Feminist Horror Story: Mormon Teacher Compared Non-Virgins To "Licked Cupcakes"

A woman at Patheos.com, who goes only by the name Rachel S., makes some crazy claims about her time in the LDS church.

"Mormon thought is policed to the point where 12-year-old boys and girls are regularly and formally interrogated by adult male clergy about their sexual fantasies, activities, and masturbation habits....

I was absurdly devout; when I went to hear Dallin H. Oaks speak to the members in our area and he told us that year’s severe drought was caused by Mormon teenagers having sex, I believed it. SEX → DROUGHT. Check. I elected to take astronomy, like most Mormons in my high school, so that I would have a head start helping my husband run his own solar system once we got to be Gods. Yep. I was so happy I never had to experience getting old, because Jesus was coming again when I was in my twenties, so I’d stay that way forever."

www.patheos.com

Each one of those beliefs is absolutely crazy. No, teenagers are not regularly interrogated about sex fantasies. Underage sex does not cause droughts. Mormon children do not study astronomy to run their own solar system. The end of the world is not going to happen within the next 10 years (unless Hillary is elected.) Only a complete crazy person would say those things.

Those crazy practices are exaggerations of good religious practices. Rachel probably exaggerated what really happened, as angry ex-Mormons do. Yes, teenagers are interviewed and told that masturbation is unhealthy. That is a good thing. Yes, sin and iniquity could lead to natural phenomena. Yes, the Second coming of Jesus will happen some time in the distant future. Studying astronomy? Not sure where that came from.

But there was one moment that really sent Rachel over the edge.

"It was a seminary lesson taught to me that broke my unwavering faith....

It’s hard to come back from that kind of existential free fall. Part of the nausea and motion sickness is still with me. Sure, I’d been through the awkward object lessons in Sunday school when you see your teacher has brought cupcakes, only to find out that each one has been licked already. Non-virgins, the teacher explains, are like licked cupcakes: who would want them?"

www.patheos.com

What would enrage a feminist more? The metaphor behind this lesson, or that there were cupcakes in the room and she could not eat them?

Now, isn't this a sensible lesson that high schoolers should hear? A woman who loses her virginity before marriage loses something very precious about herself and will have a harder time finding a good husband. This is simple truth.

Like before, Rachel seems to illogically exaggerate the metaphor to make it sound crazy:

"Though I cringed a bit at “prized possession” and, well, polygamy being God’s will, to be continued once we all got into Heaven (I often thought about one day sharing my husband and how much growth I had to do before I got there spiritually), the licked cupcake metaphor seemed an apt and sensible warning.

When I told my mother that our Bishop made me very uncomfortable, the way he’d needle me to go on and on about every single little thing my boyfriend and I did (necking and petting, at most) in great detail, she said I was uncomfortable because he was a man of God and I was a slut. I was incredibly hurt. I took it to heart. I knew no man wanted a non-virgin; not for a wife. And a wife was what I aspired to be, above anything else.

But it went further. I was taught that God, Himself, turns His back on women who have sex before or outside of marriage. God, Himself, turns His back on women who have been raped."

www.patheos.com

Firstly, the cupcake metaphor does not mean a woman is nothing more than a "possession." This is like saying Thomas The Train is an oppressive television show because it compares people to objects, trains. The metaphor also has nothing to do with polygamy. Rachel is inserting her own strawman meanings here.

Secondly, Rachel complains about being asked about details of her intimacy when she only necked and "petted" at most, and yet suggests that she was a non-virgin. Why would a mother call her daughter a slut for only kissing? Why would Rachel be incredibly hurt to find out that no man wants a non-virgin? Was there something Rachel was afraid to admit?

Third, only a lunatic would think God turns His back on a rape victim. Why would anybody believe this? Another strawman meaning she invented in my opinion.

"My seminary teacher said that she knew police were attending D.A.R.E. classes in our schools, and that they were advising kids in the event of an assault not to antagonize the attacker, not to try to fight back. This compliance statistically greatly improved your chances of survival.

But this wasn’t what we were supposed to do. Our teacher made herself very clear. She said the righteous thing to do was “everything in your power” to get murdered instead of raped, because it’s better to be dead than lose your virginity.... I knew that if God wanted you dead for getting raped, then he was not moral."

www.patheos.com

Again, Rachel seems to exaggerate sensible advice to make it sound crazy and justify her exit from Mormonism. Should you fight back if you are getting raped? Of course!! Only an idiot wouldn't. But Rachel equates all cases of defense against rape to trying to get murdered. This is illogical and dangerous. I doubt Rachel's teacher told her it is better to be dead than raped. But in my opinion it is better to be dead than to sit there and allow yourself to be raped and not fight back at all. You would go your whole life knowing you didn't even try to stop it. It would be hard to live with yourself.

Rachel shows an incredible lack of critical thinking because she twists everything some seminary teacher tells her and decides this is solid Mormon cannon. No, Rachel, even if your seminary teacher did say such horrible things as you claim, she was just a seminary teacher. Not even a priesthood holder, just a woman giving her opinion. Where in the scriptures does it say God wants you dead for being raped? And why is this such an issue for you?

"The most precious thing women have, our teacher explained, is our virginity and our ability to bear children. It hadn’t particularly hit home before, but now suddenly I realized I was being evaluated like livestock. Was I just a tithe-payer generating machine? What about rape survivors? Abused children? The culture I loved, I realized, hated me."

www.patheos.com

What about rape survivors and abused children? Why is that an issue? If that is so important to you, why didn't you ask your teacher about it? Rachel says her head was spinning, and in my opinion it was spinning for excuses, the hamster wheel. Feminists caught in their immodesty look for excuses and use this kind of language. "You are just treating me like livestock!"

"I wish I could say it’s all exhilarating when you do get free. A lot of things certainly are: coffee, sleeping in on Sundays, R-rated movies, the thrill of analytical thinking, and your own opinions. But a lot of it is still tortured: sex, ties to community, trust."

www.patheos.com

Sleeping in instead of working. Watching corruptive movies. Coffee. Yep, those things are the same as analytical thinking, and Rachel certainly has demonstrated her new-found ability to think critically.

"We tirelessly fought each other, Mormons and non-Mormons, in the papers, in the legislature, in our homes.

We sneaked cases of Rolling Rock into our dorms. They drank whole bottles of Robitussin. They skirted around the sex prohibition with anal and oral, and hated themselves and each other deeply for it. I had vaginal intercourse, and loved my body for the first time."

Notice how Rachel talks about "we", and that suddenly becomes "they" when she mentions anal intercourse. Then she specifies that she had "vaginal intercourse." haha

Again, I find it curious that Rachel is so profoundly disturbed to learn that non-virgins have lost valuable virtue if that was not the case for her. Why would that be such a problem if she were a virgin? Why would she have to convince herself that virgnity is not something to be valued? Why would her own mother call her a slut?

"One in four women are sexually assaulted during their time in college. Elizabeth Smart was kidnapped, repeatedly raped, polygamously married, and forced to wear a veil. She has spoken out against the “licked cupcake” culture that condemns even her after her ordeal. Some Mormons rally to ordain women. Others march for tolerance of gays and lesbians in the church.

When I was Mormon, women wearing pants to church was unfathomable. Now, on Facebook, I see notices for days of rebellion against church patriarchy by wearing pants to meetings."

The 1 in 4 statistic is a lie, and ex-Mormons only ever bring it up to attack BYU, which has almost no rape ever. If feminists had their way and BYU's moral code were dismantled, rape rates would skyrocket. A woman who avoids sexual encounters before marriage is less likely to be raped.

Elizabeth Smart was not kidnapped by a Mormon. And she did not speak out against valuing virginity. She spoke out against abstinence only education in schools. Not even close to the same thing as the cup-cake metaphor. And in no way does Mormon culture condemn a rape victim after her ordeal. Rachel is inventing this out of thin air.

This all somehow relates to the Ordain Women movement, I guess. Patriarchy is rape, remember? And the way you can fight it is by wearing pants. Oooh, so empowering! Wasn't it a female seminary teacher you were complaining about this whole time?

The next article written by Rachel on her website was: "8 Things I Learned In A Mental Hospital."

I don't bring this up to attack Rachel. I wish her well. But I wish that she would stop obsessing and blaming other people for her problems. It is beyond annoying when you tell a woman something and she exaggerates it to the point that it is no longer recognizable. The points that your seminary teacher made were instructive, but they became illogically exaggerated and twisted to mean something unscriptural.

You have chosen feminism over spiritual truth, in my opinion. If that's your choice, own it. What core doctrine do you fundamentally disagree with?

'The Intern' Is A Twisted Fantasy Of Women In The Workplace

The Intern is a film about a nice old white man, played by Robert Di Nero, who joins a start-up internet company in Brooklyn New York. The company is the brainchild of a pretty young white woman (of course) played by Anne Hathaway. Her first scene shows her on the phone with a customer going out of her way to fix a shipping problem. This is supposed to convince us that she is a good person.

Di Niro's character appeals to the Millennial-aged employees with his old-fashioned clothing and his unusual knowledge of the phone book industry. Hathaway is the only other character who seems to know what a phone book is. She is smart, witty, beautiful, and caring. But she must decide whether to allow a corporate structure to take over so that the business can grow.

I'm not sure how Hathaway's company could be so successful. The customer service department is in a spacious brick building in a rich part of New York. How can you afford that? Most successful companies I know export such jobs to India; almost all jobs except white collar managing jobs, in fact. Hathaway stands out presumably because of some innovative idea about how to size clothing correctly over the internet. But all the workers are profound dummies, even the women. How is her business succeeding?

Di Nero stands out to Hathaway because he is always able to say the right thing at a stressful time to calm her down. You don't actually see him do anything productive for the business. He ignores the frequent ageism that the idiotic Millennial employees throw at him, which in real life would result in a lawsuit, and quickly moves up the ladder to be Hathaway's driver, because he is such a nice guy. This is what makes a good employee in a woman-owned business, you see.

Everybody high-fives when an attractive woman walks by, randomly gives Di Nero a sensuous massage, and give him her number. That's how romance happens, you see.

Hathaway herself appears to be successful because she loses sleep so she can micromanage every little thing. This is what makes a good female leader in the workplace. Now, by "workplace," I'm not saying, as a feminist would, that house-makers don't do work. In order to properly discuss this movie, we are going to have to adopt feminist lingo which is inherently false yet most folks under 30 years old mindlessly parrot. For the sake of discussion, Hathaway is inexplicably a successful leader in the workplace.

Hathaway's husband is a stay-at-home father. I don't think this is bad, actually. Women always get better jobs in this twisted world we live in, so why not give the mother employment and let the father raise the child at home? The natural order is for women to take care of the children, and this leads to healthier children. But if the woman earns much more money, why not reverse roles?

He seems like a good guy but then we find out he is having an affair with a stay-at-home mom at their kid's school (all the mothers are portrayed as back-biting, naturally.) Di Nero assures Hathaway that it is in no way her fault. I guess arriving home from work late at night when everyone is asleep and seeing your spouse less than 5 minutes per day is just fine when a woman does it. Doesn't it frustrate you that Hollywood constantly portray working men as neglectful jerks who torture their wives by never being around? And when the wife cheats on him, he is portrayed as the cause.

Yet here we have a woman doing the exact same thing. Does the child resent her mother never being around? Of course not. Hathaway's daughter is a perfect princess who loves her mother because she is such a hard-working provider. Children only resent hard-working fathers, you see.

Well, Hathaway has a new reason to give up her position as leader of the company, so she can spend more time with her family. Now, let's take bets on which option Hollywood portrays as the moral choice. Any takers? Should Hathaway stop micromanaging her business and allow it to grow, and spend more than 5 minutes per day with her husband and daughter, or should she stick with her job? Is family more important or a woman's personal "accomplishment?"

I think we all know the answer. The only good thing about this movie's ending is that Hathaway doesn't divorce and dispose of her husband.

The writing is clumsy and blocky. Hathaway's secretary at one point throws a hissy fit because Hathaway said "good job" to Di Nero to instead of her. Instead of treating her like the spoiled child she was, Di Nero capitulates and tells her what a great employee she is, and directs a fellow intern to swoon her romantically by doing likewise.

Hathaway is tormented by her mother calling her daily, telling her that she cares about her, and asking her not to text other people while they are on the phone. It is terrible for mothers to care about their children, you see. Hathaway gets so frustrated by her caring mother that she gets drunk with all the interns and goes on a weird tirade about men being left behind in our brave new feminist corporate culture. De Niro assures her that she is still respectful even though she is vomiting all over the sidewalk.

I don't remember seeing a single non-white person in the entire movie. It was totally unnatural, a weird New York fantasy land where the wise older generation affirms that today's degenerate culture of young white people is on the right track. Who is the writer? A 67 year old white feminist. Enough said.

How Media Propagandists Are Using Nazi Strategies To Attack Alt-Right

Roosh was the first to point out that a Google search of "alt right" results in only false, leftist-media propaganda. This means when Hillary gives her alt-right speech today, millions of people who have never heard of the movement will turn to Google and immediately be convinced that it is an evil group of people.

Mike Cernovich pointed out that that media propagandists use SEO website techniques to place their websites at the top of "alt-right" Google searches.

It is obvious that the media is not interested in telling the truth about the Alt-Right, as they don't even attempt to talk to Alt-Right leaders. You won't see a single quote from Milo. Instead you get a bunch of snippets of quotes taken out of context from fringe voices on the internet that nobody ever took seriously. This is another smear job from the left.

Define The Enemy

Karthik Narayanaswami wrote an excellent study for Harvard University about Nazi propaganda techniques. He investigated the strategies of Goebels and the other genocidal liars and boiled it down to three points:

• Turn Hitler into a messianic leader
• Define the enemy to justify negative treatment
• Rally the public behind war efforts

We know that the media portrays leftists as messianic heroes and conservatives as enemies. A Google search of Hillary's appalling call to raise taxes on the middle-class yields only 81,000 news results, while a Google search of "Trump not nice to Khan" yields 13.5 million news results.

But in Hillary's attacks on the Alt-Right, and the media's dutiful smear job, we will see more brazen examples of Nazi propaganda strategies. First, they build a negative narrative of conservatives. Karthik shows examples of negative Jewish portrayals:

"There is a reason why the Nazis chose such a portrayal, and why this even worked in the first place. By picking only relatively unpleasant looking Jewish attributes, and by choosing to portray Jews in only an unpleasant manner, the Nazis applied Selection Bias to elicit several other cascading biases. By taking advantage of the Negativity Bias inherent human nature, wherein we pay more attention to negative images, the Nazis succeeded in associating Jews with those unpleasant mental images. This created a Clustering Illusion, where people were conditioned to see unpleasantness in the Jewish population when there was none present. Doing so, particularly in combination with the Nazi portrayal of the nonJewish, "Aryan" German as a superior individual helped perpetuate just that – a Superiority Bias. This, in turn, created an environment of Self-Serving Bias of behavioral confirmation, where all responsibility for the success of Nazi Germany was claimed by the Germans, and the blame for all failures were laid on the Jewish population."

News propagandists focus on negative stories for conservatives. If there is no negative story to be told, they invent one. For example, they take a snippet of quote from Trump mockingly saying a woman had blood coming out of her eyes and incorrectly say he was talking about menstrual blood.

Once in a while they use a shotgun approach and throw out a long list of grievances, but usually they focus on a small handful of the most damaging attacks, as people can only handle a handful of things at a time. The news propagandists feed a couple stories at time, like gaining a dog's trust by handing out doggy biscuits. Every couple of days there is a new outrage about something horrible that Trump supposedly said.

This elicits a cascade of biases. People pay attention negative attributes the most, which is why news stories are almost always sad and depressing, and a constant stream of selectively negative stories will associate conservatives with negative imagery. Within the next few hours, the media will define the Alt-Right in millions of minds as a bunch of racist bigots.

People see patterns in random clusters of small dots. Ancient people saw constellations in the stars. Mathematical geniuses see the Golden Section in stock charts. Sports casters see "hot streaks" in athletes. This is known as the Clustering Illusion, the tendency to see ordered clusters in raw data. With the cognitive bias set in motion, the media propagandists take any random snippet of quote or innocuous behavior from anybody who might be Alt-Right and use it to further solidify the negative narrative.

They already do this with Trump. Look at all the headlines about "Trump has a mental illness" or "Trump is crazy," which the media obviously is doing to cover up Hillary's mental illnesses. If Trump drops a pen on the floor it is a sign that he is a crazy man, which means Hillary is definitely not a crazy person.

Notice the photographs that accompany the propagandists' articles about the Alt-Right. I'm going to start with the most recent news stories and go down. Bloomberg uses an ominous photo of long shadows cast across Trump's face and blurry campaign posters (with the words obscured) in the foreground. Los Angeles Times uses a political campaign that compares the Alt-Right to a stupid-looking clown in a Jack-in-the-Box, which Trump turns to for advice. Politico uses a photo of Kellyanne Conway, the leftist mole in the Trump campaign. She looks flustered and angry talking to reporters.

In every single case, the Socialist propagandists in the news media reinforce a selection bias, negativity bias, and clustering illusion to dehumanize and smear non-Socialists on the Right. Just like Germany did with their famous anti-Jewish posters, the pictures in their articles cleverly do this as well.

Like Nazis, leftists use the Trait Ascription Bias to solidify their opinions of the Alt-Right. "They are all racists." This makes it easier for leftists to assume that all leftist politicians are conversely good, a superiority bias. "Hillary must not be all that bad" despite all the evidence to the contrary.

You see in the media plenty of self-fulfilling prophecies, herd instincts, and the Semmelweis reflex (refusal to accept new evidence that contradicts an established narrative).

Turn Hillary Into A Messiah

This may seem like an impossible task now. Obama, after all, was a new untainted figure who was able to speak well and look reasonably close to a typical Black guy. The media made him a Messiah. But how could they pull it off with Hillary?

It begins by demonizing the Right. The propagandists use this long list of biases and logical fallacies to turn a negative portrayal of the Right into instinctive worship of Leftist figures such as Hillary Clinton.

Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf: "The first duty of the propagandist is to win over people who can subsequently be taken into the organization. And the first duty of the organization is to select and train men who will be capable of carrying on the propaganda. The second duty of the organization is to disrupt the existing order of things and thus make room for the penetration of the new teaching which it represents, while the duty of the organizer must be to fight for the purpose of securing power, so that the doctrine may finally triumph."

It starts by winning people over with the propaganda and relying on those people to perpetuate the propaganda. Thousands of loser jobless Leftists spend their days spewing Socialist propaganda on Reddit and Twitter.

Phase two is to infiltrate and dismantle any system that does not follow this Socialism. This includes churches, schools, political groups, clubs, and internet groups. This includes the alt-right. There will be members who are sick of being persecuted and dehumanized by the millions of brainwashed Americans around them, they will become cucked and seek to dismantle its traditional ideology.

While these good little brainwashed sheep push their new suicidal ideology, the shadowy organizers behind the media propaganda will continue to secure power so that the doctrine may triumph.

There are a host of biases and logical fallacies that the Nazi used to prop up Hitler. Halo Effect, focusing on positive aspects to cover up the negative aspects. Authority Bias, persuading people that the leader has more knowledge and experience about a subject which makes them more likely to be trusted. Herd Instinct, where people follow what the media portrays as the social norm, such as political polls.

Rallying The Masses

We saw how successfully the media rallied the masses for Obama. He received record size crowds at his coronation. But this day in age the rallying is not so much about groups of people in a physical location for a political candidate.

Black Lives Matter is an obvious example. The media glares an endless spotlight on this relatively small group of criminals in hopes that the entrapped minority groups will adhere to this illusion of freedom. Like the Nazis, America's Left rallies the masses according to separate groups. The Nazis rallied the farmers, and the women, and the youth, and the factory workers, and the teachers, all in separate groups. Russian communists did this as well.

Today, propagandists operate a variety of websites pointed toward different groups. Nick Denton has (I mean had) Gawker for angry rich atheists, Jezebel for feminists, Deadspin for sports enthusiasts, Lifehacker for young millennials, Gizmodo for nerds, and Kotaku for gamers. Media companies will also frequently run sites for gays, Christians, Latinos, Blacks, etc.

Sometimes you see a Leftist propaganda site attempt to cater to minority groups within the same site. They will divide their propaganda into categories at a headline bar at the top of the page. For example, look at ThinkProgress.org:



You see categories for global warmists (Atheists), political junkies (typically white people), racial minorities (Blacks or Hispanics), minority voters (Blacks or Hispanics), and immigration (Blacks and Muslims). Each category defines issues which the narrative claims are important to that group. The propagandists sow seeds of victimization and offer their Messiah as the solution.

Nazis did this as well:

"The primary objective of such a portrayal was to show the hardworking German family, which was being unfairly punished by the cost of reparations from World War I. In doing so, the Nazis succeeded in propagating what is now known as Ingroup Bias, which is the tendency for people to give preferential treatment to other people that they perceive as being members of their own group."

The primary objective of Leftist propaganda is to show the hardworking [insert minority group here], which was being unfairly punished by [slavery/immigration laws/religious marriage beliefs/etc.] In doing so, the Leftists succeed in propagating Ingroup Bias.

See how easy that works? Karthik notices that Nazis projected unity of their beliefs onto popular culture:

"This, in turn, created a Projection Bias, where people subconsciously assumed that all others shared similar values and positions as themselves (or rather, values similar to how others viewed them). This further reinforced the herd mentality, and reduced the opposition to the Nazi cause.

Furthermore, the Nazis also helped strengthen the Ingroup Bias by targeting children, youth, and students in their propaganda, as seen in Artifacts 32-35. This created a strong sense of communal organization, as was seen in the Hitler Youth programs."

Polls show that it is the youth and college students who push Socialist and leftist ideologies. It is important to target the youth because this more than anything establishes community organization and unity. This is why the propagandists are attacking the Alt-Right and Milo Yianopoulous so hard, because they attract the youth.

This is why we need to all be concerned about Hillary's speech and the ensuing media propaganda blitz.

Mormons Need To Avoid Anti-Trump Cucks

Tom Tacredo recently stepped into the Mormon controversy. At Breitbart, he claimed Mormons oppose Trump because "the Mormon church supports open borders and lax enforcement of immigration laws."

Establishment Republicans in the media immediately jumped on this. Ben Domenech, publisher of The Federalist, said: "And Breitbart dot com goes full bigot, attacking Mormons as traitors."

The Federalist published an article that claimed Mormon opposition is not due to immigration enforcement, but because Mormons themselves have been "singled out by the government for 'special treatment'” as Trump would do with Muslims.

But then The Federalist published another article about Mormons today. This one was not so nice.

"The second most fun thing about starting a cult is that you getting to make up a cool title for yourself... The most fun thing about a starting a cult, however, is that you can make yourself seem really holy by saying God told you to do all the sinful stuff you had pretty much already decided you were going to do.

For example, Joseph Smith wouldn’t have seemed terribly sanctified if he’d told people, prior to founding the Latter Day Saints, that he really wanted to invite countless women into his bed....

Like most sinful men, Smith surely spent years of his life filled with the desire to sleep with multiple women. Considering that the first-century apostles were called to endure beatings, imprisonment, and death, I’m sure it was nothing but good luck and pure coincidence that God’s cross of choice for the Mormon prophet to bear just so happened to be hewn from the stuff of his lustful fantasies."

thefederalist.com

Gee, it turns out establishment "conservative" media actually have a seething bigoted hatred toward Mormons.

Beware The Evil Behind Smiling Eyes

In 2005, LDS leader Neil L. Anderson delivered a sermon about kind-speaking men who have evil hidden agendas. He told a story about an FBI agent friend who knocked down the door of a drug dealer.

"We had to prevent them from destroying the evidence, so I quickly pushed the drug suspect who was blocking the door to the side. As I pushed him, my eyes met his. Strangely, he did not appear angry or afraid. He was smiling at me.

“His eyes and disarming smile gave me the impression that he was harmless, so I quickly left him and started to move toward the table. The suspect was now behind me. At that instant, I had the distinct, powerful impression come into my mind: ‘Beware of the evil behind the smiling eyes.’

“I immediately turned back toward the suspect. His hand was in his large front pocket. Instinctively I grabbed his hand and pulled it from his pocket. Only then did I see, clutched in his hand, the semiautomatic pistol ready to fire."

I learned from this sermon that it is strangers with the biggest smiles whom you should be suspicious of.

Reading his article in Breitbart, I recalled several times Tom Tancredo defended Mormons from religious bigotry. He went out of his way to help Mitt Romney, even though he didn't agree with Romney's more liberal positions. Yet Tacredo didn't remind us of all this in that article. He didn't try to butter us up. He simply told it like it is.

You can trust a man like this, who simply tells it like it is. All the establishment cucks who cry about Mormon persecution one moment and stab them in the back the next, you can't trust.

Why Do Mormons Oppose Trump?

This is a faulty question because it is assuming the leftist narrative is correct. Don't assume the leftist narrative. The truth is Mormons will be voting for Trump.

In Utah, Trump has a 15% lead. With Mormons in the state he has a 32% lead. Even if Mormons don't like Trump they will still be voting for him.

My local leaders and most Mormons I know don't like Trump because they see him as a loose cannon. The media establishes negative narratives to tear down conservatives. It's what they do. Mormons see the media portray Trump as a guy who says wacky things, and they believe it, just like everybody else believes it.

My response is always: "Yes, he is risky. He doesn't have big-shot donors to temper his policies. He boldly declares what he thinks, and that means he might make some radical changes. But which is worse? A potential Napoleon or continuing America's current slide into despotism? We need change. We need to take a risk."

But actually the false media narrative about Muslim persecution is a big concern for Mormons The Republican party has a history of creating crusades in the name of increased federal power. It started with the Civil War to abolish slavery. That was a good thing. But then Republicans went on a crusade against Mormon polygamists in order to rescue the "poor oppressed women." This eventually led to federal control of marriage and the gay marriage problem we have today.

The media never talks about this, but Mormons are worried that Muslims are made as scapegoats for fear-mongering politicians. And to some extent I agree. It is too simplistic to attack all Muslims as a solution to Islamic terrorism. Increased federal power is never a good thing.

Increased federal power is at the heart of Mormons' concerns. It is curious, then, that a major point of the Utah Compromise, which the church endorsed, is that federal, not local, law enforcement should be concerned about immigration law. When the President illegally refuses to enforce federal law, why shouldn't states make their own immigration laws? Why shouldn't states make immigration laws anyway?

Church-owned Deseret News fails to address this point in their incredibly defensive response to Tancredo.

Another major point of the Utah compromise is recognition of the "role of immigrants in the economy and society," as Deseret puts it. Does the church have economic interests in importing more immigrants? Do they want Marriot hotels to get more cheap labor? This is the question that is on everybody's minds.

The Deseret News skirts this issue. You can't trust this media outlet, Deseret News. At this point they are pretty much on the same level as the radical leftist Salt Lake Tribune. Big corporations want cheap immigrant labor, and this destroys America's economy because it puts native Americans, who spent lots of money to get college degrees, out of work. A loose immigration policy returns America to the feudalism of the dark ages, where a handful of elites exploits a large population of serfs.

It is well known that religious organizations promote immigration because it increases the size of their flock and they get government grants for "relocation programs." I haven't seen the Mormon church partake in these corrupt activities, but their current behavior looks very bad.

I think the problem is the church's PR department. We have a horrible PR department. It would be better if we had no PR people at all; they always end up making us look bad. Just the other day a big LDS church lobbyist joined a gay rights group. What does that tell you?

Recognize The Anti-American Crusade

I have seen first-hand the pain immigrants experience when they are separated from their families. As a missionary in Germany, I talked with several refugees who missed their homeland and their families.

There was one Muslim family from Syria that really struck me. They had taken the time to learn the German language. They didn't expect everything to be translated for them, like many Hispanic immigrants in America do. They wanted to assimilate and become contributing citizens. They were ready to embrace Germany's native culture. They met with Mormon missionaries to get a better understanding of Western culture. But Germany took away their passports, banned them from working, and stuffed them in a 5 by 10 foot concrete room. For months they didn't know if they would get flown back to Syria. Their one complaint was that the government didn't give their daughter enough resources to succeed at school.

As we try to sort the wheat from the tares, we must establish an expectation of assimilation into native culture. All immigrants must learn the language, salute the flag, and embrace our cultural values. We have no obligation to take them in, but if they are willing to be good productive Americans, why not? Maybe they can help undo the cultural rot of Leftism.

There is a radical Islamic ideology of dominance that seeks to replace the cultural vacuum wrought by Leftists. They recognize our weakness and want to take us over. This is something else I saw first-hand as I served in the trenches as a Mormon missionary. We have an obligation to preserve our families, our lives, and our homeland. Even if it turns out that Marriott wants cheap labor for his hotels.

But I don't agree with Tancredo that "radical Islam is the number one enemy of religious liberty in the world today." I think the number one enemy of liberty today is Lefists. Yes, there are frequent Islamic terrorist attacks and yes, Islamists are working to replace the Constitution with Shariah law. But the threat of Social Justice Warriors is greater and doing much more damage right now.

In fact, is the Leftists who usher in radical Islam. They are the demolition crew who tear down everything good and decent in America and invite Islamists to fill the cultural vacuum. Reading the Book of Mormon, I am struck by the power that a righteous wields if they are united for truth. No outside enemy can prevail if they get rid of the enemy within, and Leftists are our enemy within.

Right now, I see a lot of animosity being created between Mormons and other conservatives, and I don't know why. Why is the church's PR attacking cultural allies? Why is Breitbart turning their readers against the strongest conservative base in the country?

Both sides have a narrow view and need to change their mindset. The Left is the enemy. The Left is the enemy. We welcome all immigrants who want to embrace America's native white culture. But we will not adopt the Left's political correctness and invite danger into our country in order to feel less racist.

Choose carefully who has evil behind their smiling eyes. Often, it turns out the man who spites you and opposes you is actually the one who is on your side. Don't worry, when Trump becomes president Mormons will all recognize his good and be his greatest supporters.

I thank Tom Tancredo for relentlessly standing up for religious liberty on behalf of Mormons. I, for one, appreciate it.