Number of Muslims in U.S. and Number of Mormons are equal -- he he!

In response to Mitt Romney's non-Muslim "religious test" for Cabinet office holders, yellowcanine wrote:

"Wonder if Mitt (Romney) knows that the number of Muslims in U.S. is approx. the same as the # of Mormons?

Yep, just for chuckles I looked it up. Number of Mormons in U.S. and number of Muslims in U.S. both equal about 5.5 million at least according to the article below on Mormons. Oy vey. Do you think any of the MSM will be clever enough to look that up and ask Mittens about it?

I guess this means there will be no Mormons in Mitt's cabinet."

http://www.allaboutmormons.com/number_of_mormons.php

Let's not mention the fact that Deseret was an independent nation,
a polygamous desert theocracy founded on millenarian beliefs that,
allied with certain Ute and Paiute indian tribes, "terroriozed"
non-Mormon settlers and refused to bow to federal control...

Given the current threat of worldwide fundamentalism and ethnic
insurgency by desert dwellers wishing to retain their non-Western
cultures and beliefs, shouldn't a Mormon be in the Cabninet? ;-)

By Mitt Romney's definition, there shouldn't be a Mormon in the
Oval Office... to be fair I have nothing against Mormonism except
it being (a) fraudulent in origin and (b) violently patriarchal...

"allied with certain Ute and Paiute indian tribes, "terrorized"
non-Mormon settlers"

The Utes were not involved, and the victims were not settlers, they were a pioneer party (traveling through he theocratic territory of what we now call Utah), from Arkansas to California.

The Paiutes participated only in the initial attack on the wagon train that was passing through Mormon territory, under encouragement and promise by the Mormons of being given the travelers' cattle.

The Paiutes gave up the siege, and went home. The Mormons dressed as Paiutes as a disguise to throw blame onto the Indians before deciding to massacre them all.

A Mormon (John D. Lee) approached the besieged pioneers under a white flag after five days of siege, during which the travelers had run out of water, and promised them safe passage if they surrendered, which they did.

The Mormons then confiscated weapons and slaughtered every member of the party (128), men, women and children in cold blood (except for a dozen babies and children under 6, which were given to Mormon families). The bodies were left in the open to be eaten and scattered by wolves.

Lies and coverup followed during investigation. Only one man was ever convicted of the cold-blooded slaughter of 128 individuals, because of their 'code of silence', though some 60 Mormons participated in the mass murder.

Modern historians have come to scholarly conclusions that the massacre was ordered by, or at least approved by Brigham Young, then the head of the church.

This year, in commemoration of the mass slaughter, the head of the Mormon Church held a 'memorial'. He pointedly stated that there was no apology, only some "regret".

It is a horrific and despicable episode in our Western history. There some circumstances that can put it into some context... paranoia on the part of the Mormon church after having been severely harassed and chased from several states for their unpopular beliefs, such as polygamy, which some practiced at the time. A drought. Also the U.S. Army had been sent by the president and was marching towards them at the time.

You are right about being patriarchal.

ABSOLUTE, complete OBEDIENCE to the church in all ways is of utmost importance. Hierarchy is absolutely built-in. Individual thought or independence is not acceptable. Scholarly investigation, questioning and research by those within the church is not accepted and can get one excommunicated (meaning you won't be with your loved-ones for eternity... a dire threat).

The highest rates of anti-depressant use is among Mormon women.

I know many Mormons, and they are nice, fine people. But I don't want someone as president who answers to someone unknown in the hierarchy, who we will never see or know about.