I would like to draw your attention to recent events in Egypt, where there have been some more riots and violence against the minority Coptic Christians. I pray for God’s protection for my people, but it’s hard to be too indignant, considering that in spite of frequent and unprovoked waves of violence, the Copts are still much better off than in Christians in almost all other Muslim-controlled countries (Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Indonesia, etc). Just don’t believe the “peaceful religion” propaganda; the Copts are second-class citizens, like all non-Muslims living in a Muslim country, and these riots are the mullahs’ attempts to remind us that the modern era of openness with the West doesn’t change our centuries-old status, imposed since the Muslim conquest of the Christian Middle East. This is what they want to make of Europe and the US, too; they won’t be satisfied till we’re all dhimmis, paying the jizya.
June 28, 2007
May 10, 2007
I’ve been noticing that political conservatives, in their enthusiasm for Mitt Romney (who is honestly the most believably conservative of the apparently viable candidates – McCain, Giuliani, Romney), are embracing Mormons as Christians, and the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints (hereinafter LDS for short) as a normal church. This is such a false idea. After interacting with several Mormon fellow-students and residents, earlier this year I got several books on the subject and read up about the origins and teachings of the LDS. I came to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was manipulated by Satan, just like Mohammed and other false prophets, that there are serious demonic powers in the temple rituals, that Mormons do not worship the true God of the Bible, but a figment of their imagination, and that they have no claim to be Christians at all, any more than Muslims do. I will try to support these conclusions by going through key sections from the Nicene Creed (in my estimation, the foundational truths necessary for agreement between true Christians) and showing how the LDS deviates from these.
1. “We believe in God the Father Almighty. . .”
LDS doctrine, as originated by Joseph Smith, and developed by Brigham Young and the subsequent prophets and “revelators” of the Mormon church, teaches that God himself was once a man (perhaps even Adam; there is contradiction on this point), who through doing good works eventually became perfect, and the father-god of this universe. Humans are his spirit-children, who through following the example of Jesus’ perfect life can eventually attain to the same divine status. This is why marriage and family are so important to Mormons; the men are taught that the size and glory of their future celestial kingdom depends on the number of children they have in this life. Women are taught that their salvation depends on their husband achieving divine status, and their value consists in bearing children to populate his future kingdom.
2. “. . . And in Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things were made . . .”
Mormon doctrine is contradictory on this point; but the early prophets taught that Jesus and Lucifer were the two sons of the father-god; Lucifer rebelled and became evil, but Jesus continued to obey his father perfectly, thus becoming divine, and receiving his own universe/kingdom, as all Mormons may also do if they follow his example. To this day, the LDS church teaches clearly that we are all children of God in the same sense that Jesus was, and can all become divine, like him. This is entirely contrary to the Christian doctrine that Jesus is coequal and coeternal with God, completely divine, that he did not become divine, and that humans can never become divine, either. This evil and demonic doctrine about Jesus and Lucifer is taught in the induction ceremonies of the LDS temples, where new entrants are drawn into a drama which represents Lucifer speaking to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, mocking the “false” Christian doctrine about Jesus. (This ritual has been slightly modified in the past few decades, as disillusioned Mormons have made public secrets which in fact they swore on their lives to guard; the entrance ritual also includes a ghastly oath which calls for the convert’s brutal death if he relates any of the temple secrets to outsiders.)
3. “. . . who for us men and for our salvation became man, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and became man. . .”
As mentioned above, Mormon doctrine teaches that Jesus started off as a human, and became divine, rather than being God before the beginning of time, and taking on human nature for us. Also, this is the phrase in the Nicene Creed which most clearly refers to Christ’s death as a substitution, receiving the punishment due for men’s sins. Mormon missionaries will tell you that they believe in salvation and justification through faith in Christ. However, if you read their own internal writings, or quiz the missionaries carefully, you will find that what they actually believe is salvation by works: Humans must do good works in order to earn the grace which enables them to believe on Jesus. This is completely contrary to Paul’s famous statement in Ephesians 2: “For by grace are ye saved through faith, and that [the grace] not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. . .”
The practical daily life of devout Mormons also demonstrates this. They are taught by their elders that in order to qualify for admission into the temple, and thus into heaven, they must keep a strict set of rules: No alcohol, tobacco, or caffeine; no lustful thoughts whatsoever; always wearing the special Mormon undergarments; always obeying the directions of the church leadership; etc. The testimony of many ex-Mormons shows that, although this leads to a beautiful picture of a strong, happy family on the outside, inside there is oppression and fear, because their salvation depends on fulfilling these many onerous, manmade laws.
4. “. . . And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life. . . who spoke by the prophets. . .”
The Christian Church, ever since the early years, has accepted a particular canon, which was closed with the book of Revelation (even allowing for the Apocrypha; whether you accept it or not, it was written before Revelation). The Church has always united in rejecting false prophets who come with new messages which suggest that something was left out of the original revelation. Joseph Smith, however, claimed to have received a message from the angel Gabriel, revealing some golden tablets, hidden near Palmyra, NY, written in ancient Egyptian, which revealed a new gospel, one with major changes from that originally received. As Paul warns in Galatians 1, “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.”
There are many objections to the Book of Mormon (supposedly translated from the golden tablets) and the Doctrines and Commandments (the compilation of Joseph Smith’s “inspired” teachings and prophecies, as well as statements by the later “prophets,” who are supposed to have divine authority and revelation, just as Smith did). Firstly, Smith told different stories about his “discovery” at different times in his career, which contradict each other, and are contrary to facts known about him and his family from contemporary records (letters, civic record, and newspapers). I cannot in this space go into these issues in detail, but I highly recommend reading the books No Man Knows My History, by Fawn M. Brodie (a biography of Joseph Smith, with many original sources quoted; this historian was a descendant of one of the prophets, and was excommunicated for this book), and One Nation Under Gods, by Richard Abanes (documents both early and modern history of the LDS, as well as their political ambitions), as well as the website of Utah Lighthouse Ministries, which has a wealth of historic documents relating to Joseph Smith and the Mormons, as well as other resources.
Secondly, the text of these books has been changed. Both Abanes and the Lighthouse Ministries have extensive documentation of how LDS leaders have revised these books – editing Joseph Smith’s bad grammar and awkward faux-KJV-English to make it look more perfect, as well as removing doctrines that are offensive to modern ears. Which leads to the racist nature of Mormonism. Originally, the book of Mormon purported to explain about a white, godly race which lived in North America and was exterminated by the evil colored Native Americans. In one famous phrase, Indians and blacks who convert to Mormonism are promised that they will become “white and delightsome.” In other words, non-white coloring is a sign of evil, and will be supernaturally removed from any of these unfortunates who convert to Mormonism. Because of this racist background, the LDS did not accept black as converts until several decades into the 1900s, and only accepted them as priests and elders after heavy pressure on the church during the civil rights movement.
Which leads to the third problem with these new “inspired” books of the Mormons: Their doctrines change. One prophet can receive a new revelation which contradicts a previous one, and that’s just fine. For instance, consider polygamy. Joseph Smith (again like Mohammed) developed this doctrine pretty early in his career, but kept it secret for many years, until after he had accumulated some dozen polygamous wives. Its publication was one reason for the Mormons being driven out of Illinois (that, and their political aspiratons and influence in that state). In the 1880s, when Utah was becoming a state, the LDS leaders, under pressure from the US government, finally declared that polygamy was wrong – but many of the men who made this ruling kept taking extra wives secretly, and in fact sent secret colonies of what are now called “fundamentalist Mormons” into southern Utah and Idaho and southern Canada to keep alive what they still regarded as the truth. These are just two instances of how Mormon doctrine bends to fit the times. Their temple ritual has also been altered because of public scandal about the brutal oath of secrecy.
This is in total distinction to the true word of God, about which Peter, quoting Isaiah, declares, “For all flesh is as grass; and the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower thereof falls away: But the word of the Lord endures forever; and this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” Jesus also said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7), “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law till all be fulfilled.”
5. “. . . And in one holy, catholic, and apostolic church. . .”
The Mormons’ current claim to be just another variety of Christians is in amazing contradiction to the original claims of Joseph Smith, who taught that every single church in his day had fallen away from the truth, which was what necessitated his new revelation. He decried all ministers as servants of Satan, denied that any member of a traditional church could be saved, and called on his followers to separate themselves from the false churches. Up until the past few decades, LDS leaders continued to teach that they alone were the true church, and that all others were false and apostate. This makes it particularly astonishing that they have been so successful in turning on their propaganda machine, and tricking most Americans into thinking that they are nothing more than another denominational flavor, like Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal.
Again, their marked deviations from accepted orthodox Christian teaching, shared across history and across all denominations, shows that, even if they truly wanted to be considered Christians, they have no such right, since they deny the true divinity of Jesus, and salvation through faith rather than works.
There are other astonishing secrets in Mormon theology, for which I again recommend to you the books of Fawn Brodie and Richard Abanes, and the Utah Lighthouse Ministries website. But these should be enough to support my original statement.
So how does this relate to politics? As Richard Abanes shows in his book, one of Joseph Smith’s most famous prophecies, known as the “White Horse prophecy,” states that at some point in the future, “the government of the United States will hang by a thread,” and the LDS will save the constitution of the United States. They hoped to accomplish this during the Civil War, but were not in position for it. Since Utah became a state, the LDS has been maneuvering to get themselves into control of the US government. They have had many influential cabinet ministers, and recently some very influential senators: Orrin Hatch and Harry Reid. Orrin Hatch indeed on a radio interview once specifically referred to the White Horse prophecy as influencing his mission in politics.
Given the very centralized, dictatorial nature of the LDS, where the members’ salvation depends on their unquestioning obedience to the mandates of the current Prophet, there is every reason to expect that a Mormon president would be significantly influenced by Mormon beliefs, and by the wishes of the church leadership. I do not want a demonic organization controlling the US government. Even Hillary might be better.
(To those who would argue that George W. is also controlled by a religious organization: 1) The conservative Christians are much less tightly organized than the Mormons are. 2) They do not exercise as tight a hold over their members, since they are not centralized, and often disagree on policy and theology. 3) Evangelicals do not teach that obedience to every one of their political desires is required for salvation. 4) In any case, George W. has done a lot of things we don’t like. :) Romney and the Mormons would be different.)
I look forward to comments and discussion on this dissertation. My family is now confiscating the computer. . .
October 27, 2006
Truly it is written, “Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together. . .
He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision.” (Psalm 2)
I’ve been reading Elizabeth Elliot’s Keep A Quiet Heart, and thinking, “How much she trusts God, and how calm she always is. I wish I had more opportunities to practice this.” And then, “Boy, I really shouldn’t wish for things like that. . .” That is one prayer God always answers immediately and unmistakably.
Around 12:40 I was sitting in the cafeteria, chatting with one of the chaplain nuns (not that I approve of women chaplains, or nuns who don’t wear habits, but she was nice), on the policy that the chaplains show up at the trauma bay and in the ICU frequently, and it would be good to be friends with them. My beeper went off. When I called him, the attending said, “So, Alice, are you going to come give that talk at 12:30 today?” I looked at the clock (still 12:40), and shook my head to make sure my ears were working. “Um, talk? I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about.” I didn’t have this attending pegged as a joker, but if he did joke, this just might be the kind of joke he would go in for. “I told you last week that you’re supposed to give a talk today.”
Images float through my mind. The problem is, in the loud cafeteria, with my heart in my throat, holding the phone and trying to hang on to the conversation, I can’t straighten out whether the picture of me sitting in his office and being instructed about a speech comes just from my nightmare on this exact topic last night, or from an actual event two weeks ago which subconsciously triggered that nightmare. “I don’t remember that at all, sir. I guess I just completely forgot.” “So you don’t have a talk ready?” “Um, no, I completely forgot. What was it supposed to be about?” Thinking, I could go print something off UpToDate, and have a talk in half an hour. . . “You were supposed to pick a topic.” Thanks a lot, doctor – no lifeline there, huh? “Well, I will definitely have a talk ready by Monday.” “Ok, I’ll talk to you about the topic this afternoon. Don’t work on it till you talk to me.” And he hung up.
He’ll talk to me this afternoon? It is afternoon. Why is he hanging up on me? I am going to be in so much trouble. I ran out of the cafeteria, up to the quiet students’ lounge in a corner of the top floor. All the way up I was trying to think, Did he actually tell me? Am I so insanely incompetent that I can’t remember something as major as a presentation assignment from the attending? I must be losing my mind. There’s no hope for me to be a competent surgery resident, if I can’t even remember a point-blank assignment. I thought I was the kind of person to research this and have it ready a week and a half ahead of time. I must be so totally out of my mind. . . And if he didn’t tell me, there’s no way I can think of to tell an attending that his memory, not mine, is playing games, and it’s his fault, not mine, that I didn’t have the talk ready.
In the lounge, there’s another student, so I have to calm down and chit-chat. We discuss residency plans, while I’m thinking, this is no way for a surgery resident to behave. After a while, I semi-calm down, figuring, he can’t flunk me from medical school for this, and it’s actually pretty easy to prepare a speech by Monday. An hour later, he paged me again. “You know what, Alice, I was thinking, I must have been talking to the resident about her presentation today, and thought that I had talked to you, too. So, have you thought of a topic?” “Um, surgical wound infections?” I could hear his eyebrows go up. “That’s a pretty broad topic. How about, the use of hyperbaric oxygen intraoperatively to prevent post-op infections?” “Intra-operatively?” I didn’t know you could manage that inside an OR, and I saw on ER that it gives everyone panic attacks, not sure you could do that to the scrub tech and circulator. “Yes, intra-operatively. There’s a good article on it.” Ookay, so this obviously won’t be covered on UpToDate, but, it is nice of him to have a topic picked, and a surgical one at that.
Then he sent me to see a consult, which was wildly complicated. Half the important information (like the result of the in-house EGD two days ago) doesn’t show up on our new computer system (after I begged yet another nurse to let me in); nor does the positive blood culture which was the whole reason for us being consulted. The patient is very hard of hearing, and tangential. After spending a long time with him, it turned out that I had failed to elicit the really important pieces of history. (I thought it was only on tests that patients traveled to New Mexico and then presented with a mysterious chronic illness – coccidoidomycosis, which this guy probably does not have, but he was in NM.) As we left the consult, he mentioned the oxygen again, and the resident pointed out that he really meant, supplemental intra-operative oxygen. Which is much easier than hyperbaric. I found three articles easily.
I bet God thinks that’s funny. I ‘spect I’ll think so too in a couple more days.
October 27, 2006
“He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh.”
So far in At Dawn We Slept the Japanese have made their plans, and the fleet has just sailed for Pearl Harbor, around November 27; the Americans continue to be so-close-to-right, but clueless. Chapter 50: “To Be Considered A War Warning” covers the dispatches that were sent from the authorities in Washington to Kimmel and Short (the Navy and Army commanders, respectively) at Pearl Harbor.
The War Department sent one message, which included these phrases: “. . . Japanese future action unpredictable but hostile action possible at any moment. . . you are directed to undertake such reconnaissance and other measures as you deem necessary, but these measures should be carried out so as not . . . to alarm civil population or disclose intent. Report measures taken. . .” Short, who as the commanding Army officer on the island was responsible for protecting the Navy base, seems to have had a fixed delusion on the subject of sabotage. It was the only action that he could envision the Japanese taking against his forces. So, when he received this message, he activated Alert No. 1, which “was ‘a defense against sabotage, espionage, and subversive activites without any threat from outside.’ ” His method of protecting against sabotage was to gather the already limited number of planes under his command into one area, and store their ammunition in a separate location – to be easier to protect from fifth columnists among the local Japanese. Gordon Prange (with quotations from the subsequent investigations) writes,
“He believed that thirty to thirty-five minutes’ warning would give him ‘plenty of time to disperse the planes.’ But it would not ‘have been time to get them in the air,’ and that, after all, was their main reason for being on Oahu. Thus, the morning of December 7 found American aircraft huddled together with no ammunition available, a perfect target for Nagumo’s bombers and fighters.”
Short also assumed that the “reconnaissance” mentioned in the dispatch was entirely the responsibility of the Navy, and thus never even mentioned the subject to Kimmel. Had he inquired, he would have discovered that Kimmel neglected to properly inform and supervise his subordinate, Bloch, who was responsible for defensive measures on the Navy’s part. Bloch deployed the few reconnaissance ships and planes that were available completely to the southwest, between Pearl Harbor and Midway – thus totally neglecting the northwestern approach, which was how the Japanese were planning to come in.
The Navy Department sent Kimmel a second dispatch, which said in part, “This dispatch is to be considered a war warning. Negotiations with Japan . . . have ceased and an aggressive move by Japan is expected within the next few days. . . Execute an appropriate defensive deployment preparatory to carrying out the tasks assigned in [the basic war plan].” The Congressional investigations revealed that while the admirals in Washington considered the phrase “this is a war warning” to express “the strong conviction on the part of the Department that war was surely coming,” Kimmel understood it as meaning “no more than saying that Japan was going to attack someplace,” with no specific threat to the US bases. Admiral Turner, chief of the War Plans division, had used “deployment” to mean “a spreading out of forces. . . into the best positions from which to execute the operating plans against the enemy.” He had in mind Tasks G and H from the basic war plan, which called for protection of sea communications and territories of the Allies, which whatever patrols and other actions were needed to accomplish that. For some reason, he did not designate Tasks G and H specifically. When Kimmel read the dispatch, however, he concluded that “appropriate defensive deployment” meant ” ‘something similar to the disposition’ he had made on October 16. But most of those measures, such as full security of the ships at sea, were still in effect. While he considered stepping up the condition of readiness for the vessels in Pearl Harbor, he decided against it.”
The whole chapter is full of such examples of careful wording chosen in Washington, which was then understood in a very opposite way in Pearl Harbor. In another instance, Short, as directed, “reported to Washington” on his actions in response to the War Department dispatch. He stated specifically that he had instituted “precautions against sabotage,” and said nothing else. Stimson, the secretary of war, later testified, “I had no idea that being ‘alerted to prevent sabotage’ was in any way an express or implied denial of being alert against an attack by Japan’s armed forced.”
Prange concludes the chapter by saying,
“Short’s measures were to help the Japanese achieve one of their important objectives – nailing the Hawaiian Air Force to the ground and preventing it from effectively interfering with the attack or retaliating against the task force. These measures were in contradiction of the Martin-Bellinger and Farthing reports and all major war games held in the Hawaiian area since 1933. With the best of intentions all along the line, the ‘war warning’ messages of November 27 left Hawaii less ready to meet a Japanese attack than it had been before the dispatches arrived.” (italics added)
In another passage, Prange attributed to “a malevolent cosmic demon” the manner in which the Japanese fears for things which might prevent them from succeeding were exactly matched by American decisions which removed those precise obstacles. He was right to conclude that the events leading up to Pearl Harbor were beyond coincidence. He just attributed the planning incorrectly.
It is also written,
“Can a bird fall in a snare upon the earth, where no gin is [laid] for him?
Shall one take up a snare from the earth, and have taken nothing [in it] at all?
Shall a trumpet be blown in the city, and the people not be afraid?
Shall there be evil in the city, and the Lord hath not done it?” Amos 3:5-6
I’m not offering to explain God’s reason for setting up Pearl Harbor; but I know it didn’t happen by accident. By the same token, I am absolutely certain that our current situation in Iraq is not an accident. I would guess that a history written fifty years from now from original interviews (as At Dawn We Slept is) would show a similar series of misunderstandings and pitfalls leading to the mess we seem to be in now. (In other words, Bush didn’t lie; humans can make mistakes with good intentions.) I think I know maybe a few of God’s reasons for this, already. Our nation deserves judgment for all our evil and immoral actions, and I’m sure Saddam Hussein’s Iraq deserved judgment too. Kill two birds with one stone. So, that means God has North Korea and Iran firmly in his plans, too. They’re not doing anything that’s he’s not aware of, that he’s not in control of. (God, please, could your plan not include another atomic bomb exploding?)
“This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the Most High, which is come upon my lord the king:
That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field. . .
Till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will. . .
“Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honor the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment;
And those that walk in pride he is able to abase.” Daniel 4:24-25, 37
“Be wise now therefore, O ye kings; be instructed, ye judges of the earth.
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Kiss [submit to] the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.” Psalm 2:10-12
July 4, 2006
From the Declaration of Independence:
“When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. — That to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. . .
[Wh]en a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. . .
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. . .
He has obstructed the administration of justice by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers. . .
He has made judges dependent on his will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power. . .
. . . For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offences:
. . . He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation. . .
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. . .
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare,
That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and Independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.
— And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
I’m afraid this is only a fond dream in an America where most college graduates can’t name all the states of the union, and barely recognize George Washington and Thomas Jefferson; but this almost-perfect formulation of the human response to tyrannical government ought to be memorized. Don’t those phrases just ring with truth? “the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them” “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government” “these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states”
Ahem. <recovering from awe-struck meditation> We will now enjoy several quotations from leaders involved in creating the Declaration, tending to show their strong Christian beliefs, and how that influenced their political actions. These quotations are found in David Barton’s The Myth of Separation.
In The Rights of the Colonists, published in 1772, Samuel Adams (cousin of John Adams, and one of the key figures in the Boston rebellion) wrote: “These [rights] may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.”
Abigail Adams (wife of John Adams) in 1775 wrote: “A patriot without religion in my estimation is as great a paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God. . . The Scriptures tell us righteousness exalteth a nation.”
When George Washington addressed the troops at Valley Forge in May 1778, he said: “To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian.”
William Prescott helped organize shipments of grain from the town of Pepperell, Massachusetts to Boston, as that city was being blockaded in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party. He wrote to the citizens of Boston: “Let us all be of one heart, and stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free; and may he, of his infinite mercy, grant us deliverance out of all our troubles.”
When the members of the Congress signed the Declaration of Independence on August 2, 1776 (it had been approved two months earlier; which shows that even then Congress was slow), Samuel Adams said: “We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let his kingdom come.”
Since I can’t type up the whole book, or even the whole chapter, that will have to do for now. May God have mercy on our country, once so great, which has fallen so dreadfully from a good beginning. If there is any way left open for national repentance, that we could escape God’s just judgment for the corruption of our whole society, I pray God we could find it before it is too late.
July 3, 2006
The surgery has been delayed for two hours because the surgeon is late, and the OR managers are threatening to cancel it, because they won’t have time later. I am in the library, trying to write something about the differential diagnosis of lipomas. Since no book that I can find addresses this subject, apparently on the assumption that everyone already knows it, or that there is no differential, I’m not getting far.
Thus, we come across Obstetric and Gynecologic Milestones Illustrated, by Harold Speert.
The fallopian tubes were first identified by Gabriele Falloppio, Italian, 1523-1562. He was a pupil of Vesalius, and after his death three volumes of Anatomic Observations were published, either from his writings, or from students’ notes of his lectures. Among other discoveries, he described the anatomy of the inner ear, as well as the “skeletal system of the fetus.” (Does that mean earlier students thought the fetus didn’t have bones?) The book excerpts his description of the fallopian tubes, which is almost poetical: “That slender and narrow seminal duct rises, fibrous and pale, from the horns of the uterus itself; becomes, when it has gone a little bit away, appreciably broader, and curls like a branch until it comes near the end, then losing the horn-like curl, and becomes [sic] very broad, has a distinct extremity which appears fibrous and fleshy through its red color, and its end is torn and ragged like the fringe of well-worn garments. . .” Isn’t that a much prettier and better description than the modern drone, “the fallopian tube originates from the horns of the uterus, where it has its narrowest part, and widens out into the ampulla and fimbriae.” Fallopio’s observations were significant because previous investigators had thought the tubes were purely suspensry in function. He called them the “uteri tuba,” or uterine horns, but they quickly became known as the fallopian tubes.