in order for one to elect to have the divinely mandated children and family.

Well, then, if it requires subscribing to some belief-system, such as Romney’s Mormonism, for one to be motivated to have children, I think that society is ultimately better off if such people did not elect to have children. The offspring could possibly inherit the same utterly baffling – and properly mocked – insanity leading to such religious beliefs.

Russell Cole

Tags: atheism, Mitt Romeny, politics, religion
Categories: Commentary, Politics, Religion, Atheism, Mitt Romeny
1 Comment »

An Article by:Ben Tanosborn

If only you knew how much we miss your journalistic soft core bellicosity, the political satire and celebrated puns! If only you knew how much more there is to be done to right this ship-nation of ours listing to the right… and ready to sink!  But you know, yes you know… and had no recourse, accepting mortality just like the rest of us.

Today marks a year since you left us escorted by Eirene and Hypatia, as if to honor your fight for peace with intelligence, wit and wisdom.  No better escorts to heaven than the goddess of peace and that woman-scholar killed, not by breast cancer like you, Molly, but by a Christian mob of “fundamentalists”; Hypatia, the first martyr of science, greatest mind of her time, assassinated by religion almost sixteen centuries ago.

Right to the end you advocated peace, and just a few days before your death you wrote that last column fighting to stop the war in Iraq, as you had done non-stop for four years, telling us in that column: “We are the people who run this country.  We are the deciders.  And every single day, every single one of us needs to step outside and take some action to help stop this war… We need people in the streets, banging pots and pans and demanding, ‘Stop it, now!’” But unfortunately, dear Molly, too many of us seem to have abdicated our freedoms and decision-making to that man in the White House you called Shrub, a man who rules our lives with an empty “upstairs” and a fossilized heart.

I never met Molly, but deep inside I thought I knew her well.  And I yearned for approval from her on those articles I wrote during the time preceding the Iraq invasion, and over three years afterwards.  All my writing was, needless to say, relegated to “subterranean” print and digital publications, limited to readership living in the catacombs, a maligned “un-American” Left.  Molly’s long-standing professionalism and mastery of the political moment kept her mainstream to the end.  And Americans should feel good about that.

Starting in mid-2003, at just about the time Saddam’s TV-famous statue was toppled – lassoed down from a pedestal in Baghdad before a rent-a-crowd from Saddam City – I started sending Molly copies of many of my columns, mainly those which dealt with the war.  I felt that I was probably sending those copies straight to a cyber basket where tens of thousands of emails to Miss Ivins weekly found their way… like snowflakes reaching the warm ground, and deleting themselves.  Or so I thought!

It was in mid-February 2004 when I received an email from this great lady, brief and to the point, without the slightest Texas twang.  “Ben,” it said “stop wasting precious time sending me copies of your columns.  I read all your articles as soon as the ink dries.”  I was dumbfounded; staring at what was the most precious valentine I’ve ever received.

Personally, dear Molly, I’ll really be missing in the next few weeks and months your take on the upcoming elections, your critical political eye, and the truth that would emanate from the pounding of your fingers over the keyboard.  Musical sounds of satire to my ears, and the ears of many in the nation not plugged by the waspish-wax of the Right.

But your criticism wasn’t directed at the Right, or the Left for that matter.  You were a truly equal opportunity satirist, and always called them as you saw them, yielding only to two things: truth and compassion, or what many would call, love for humanity.  I wonder did anyone ever fool you in this masquerade of American politics?  I have my doubts.  I will never forget your keen perception of political reality as you de-iced the real Bill Clinton which ended with the statement: “Besides, no one but a fool or a Republican ever took him for a liberal.”  Do we realize how many fools we have around, particularly in the media?

There was another Mary Tyler [Moore] who for decades was America’s TV sweetheart.  You, Molly, were our Mary Tyler in political journalism, although we called you Molly instead of Mary.  Saint Molly… pray for us, and intercede with the Almighty to bring us peace in Iraq, Afghanistan; also our minds and our hearts.

Tags: Ben Tanosborn, government, Modernity, politics, religion, society
Categories: Commentary, government, Politics, Religion, Ben Tanosborn
No Comments »

An Article by

Chuck Adkins

I have been sitting here today, watching the headlines about Mitt Romney and his Mormonism and his so-called Christianity. I also see where he gave a speech, that has been compared to John F. Kennedy’s Speech on his Catholicism. I’ve also watched, as some very well known Republicans have swooned over his speech. I find this quite disturbing. Because I am a Born Again Christian, who believes the Bible IS the True Word of God, Because I reject the Mormon Religion as nothing more than a dangerous, mind-controlling, cult. I am going to give the Blogging world, the TRUTH on Mitt Romney and his involvement in the Mormon Church.

I will forewarn you, this article is quite long, and is quite in-depth… I hereby release this information to the public domain, feel free to use it, as you see fit on your Blog or news service.

I would like to publicly thank Ed Decker, Of Saints Alive in Jesus for his assistance and for providing the information given here.

Here is the Straight Truth about Mitt Romney and his Mormonism:

Looking Back

Almost 30 years ago, the late BYU Professor and LDS author Cleon Skousen founded the Freemen Institute [later to be called The National Center for Constitutional Studies]. The name came from The Book of Mormon.

And those who were desirous that Pahoran should remain chief judge over the land took upon them the name of freemen; and thus was the division among them, for the freemen had sworn or covenanted to maintain their rights and the privileges of their religion by a free government. Alma 51: 6-7

Skousen joined forces with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority on some major political issues late 70s and early 80s and I was prompted to study out both the public and the LDS insider position on government, the constitution. [The LDS Church says it is a divine document from the hand of God.] Using that research, I produced a Study called “The Mormon Plan for America”.

When George Romney, Mitt’s father, made his aborted run for President in 1968, there was a lot in internal LDS talk about the last days prophecies that the US constitution would hang by a thread to be saved by the elders of the LDS church. Many felt that the day had finally arrived for the actual “Kingdom of God” to be established. But here we are again in 2007 with another Romney who effervesces conservative family values on the cover of Time Magazine as he begins his bid for the country’s highest office.

To many Mormons, this is the beginning of the prophetic ‘End Times’ scenario of the last days of America and the Mormon theocracy that would usher in the millennial reign of Christ. It is in the very blood stream of Mormonism. It is part of the corporate DNA of a whole people group and a subject rarely discussed with outsiders.

This pure form of theocratic, prophet-led government would prepare the way for the ushering in of the millennium, the time when Jesus would return to earth, sit in his temple in Missouri to reign over the earth, with the center of His government here in America, operated as the “Kingdom of God” on earth.
The actual background for all these whispered conversations in Mormon priesthood meetings and meeting houses come from much of the historical documents of the church and the speeches of many of the early church authorities.

It goes something like this. Joseph Smith implemented a program called the United Order in the church. It was a plan of sharing; everything in common, all properties and wealth turned over to and owned by the church and dispersed by the Brethren to the people on an as needed basis with a requirement for good stewardship or loss of use.

It was called the “Kingdom of God.” It was people living as God ordained under the United Order. However, it failed.

It was later determined that it could only work when both the secular and ecclesiastic functions operated under one authority. It required an LDS prophet ruling over a theocratic government where eternal commandments like the United Order and plural marriage and blood atonement would function within “The Kingdom of God”

This Theocracy would come into existence when the U.S. Constitution would hang by a thread and the Mormon elders would be there to save it and the country and thereby usher in The Kingdom of God, the prophesied Mormon theocracy.

On December 7, 1968 Elder Hugh B. Brown presided over the groundbreaking of the LDS Washington D.C. Temple. It was dedicated in November 1974 by the prophet, Spencer W. Kimball.

The unique thing about this temple that struck me as singularly important was the design and furnishing of a large room on the upper floor. A photograph of this room is in the film, The Godmakers. It was set to house a presiding governing body.

It is my own personal belief that it was designed as the place where the theocratic government of God would conduct its business, with the prophet in His place of authority.

Now we jump ahead 40 years to 2007… and the 2008 Presidential election. A whole generation has passed and the son of George Romney has risen to the top of the list of

Mormons who would qualify to take that run at the Oval Office and perhaps be in the right place as President or Vice President as the Constitution hangs by that foretold thread… and be there to call upon the elders, the Brethren to save the nation and soon usher in the “Kingdom of God.”

Far fetched… I would agree that I sound like a man shouting fire in a theatre, but, as you will read, I am talking about valid LDS end-times teachings and events that every Temple Mormon has sworn to help bring to pass.

You will also see that Mitt Romney has been raised and trained for this day. His family has been in the church for generations. He is the great grandson of polygamists Gaskell Romney and Anna Amelia Pratt.1

Mitt Romney is a Temple Mormon, a High Priest, and as such he has sworn blood oaths of sacrifice, obedience and consecration to the church and the “Kingdom of God.” His perfect obedience to these laws will allow him to become a god in the next life, the literal father of the peoples of a new and different earth.

He is truly a Presidential candidate with an actual, definable god complex.

On February 12, 2007, as Mitt Romney announced that he would run for the office of President, he commented in a USA Today, article, “Will Mormon faith hurt bid for White House?” by Jill Lawrence, that…

… It is not his job as a presidential candidate to educate people about his church. “I’m running for a secular position,” he said in an interview. “I subscribe to what Abraham Lincoln called America’s political religion. The Constitution and the rule of law are the highest promises I would make in taking the oath of office.”

Mitt Romney’s understanding of the U.S. Constitution from the LDS perspective and its divine role in the end times is not that of the average American.

Mitt Romney is a nice looking man, successful in the business world, with core values of family, church and faith. He does not smoke, drink or even touch coffee or tea. He has been married to the same woman for decades. He seems like the cure for dealing with the corruption of our national leadership.

What could possibly be wrong in having such a man as our President? Let’s look at some of the reasons his presidency could be the end of America as we know it.

I recently searched through my files and have resurrected and updated the research paper, “The Mormon Plan for America.” That information is part of what I share below.

Some Extremely Grave Questions

Let me re-introduce you to a portion of one chapter in my book, The God Makers, co-authored with Dave Hunt.2 It is a part of Chapter 16: The Hidden Kingdom. I suggest that you buy the book and read the entire story. It will shock you even more than what I will reveal here.

It is a hidden kingdom that lurks beneath the placid surface of public Mormonism. It is this LDS “Kingdom of God” that former Governor, Mitt Romney, in the very sacred act of “taking out His Endowments” has sworn blood oaths of obedience to in the LDS temple ritual.

The late Apostle and LDS theologian, elder Bruce R. McConkie described the Mormon temples as:
“Holy sanctuaries wherein sacred ordinances, rites, and ceremonies are performed which pertain to salvation and exaltation in the kingdom of God are called temples.”

There are several purposes to be achieved in the temple by worthy Mormons. First, they learn the secret/sacred signs, tokens, handshakes necessary to pass by the sentinels and enter the Celestial glory where they will become gods and goddesses and people new earths like this one.

Second, they receive sacred undergarments with talismanic markings to wear for their protection while on earth, a secret new name by which they will be called from the grave. Throughout the temple rituals, they swear obedience to certain laws that will govern their membership, obedience to the prophet and their behavior while on earth.

Mitt Romney’s temple experience was no different when he first received his “endowments” in preparation for his 30 month stint as an LDS Missionary.

The Law of Sacrifice

One of several temple oaths was his oath of Obedience to the Law of Sacrifice, in which he vowed,

“As Jesus Christ has laid down his life for the redemption of mankind, so we should covenant to sacrifice all that we [I] possess, even our [my] own lives [life] if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God.” 3

The “execution of the penalty” for ‘disobedience at the time Mitt Romney took out his “temple Endowments” was demonstrated by

“by placing the thumb under the left ear, the palm of the hand down, and by drawing the thumb quickly across the throat to the right ear, and dropping the hand to the side”4.

It is hard to imagine that well-educated Mormon men of such political stature like former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Utah Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah or Senator Harry Reid of Nevada could bring their thumbs to their throats and swear a blood oath that they will ‘suffer’ their throats slit from ear to ear should they not “sacrifice all that [they] possess, even [their] own lives if necessary, in sustaining and defending the Kingdom of God, as defined by the Mormon prophet.

These LDS oaths are taken directly from the rituals of Blue Lodge Masonry, the source of much of the LDS temple rituals. It is no wonder, since the first five presidents and prophets of the LDS church were Masons.

These high level Temple Mormons clearly know that this Mormon “Kingdom of God” is, in reality, a Mormon one-world government, a theocracy, soon coming to America, that will be run by the strong arm of the Mormon Brethren, headed up by the only true prophet of God on earth. However they look at it, it is very certain that they did swear such an oath.

The Law of Consecration

The other significant oath Mitt Romney has sworn to obey is the Law of Consecration. In the LDS temple ritual, the officiator says to the temple ‘patrons’,

We are instructed to give unto you the Law of Consecration as contained in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, in connection with the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Sacrifice which you have already received. It is that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents and everything which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saint, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

All arise. (All patrons stand.) Each of you bring your right arm to the square.

You and each of you covenant and promise before God, angels, and these witnesses at this altar, that you do accept the Law of Consecration as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, in that you do consecrate yourselves, your time, talents, and everything with which the Lord has blessed you, or with which he may bless you, to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, for the building up of the Kingdom of God on the earth and for the establishment of Zion.

Each of you bow your head and say “yes.”
PATRONS: Yes.

Now we can see and understand the spiritual positioning of elder Mitt Romney beginning on that day he first swore these oaths and reinforced with every temple visit thereafter. Let’s go back to Chapter 16 of my book, The God Makers.

Secrets of the Hidden Kingdom of God

Mormon leaders call their empire the “Kingdom of God.” However, their “God” is an extraterrestrial, an exalted man from near the great star, Kolob and definitely not the God of the Bible.

Further, the “Zion” to which their spirit-brother-of-Lucifer, Jesus Christ will return to reign is Independence, Missouri, not Jerusalem.

Most Christians believe, as the Bible declares, that Christ will return to Jerusalem, Israel, to establish His millennial kingdom, whereas Mormons believe that they must first establish a worldwide Mormon kingdom controlled from their Missouri base in order to make it possible for Christ to return.

Therein lays a great difference, which is why the Mormon hierarchy, beginning with Joseph Smith himself and continuing down to the present-day leadership, has always had worldwide influence and absolute political power as its divine goal.

Mormon historian Klaus J. Hansen has written,

“The idea of a political kingdom of God, promulgated by a secret Council of Fifty, is by far the most important key to an understanding of the Mormon past.”5

Mormon writer John J. Stewart has said:

“The Prophet established a confidential Council of Fifty, or “Ytfif,” (Fifty spelled backwards), comprised of both Mormons and non-Mormons, to help attend to temporal matters, including the eventual development of a one-world government, in harmony with preparatory plans for the second advent of the Saviour”.6

These things are in the very blood stream of the Mormon corporate consciousness.

Some Extremely Grave Questions

Mormonism seems as American as apple pie, and Mormons seem to be the perfect citizens with their close families, high morals, patriotism, Boy Scout programs, Tabernacle Choir, and conservative politics. A Los Angeles Times article implied that Mormons have recently gained the image of “super-Americans . . . [who] appear to many to be ‘more American than the average American.” 7

This may explain why such a high proportion of Mormons find their way into government. Returned LDS missionaries have “the three qualities the CIA wants: foreign language ability, training in a foreign country, and former residence in a foreign country.”8 Utah (and particularly BYU) is one of the prime recruiting areas for the CIA.

According to BYU spokesman Dr. Gary Williams, “We’ve never had any trouble placing anyone who has applied to the CIA. Every year they take almost anybody who applies.”9

He also admitted that this has created problems with a number of foreign countries, who have complained about the “pretty good dose of [Mormon] missionaries who’ve gone back to the countries they were in as Central Intelligence agents.”10

This may at least partially explain the reported close tie between the Mormon Church and the CIA.11 A disproportionate number of Mormons arrive at the higher levels of the CIA, FBI, military intelligence, armed forces, and all levels of city, state, and federal governments, including the Senate, Congress, Cabinet, and White House Staff.

Sincere and loyal citizens, most of them may be unaware of the secret ambition of The Brethren. What could be better than having such patriots as these serving in strategic areas of government and national security?

Unfortunately, as we have noticed in every other area of Mormonism, the real truth lies hidden beneath the seemingly ideal image of patriotism presented by Mormons in public service. In fact their very presence in responsible government positions, particularly in agencies dealing with national security, raises some extremely grave questions that were expressed in my following letter mailed to the LDS Brethren in Salt Lake City. I also published it as an open letter in the Salt Lake Tribune.

The Mormon Oath of Vengeance
Against this Nation

An open letter to:

The President, First Presidency and members of the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

August 21, 1980

Gentlemen:

I was recently reflecting that although the actual blood oath and the oath of vengeance were removed from the Temple ceremonies sometime after 1930, you gentlemen [listing ten of the above] are of an age to have received your own endowments prior to their removal, and therefore, are still under these oaths.

I am particularly interested in your personal position on your oath of vengeance against the United States of America. As you recall, the oath was basically as follows:

You and each of you do solemnly promise and vow that you will pray and never cease to importune high heaven to AVENGE THE BLOOD OF THE PROPHETS (Joseph and Hiram Smith) ON THIS NATION, and that you will teach this to your children and your children’s children unto the third and fourth generation.

Have you officially renounced this oath? Or are you still bound by it?

If you have not renounced it, how can you presume to lead four-and-one-half [now over six and a half million Americans] million people [US citizens] under item 12 of your Articles of Faith and still be bound to call upon heaven to heap curses upon our nation? (”We believe in being subject to Kings, Presidents, Rulers and Magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.”)

If you have renounced it, how can you justify having sworn such an oath in the most holy of holy places on this earth, before the sacred altar of your omnipotent God, and then renounce it? Gentlemen, I call upon you to repent of this abomination and proclaim to both the Mormon people and to the people of the United States of America that you renounce that oath and all it represents.

I also call upon all members of the Mormon Church who hold office in our government, serve in the Armed Services, work for the FBI and CIA who have gone through the Mormon Temple and sworn oaths of obedience and sacrifice to the church and its leaders (above), to repent of these oaths in the light of the obvious conflict of interest between their pledge of allegiance to the USA and their higher loyalty to a group of men who are sworn to seek vengeance against this great nation.

Sincerely, (Signed) J. Edward Decker

cc: President J. Carter

Mr. Ronald Reagan

No response was ever received to this letter. The Brethren are so powerful that they are immune to criticism and feel no need to explain themselves or account to anyone for these actions. The Mormon Church already packs a political punch far out of proportion to its size. The Wall Street Journal explained how, in spite of the Constitution separation between Church and State, public schools in Utah are used to instill Mormonism in young minds.

It mentioned political reapportionment, airline deregulation, the basing of the MX missile and the ERA as political issues affected by the power of the Church. For example, when the Church opposed the MX for Utah, those plans were immediately dropped by the federal government. The same Wall Street Journal article quoted the following statement from J.D. Williams, a University of Utah political science professor:

There is a disquieting statement in Mormonism: “When the leaders have spoken, the thinking has been done.” To me, democracy can’t thrive in that climate. They [Mormon politicians] don’t have to be

called to Church headquarters for political instruction. They know what they’re supposed to do. That’s why non-Mormons can only look toward the Mormon Church and wonder: “What is Big Brother doing to me today?”12

A Disturbing Possibility

While the election of a Mormon President might seem unlikely, it is highly probable under the present swing toward conventional morality and conservatism that a Mormon could become a Republican Presidential or Vice-Presidential nominee. This is especially true when one considers the growing cooperation between Mormons and Christian leaders like (the late) Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and groups like the Moral Majority.

With the power, wealth, wide influence, numerous highly-placed Mormons, and large voting block under their virtual control, The Brethren have a great deal to offer a Republican Presidential candidate. Let’s assume that even if the Mormon candidate is not selected as the Presidential nominee, but because of his clout, takes he second spot on the ticket. If the Mormon Vice-Presidential candidate is on the winning ticket, and thereafter the

President dies in office or is assassinated, the Mormon will obviously succeed him as President of the United States.

There is every reason to believe that a Mormon President would immediately begin to gather around him increasing numbers of zealous Temple Mormons in strategic places at the highest levels of government.

A crisis similar to the one which Mormon prophecies “foretold” occurs, in which millions of Mormons with their year’s supply of food, guns, and ammunition play a key role. It would be a time of excitement and zealous effort by the “Saints” to fulfill Joseph Smith’s and Brigham Young’s “prophecy”:

The time will come when the destiny of the nation will hang upon a single thread. At that critical juncture, this people will step forth and save it from the threatened destruction.13

Not only does Mormonism predict the “saving” of America, but the precedent for an attempted takeover by force or subterfuge through political means has been set by the founding “Prophet” himself. In 1834 Joseph Smith organized an army and marched toward Independence, Missouri, to “redeem Zion.” In spite of a humiliating surrender to the Missouri Militia that proved his bold “Prophecies” false, the “Prophet” later formed the “Nauvoo Legion” and commissioned himself a Lieutenant-General to command it. Lyman L. Woods stated:

I have seen him on a white horse wearing the uniform of a general. . . . He was leading a parade of the Legion and looked like a god.14

Joseph Smith was not only ordained King on earth, but he ran for President of the United States just before his death, at which time Mormon missionaries across the country became “a vast force of political [power].”15

Today’s Church leaders are urging Mormons to prepare themselves for the coming crisis in order to succeed where past “Saints” have failed. A major article in the LDS Ensign magazine about being prepared included this oft-repeated w