Skip to comments.Carmelite nun traces path from LDS faith
Posted on 10/05/2009 6:39:28 AM PDT by Colofornian
Holladay » Barbara Whipperman was a pious teenager, a defender of the faith.
When her parents bought a can of coffee, before they even could brew a pot, she saved them from themselves.
"I tossed the whole can," the 76-year-old recalls, laughing raucously. "I was a good little Mormon girl. Oh, they were mad!"
How that good little Mormon girl from Sugar House came to be Sister Mary Joseph, a Catholic -- and a nun, no less -- is a story she tells with relish.
A member of the Carmel of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, a cloistered monastery that has been in Holladay for nearly 57 years, Mary Joseph is the "extern" sister, which means she is the link between the seven other nuns and the world.
While she joins the others daily for Mass and meals, she skips the rigorous daily schedule of prayer that is the vocation of cloistered nuns.
Instead, the gregarious Mary Joseph lives in her own apartment, does the grocery shopping, tends the flowers, meets with the plumber and the neighbors and, until her eyesight got too bad, drove the other nuns to doctor appointments.
"That kind of thing goes against my grain," says Mary Joseph, who spent three years cloistered when she joined the Carmelites in 1963. "I catch as catch can. I'm not a very scheduled person."
Her conversion, Mary Joseph says, probably began at age 14, when she had the distinct feeling she should give her life to God.
Before Whipperman took her new name in the monastery, she was the daughter of a pharmacist-turned-salesman and a stay-at-home-mom-turned-secretary. She had two older brothers.
Her father had been a convert to the LDS faith, and both parents were practicing Mormons.
Whipperman didn't study much in high school and took easy classes, but after working as a billing clerk for six months after graduation, she knew she wanted an education. A counselor assessed her talents and came up with a few potential careers:
"I could be either a good car mechanic, a good plumber, a good doctor or a nurse."
Doctrinal defiance » Daunted by the fact she would need years of schooling to become a doctor, she worked as a nurse's aide at LDS Hospital and then enrolled in Brigham Young University's new nursing program. She graduated with honors in 1956.
She remembers that in her early 20s, she began questioning a core belief of her faith: that righteous men can become gods.
When an LDS professor, perhaps trying to shock his dozing students awake, mentioned that there was no scriptural basis for that doctrine, Whipperman soaked it up.
The same doctrine came up during Sunday School the next weekend, and Whipperman parroted the professor "just to be a controversial brat."
One thing led to another. Her colleagues dressed her down. She got defensive.
"I made the big, fat statement: 'I will have nothing to do with organized religion. I'll worship as I wish' ... which meant I did nothing."
While she laughs at her youthful arrogance, Mary Joseph says the period was transformative.
"I could no longer accept the doctrine, their conception of God. My God was bigger than that," she says. "Once that doctrine falls apart, everything else falls apart."
After graduating from BYU, she worked as a public-health nurse in Salt Lake City.
In a night class, she met an Austrian woman who had a St. Christopher's medal in her car. That could mean only one thing: "I thought, 'She's Catholic! That's terrible! I have a friend who is Catholic?' "
Anti-Catholic bigotry was at a peak, Mary Joseph remembers. "I'd been in on it."
But she was curious about what Catholics believed and eventually asked a Catholic co-worker to buy her the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. She began attending various parishes for Mass each Sunday, wary of revisiting for fear the Catholics would twist her arm to stay.
"I had a big chip on my shoulder. I thought, 'I've already been hoodwinked once.' It wasn't going to happen again."
Stepping forth in faith » She began studying the catechism and taking instruction from a Catholic priest. She found she was unable to poke holes in the arguments for the faith.
When her dad discovered her Catholic materials, her parents were angry and sad. She ended up moving out of their home and into a nearby basement apartment.
By then, she had begun to worry about the implications of leaving the LDS Church and becoming Catholic. Would her parents and friends disown her? Would she lose her job? Would she be "kicked out" of the community?
One Sunday afternoon, her friends and she decided to drop by what then was the fairly new monastery in Holladay. She had no idea what the word "cloistered" meant, but she and her friends piled into her 1957 Volkswagen Beetle and "toodled," as she says, out to Holladay.
There, she met someone who gave her courage: Sister Catherine Romney Cheney, another convert from the LDS faith who was at the time the extern sister for the cloistered nuns. Catherine was the sister of LDS apostle Marion G. Romney.
"Her brother was down on Temple Square and she was here -- a nun. And that's all I needed to know," Mary Joseph recalls. "I stepped forth in faith. Blind faith."
And once Mary Joseph decided to become a Roman Catholic -- she was baptized into the church on Nov. 25, 1957, at age 24 -- she knew she would become a nun.
She assumed she would become a Holy Cross sister, since she was a nurse and that order had Holy Cross Hospital. But she didn't get along with the Holy Cross sisters.
When a priest told her she belonged at Carmel, she laughed. "I can't keep my mouth shut," she remembers telling him.
After caring for her father as he was dying from cancer, she joined the Carmelites in Sacramento, Calif., to get around a Utah Catholic leader's pronouncement that recent converts could not become nuns.
She was cloistered there, but was sick from stress and ended up returning to Salt Lake City. She joined the Carmel of the Immaculate Heart of Mary in 1963. Her family and friends may have been puzzled, but they did not shun her.
No regrets » Except for the first three years, she always has been an "extern" nun. That allows her, among other things, this liberty: She has a Labrador, her fourth one, that sleeps on her bed and joins her in the gardens. The first two Labs she named Inky. Her current Lab, Ebony, is the second by that name.
"I like the name, except that I keep calling him 'her.' It's a little gender problem," says Mary Joseph, who regularly accepts smooches from her pal.
Though she now uses a mechanized wheelchair because her knees are bad, Mary Joseph still orchestrates an army of 300 volunteers to stage the annual Carmelite Fair, an afternoon of food, entertainment, auctions and games that provides about 80 percent of the nuns' livelihood.
Various groups help set up the fair, including several from LDS wards.
Spread over the grass on Carmelites' 8-acre property, the fair brings the world to the monastery while the cloistered nuns remain inside, praying.
Mary Joseph says she has no regrets about her journey from Mormonism to Catholicism.
"I always say, 'The best decision I ever made was becoming a Catholic. The second best was to become a Carmelite nun.' "
From the article: She remembers that in her early 20s, she began questioning a core belief of her faith: that righteous men can become gods... When an LDS professor, perhaps trying to shock his dozing students awake, mentioned that there was no scriptural basis for that doctrine, Whipperman soaked it up. The same doctrine came up during Sunday School the next weekend, and Whipperman parroted the professor "just to be a controversial brat." ..."I could no longer accept the doctrine, their conception of God. My God was bigger than that," she says. "Once that doctrine falls apart, everything else falls apart."
From the article: "I had a big chip on my shoulder. I thought, 'I've already been hoodwinked once.' It wasn't going to happen again."
From the article: There, she met someone who gave her courage: Sister Catherine Romney Cheney, another convert from the LDS faith who was at the time the extern sister for the cloistered nuns. Catherine was the sister of LDS apostle Marion G. Romney
Folks, it's never too late to convert from Mormonism -- despite your family, social & cultural ties. Others have done it. As this nun says, God is bigger than the man-Mormon-god and we're smaller than the Mormon idea of men-becoming-gods.
Been there - done that. Thankfully God found me and these two wonderful women. It's in His hands folks. Pray.
The Air Force just brought my family and me to Layton, Utah. And this subject is one that my wife and I have spent much time discussing. We are trying to figure out how best to share our Christian faith with our wonderful Mormon neighbors. I am sometimes disheartened by the fact that my neighbors (and coworkers for that matter) seem to have given so little critical thought or diligent study to their faith. I recently read a small pamphlet on Mormonism and just the info provided in those 20 pages would be enough to make any logical/learned person question the faith. But I have accepted the fact that people will believe what they have been told since birth to be true.
I find it odd that people would spend so much time trying to convert someone else’s beliefs instead of building on the IMPORTANT beliefs that they share.
I have had many Mormon friends, Southern Baptist friends and agnostic friends. One of my best buddies from the Navy (3 decades ago) is a Catholic Priest. The one thing I notice is that we share a lot more principles and beliefs than we differ on. Us folks, who support Judeo-Christian principles, Constitutionally protected freedoms, and Western Culture should stand together and fight those who do not. Divisive posts like yours do nothing to further freedom and a strong America.
The identity of God and the eternal destiny of humans is far more important than the issues you mention here.
“The one thing I notice is that we share a lot more principles and beliefs than we differ on. Us folks, who support Judeo-Christian principles, Constitutionally protected freedoms, and Western Culture should stand together and fight those who do not. Divisive posts like yours do nothing to further freedom and a strong America.”
On top of that, all those items you mention are based on the belief in the truthfulness of the Jewish Bible and the Christian New Testament, something that the LDS church rejects in a very sly manner.
Define first IMPORTANT
Then carefully define those beliefs that are shared.
God will handle his affairs, including the eternal destiny of humans. I’m fairly certain those who think they have all the answers pertaining to religion will get their comeuppance.
I have known many in the LDS church, including some from the old families, and not one rejected Judeo-Christian principles, Constitutionally protected freedoms, or Western Culture. Not one. In fact, I find them to be every bit as Christian as any Methodist, Baptist, Catholic or any other flavor branched off from the tree of Christians. Do I buy their version? Nope. No more than I buy your claim to exclusive knowledge.
Do the Mormons believe that Jesus Christ created all things and that he has been eternally existent? That He has ALWAYS been God?
No, they don’t, which makes them not Christians.
Bookmark for later read
Wow, I’m blessed to have met the man with all the answers. Thanks for your final word on all things Christian. Almost godlike in your confidence.
I believe those are clearly defined in the post you responded to.
So it is important to sit around the campfire and sing kumbya?
Then, you should be alarmed at the fact that the mormon church sends out 60,000 young men and many elderly couples EVERY YEAR to "divide" others from their Christian faith.
Have you registered your "alarm" with the leaders in Salt Lake City?
I think a simple copy of your post sent to The Corporation Of The President Of The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Temple Square, Salt Lake City, UT would reach them. Please return and report.
Fair and balance!:)
Former Catholic Church Members
Not what I said. That is an insult to me, and my service to our country. I am by NO means a pacifist, progressive or RINO. I do, however, believe that the movement to save our country, of which this website is a part of, is better served by leaving the “angel on a pinhead” religious divisionist BS out of it.
You should be secure in the knowledge that other churches do not send their young out on Mission.
Oh, wait, they do.
Do you find that as objectionable as the Mormons doing it? Apparently not.
Riddle me this, Batman, did you know the Greek word for pearls is "margarita"? That's about all I have to say.
My post didn't insult your service to the country - I served this country too. That is WHY is asked for a more specific definition of IMPORTANT - remember.
I am by NO means a pacifist, progressive or RINO.
Again, that was not addressed either, so your rant is inconsequential to this discussion or topic.
I do, however, believe that the movement to save our country, of which this website is a part of, is better served by leaving the angel on a pinhead religious divisionist BS out of it.
Religious beliefs have consequences in the long term. However, this is the RELIGION forum and if you do not want to discuss religion here, there are other forums more suited to your desires.
If a post on FR is so "alarming" then 60,000 missionaries swarming the world yearly should also be alarming. Especially when the message carried by the 60,000 is that ONLY mormonism is the path to salvation.
My, my. (I didn't know you were so against the entire Christian missionary enterprise. You don't think missionaries are out there only for humanitarian reasons, do you?)
Also, if you weren't aware, one of the major motifs in the New Testament of the Bible is conversion. You're not asking us to be unfaithful to our religious beliefs, are you?
Now let's say I had the "average" life of a Mormon missionary. I'd rise by 7 and be back home between 9:45 and 10 p.m. 6 days a week. (My "off day" is still missionary oriented as it's called a "Preparation Day.")
So if Mormon missionaries spend almost all of their awake life for two years "trying to convert someone else's beliefs" -- do you consider that a-OK by your standards? (Whereas if I spend a few pct pts of my current life doing something similar, I'm divisive? Please explain your seeming inequitable application of standards here)
Secondly even Lds (ex) missionaries will tell you that yes, while they spent a tremendous amount of time "trying to convert someone else's beliefs" -- it wasn't/isn't mostly "instead of" exposing others to their beliefs. 'Twas both. Yes, Lds missionaries go door to door calling Christians "apostates." Yes, Lds missionaries go door to door trying to convert others to their beliefs. But they also share their important beliefs. It's all one bag -- nothing "instead of" about it. You've carved up one ball of wax.
But nice try on your insinuation. I mean, while the average Lds missionary's life is all scheduled out for them for two years, and you can generally figure out what % of their time is spent on what, you don't know what proactive edifying or common-ground sharing with people of other faiths that occurs in other circumstances of my life...church, family, faith-based groups, social settings, etc. Do you?
(And if you do, tell me what crystal ball I should order -- or if it's your own invention, let me market it...we could make a bundle together under the umbrella of free enterprise)
Anyway, please tell me why you assume you know somebody's life in and out?
Also, as Greyfoxx pointed out, you seemingly neglect that I'm just one person...whereas the stated goal of 60,000 worldwide Lds missionaries is to proselytize millions to convert to Mormon beliefs. So my question to you is: Have you ever made these kind of similar statements to a Mormon missionary, an ex-Mormon missionary, or those who support their cause?
(If not? Why not? Why would you be concerned about single me and not necessarily the literal 1 million Lds missionaries who have gone out? Doesn't that seem lopsided?)
Bottom line: you don't seem to be acting any different than the MSM. Your question is no different than what the MSM commonly does: it'll cover the one protestor in the Capital and ignore the million people marching on behalf of life or lower taxes. If you have raised this concern about Lds missionaries on other threads or contexts, just point me to which one or set me straight & I'll apologize for jumping to my own conclusion. If you haven't, then you need to explain your inconsistency: If you're bothered by people trying to convert others, then why are you seemingly not more bothered by 60,000 Lds missionaries spending 70-hour 6-days-a-week-for-2 years "trying to convert someone else's beliefs" than you are me?
I have had many Mormon friends, Southern Baptist friends and agnostic friends. One of my best buddies from the Navy (3 decades ago) is a Catholic Priest. The one thing I notice is that we share a lot more principles and beliefs than we differ on.
That's great. Make friends with people of all faiths. And, that's also great, please share what common ground you have.
Us folks, who support Judeo-Christian principles, Constitutionally protected freedoms, and Western Culture should stand together and fight those who do not. Divisive posts like yours do nothing to further freedom and a strong America.
I'll respond to this challenge in the next post.
Wait a minute. That's an unfair tactic. Don't you know it's Monday morning? Don't you know it's against Monday a.m. rules to make others laugh like you've done? :)
Please allow me to explain: The first word of your last sentence was "divisive". Yet the first word of your second-to-last sentence was "Us" Now who's tilling "us" vs. "them" ground again?
"But," you might say: "There IS 'us' vs. 'them.' There are dividing lines."
And I would say, "Yes, I agree with you." But western culture and its freedoms aren't the only ones to exist. Jesus drew dividing lines with the Pharisees. He told them at one point that these legal religionists would traverse land and see to make converts "twice the son of hell."
Yeah, I know, I know. You'd probably lecture Jesus on your issues, too, had you lived back in the day of the Pharisee: The one thing I notice, Jesus, is that we Jews share a lot more principles and beliefs than we differ on. Us folks, who support Judeo...principles [and other] protected freedoms, and Middle-Eastern Culture should stand together and fight those who do not -- like those imposing Romans. Divisive comments to the Pharisees like yours do nothing to further freedom and a strong Israel.
(Well, have at it. I've heard Jesus is still alive; so I'm sure you've got His ear)
Beyond that, we Christians take our cultural cue from that certain "Lord" who goes by that Name. Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or ExpatGator?
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the non-Westerners or in that day, "fear the non-Middle Easterners?" (No)
Does Jesus say, "fear those who don't embrace constitutionally protected freedoms?" (No)
Does Jesus say, "fear those who don't share our Judeo-Christian principles?" (Again, No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As for "standing together" I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-you're playing? (No)
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, ExpatGator: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
Where and when did ldsers demonstrate that?
There, she met someone who gave her courage: Sister Catherine Romney Cheney, another convert from the LDS faith who was at the time the extern sister for the cloistered nuns. Catherine was the sister of LDS apostle Marion G. Romney
That must have made for some interesting Thanksgiving dinners!
All paths are right, even the non Christian ones.
It's being nice that counts now days.
Your right, this guy has a great sense of humor!
Exactly! Mormons whine continually because they really believe that they and they alone are privileged to proselytize whenever and whever they wish, but when faced with counter-proselytizing they cry "bigots" "liars", and my fav, "persecution".
In all my years as a mormon I was told "we are a speshul people because WE have a living prophet and the "restored" gospel". That feeling of being "speshul" clings to the members and is evident whenever the conversation turns to religion. Mormons feel justified in their "spreading the gospel" not only because they feel it's the "true" one, but because they cling to persecution of the past.
It's kinda like Obama's attitude that HIS people are "speshul" because of past transgressions against them, (see the analogy?) and therefore he is justified in pushing those NOT "his people" to the back of the bus where they belong.
Anything that can be labeled "anti-mormon" is condemned...and called "hate" speech...(another analogy).
BTW, ExpatGator, my post #21 was meant as a reply to you.
Her conversion, Mary Joseph says, probably began at age 14, when she had the distinct feeling she should give her life to God.
Well. praise God she did that and didnt give her life to Joey Smith and mormonism...
A bump and a thank you for #24, very well stated.
It just donned on me -- with the way you phrased this -- that Lds followers aren't really all that much different from the acculation of dozens of wives Joseph Smith had: All have given their lives to Smith.
In this way, Smith still operates as a "spiritual polygamist" -- accumulating members of his "household."
The message of Isaiah, and Paul to both the Corinthians & Ephesians, as well as John the Revelator -- is that we as the church only have one spiritual husband, Jesus Christ.
I know Mormons don't want to hear this, having heard repeatedly that earthly marriage properly sealed is forever. But the church will only have a single husband for eternity, Jesus Christ.
I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to ONE HUSBAND, TO CHRIST, so that I might present you as a pure virgin TO HIM (The Apostle Paul, 2 Cor. 11:2)
I'd say LOL if it wasn't so sad.
It's being nice that counts now days.
(And we thought denominations only had names like Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, Wesleyan, Lutheran, AoG, Episcopal, 4-square, Missionary & Alliance, and Evangelical Free...You've just identified the at-large "Nicer-Than-Jesus" denomination)
Our definition of rant differs.
I addressed the divisionist spirit of the original post. Period.
I disagree with their beliefs as well, but do not think it is a net benefit to continually attack their beliefs on this forum.
No doubt. Is your's to throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks?
I addressed the divisionist spirit of the original post. Period.
And yet you continue to fail to reduce the ambiguity by putting forth a resonable definition.
“So if Mormon missionaries spend almost all of their awake life for two years “trying to convert someone else’s beliefs” — do you consider that a-OK by your standards?” Yes, as long as they are not doing it on a forum like this, thereby dividing folks who are pretty much on the same side. I support the right of any religion to prosthelytize or do missions, and in fact, I fought for their right to do so.
I would just as quickly point out if a Mormon was posting divisive articles and would find it just as detrimental to the, ummmm, mission of defeating those on the left who aim to enslave us.
“to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith”
Seriously? Bashing? Where?
The way I look at it, is when I first came to FR, there were several Mormons actually proselyting here. It seemed they thought by touting the strong conservative bent of Mormonism to unsuspecting Freepers, they would be able to get converts to Mormonism among our numbers. I think they saw some success.
I and others started to counter the Mormons. I figured as long as they are free to try and convert Freepers to Mormonism, I am free to tell freepers everything I learned about Mormonism that is untrue. I was born a sixth generation Mormon who left it in my late 20’s but didn’t become Christian until I was 47. Those lost years when I wandered in agnosticism were a direct result of the denigration of the Bible and Christianity by Mormon teachings....it took me a long, long time to get over that distrust.
This is a great forum to have discussions about religions. Those who are uncomfortable with open discussions, often have something to hide. While Christianity does have some regrettable history, you don’t find us denying it, or trying to prohibit people discussing it.
“Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Perhaps you should seek your FR experience on other forums besides the Religion Forum or on threads that do not allow debate.
Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.
Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.
The caucus article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.
Unlike the caucus threads, the article and reply posts of an ecumenic thread can discuss more than one belief, but antagonism is not tolerable.
More leeway is granted to what is acceptable in the text of the article than to the reply posts. For example, the term gross error in an article will not prevent an ecumenical discussion, but a poster should not use that term in his reply because it is antagonistic. As another example, the article might be a passage from the Bible which would be antagonistic to Jews. The passage should be considered historical fact and a legitimate subject for an ecumenic discussion. The reply posts however must not be antagonistic.
Contrasting of beliefs or even criticisms can be made without provoking hostilities. But when in doubt, only post what you are for and not what you are against. Or ask questions.
Ecumenical threads will be moderated on a where theres smoke, theres fire basis. When hostility has broken out on an ecumenic thread, Ill be looking for the source.
Therefore anti posters must not try to finesse the guidelines by asking loaded questions, using inflammatory taglines, gratuitous quote mining or trying to slip in an anti or ex article under the color of the ecumenic tag.
Posters who try to tear down others beliefs or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.
On all threads, but particularly open threads, posters must never make it personal. Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of making it personal. Making a thread about another Freeper is making it personal.
When in doubt, review your use of the pronoun you before hitting enter.
Like the Smoky Backroom, the conversation may be offensive to some.
Thin-skinned posters will be booted from open threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.
I understand you represent many people who feel the same way. I don't discount that "pros & cons" exist to critiquing faith beliefs. Any of us, myself included, can do so at times with the wrong tone -- or develop less-than-Christlike attitudes even when what we say is 100% the truth (1 Cor. 13 self-applications are often needed). And feel free to make your case with specifics about something we have blinders on.
My earlier responses to you just indicate that you haven't yet even begun to make your case for why Utah-based articles shouldn't be posted about people converting from Mormonism.
Mormons convert people from other faiths all the time. Yet I don't think you go around labeling them as "attackers" of other beliefs. If not, why not?
One of the top four points within LDS missionary lessons going back to the 1960s when Marion G. Romney headed up their missionary program was to focus on the so-called "universal apostasy" and restoration. "Universal apostasy" = the Christian church, in the Lds mind, totally apostatized from the faith.
On top of that, the Lds "first vision" -- the very foundation of its belief system -- was made into Lds "scripture" which labels...
...ALL Christian sect creeds as an "abomination" to the Mormon god...
...the same passage labels ALL Christian professing believers as "corrupt"...
...and that we're ALL "wrong" and shouldn't be joined.
Your Lds friends who either tithe or give $ to the Lds church wind up paying for this "scripture" -- known as the Pearl of Great Price -- to be translated into over 100 languages and distributed worldwide not only in that book but online and curricula/articles where its quoted.
Bottom line is that Lds have spent millions & millions of $ to malign and slander Christian believers, Christian churches, and Christian creeds for these past 170 years.
If you haven't responded to that, why does this public attack upon the Christian faith worth a zilcho response from those who have standards that people shouldn't attack or critique other beliefs???
I'm sorry, but not only do you need a reality check but if you can't equitably apply your personal standard then...
(a) your personal standard needs adjusting
and (b) you should reconsider exporting a standard that you don't exercise with fairness across the board.
“Is your’s to throw everything up against the wall and see what sticks?”
Seriously? This is a response to short, direct statements?
My single issue, as stated numerous times, is that you folk’s divisive rhetoric against the Mormons will hurt our fight against the left. I do not want to, nor will I get in an argument about anyone’s missionaries or the specifics about their chosen religious flavor. Those issues are beside the point that I made. If you disagree with my observation, fine. Disagree, disprove or otherwise address my ORIGINAL observation, but please stop dragging me into the mud-slinging of your beliefs.
See post #41.
OK, I deliberately exaggerated a bit in my response to you labeling you referencing me/us as "divisive". I've got thick skin; I don't think you were personally "bashing" me.
But, #1, I don't speak for everyone in this thread. I'm sure, if you labeled some folks here as "divisive," they could easily make a case that you're being "divisive" yourself by what they might deem as "bashing" them as dividers.
#2, the reason I used that word is that some people just can't see the difference between on the one hand...
...genuine disagreements of beliefs,
...and religious conflicts
...or hostility on the other side.
[I believe you can have the former without the latter]
Because of the pattern I've seen of those who disagree with us engaging in the "former" activities above -- and usually describing us as "bashers" in that process -- I usually try to respond according to the vocabulary they know and use. If they interpret critiques & disagreements as "bashing," "attacking" and other "latter" language, then I'll use their own vocabulary to describe their critiques, disagreements, and debates with us.
(And, BTW, I appeared to peg you right: You've labeled me or some of us in this thread as "attackers"...so we're "attackers" for critiquing others -- but you're not a "basher" for critiquing us...mind explainin' the difference?)
No, it is my response to your throwing a bunch of non-related issues out at the very start.
My single issue, as stated numerous times, is that you folks divisive rhetoric against the Mormons will hurt our fight against the left.
I find your statement here rather humorous. The article is about a little old nun who left mormonism. I have read and re-read the article multiple times, and failed to see any of this so-called divisive rhetoric you say is pervasive.
Disagree, disprove or otherwise address my ORIGINAL observation, but please stop dragging me into the mud-slinging of your beliefs.
Well sir, that was done. I have specifically asked you to clarify your position twice now. The only one dragging yourself into mud-slinging is yourself. You have no idea of what my beliefs are, so spare yourself the additional effort. As I said earlier, feel free to browse elsewhere in FR, otherwise quit hijacking this thread so we can discuss the interesting life of this nun.
Read the 1st post, by the person who posted the article and tell me that it was not divisive.
I did not call anyone “attackers”. I did say that there were some attacks upon beliefs happening. There is a difference, as you have sanely pointed out.
You have addressed my observation in a pretty even-handed manner. Thanks for your intelligent responses. You have helped me make my point: That we who pretty much agree on what threatens our well-being, should stick together.
Simple Q: Is a FREEPER, let's just randomly call Him PatriotSeminole to grab a monicker out of thin air, engaging in "mud-slinging" if he or she has called others on a thread...
...or orators of divisiveness?
(Or have I just missed the latest campus diversity class that has perhaps redefined those words as Kum Bah Yah harmonious-can't-we-all-get-along outreach appeals?)
Identifies nun as a relative of Romney, that is devisive? Cites three portions from the article, quotes from the nun herself (devisive?). Or was it the last part where the point was made that one can leave mormonism. I mean, heaven forbid that someone come to know Jesus Christ.
As I said earlier, feel free to browse elsewhere in FR, otherwise quit hijacking this thread so we can discuss the interesting life of this nun.