|This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies.|
Locked on 12/07/2008 11:35:59 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Skip to comments.An Ugly Attack on Mormons
Posted on 12/03/2008 8:59:31 AM PST by Publius804
An Ugly Attack on Mormons
The easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.
By Jonah Goldberg
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wifes purse and then the mans wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughters piggy bank and pinch every penny. We need it for the Wall Street bailout! they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. Hi, were from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints! says the blond one with a toothy smile. Were here to take away your rights. The Mormon zealots yank the couples wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
As the thugs leave, one says to the other, That was too easy. His smirking comrade replies, Yeah, what should we ban next? The voice-over implores viewers: Say no to a church taking over your government.
Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.
The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.
What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
The Los Angeles Times, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial lamenting that the hard-hitting commercial was too little, too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
>>Strong disagreement is not hate.<<
I hate that!
Ah, here it is.
... blah, blah, blah...
... henceforth the deity hallucinated by above mentioned Mr. Smith shall be designated "FSM".
Then stay on topic and do not rise to the challenge.
They were HIDDEN?
I'll have to do better!
Be very careful using Wikipedia for information on anything really important or controversial. And ALL truly important subjects are controversial.
And yet... you soldier on.
I’m not debating if it’s right or wrong, I’m telling you what you should expect if you post in a public forum. FR Mods will decide if it’s right or wrong.
I agree with your assessment.
Delphi - I have never persecuted anyone on FR, nor have I identified myself as a "persecutor."
What exactly is your definition of persecution? Do you really liken this discussion of doctrine as "persecution?" This is persecution!
Do you think anyone on FR is immune to comments regarding morals, intent parentage, intelligence etc. not just questioned, but been called a liar about what I believe, damned to hell, called a demon from the pit and been condemned in every way imaginable.
I certainly have been on the receiving end of such comments by some of your own brethren and sisters. I am not so weak that I call it persecution.
>>Actually, if one puts their views on a forum they should, in fact, expect debate<<
Debate about the subject matter, cool.
Debate about religious dogma, no way.
Like I said, no one asks the Jewish FReepers to defend their beliefs when they post something non-dogmatic. Why should anyone have to debate dogma on a non-dogmatic thread?
If I post a thread on why communion is not communion is a Protestant church, I better be ready to debate dogma because that is what I have invited.
If I post that three first communicants were run over by a car at a parish, why is that an invitation to debate dogma?
This is an actual example. A Catholic FReeper posted an article on glass walls being installed in confessionals. The second post was slamming the dogma of confession.
The word hate is so overused today.
>>Elsie, you do know that the Catholic Church and Protestant Churches were not without reproach on this subject.<<
I’ll agree with that. All church organizations I know of have proverbial blood on their hands.
My best friend wrote a truly fascinating book on church. It is called “And No Religion, Too - Thoughts on the Spectator Church”. Very interesting perspective on the church in america.
The best way to handle that (in my opinion) if you think it’s inappropriate, is to ignore it.
>>Then stay on topic and do not rise to the challenge.<<
Then don’t shut down the thread with boxed spam to encourage the debate.
It’s bullying tactics. Pick, pick, pick. Then scream when you’re punched.
>>The best way to handle that (in my opinion) if you think its inappropriate, is to ignore it.<<
Take the religion out of it and make it conservative/liberal.
Now ignore it. Not so easy, huh?
If you don’t want to debate it, it should be easy to ignore. I often ignore posts I don’t care to debate, even if it means the other poster gets the last word.
And with that, when a group of gays walk into your church, disrupting your service or the get together after, you should just ignore it. Right?
Because otherwise wolves in sheeps' clothing will lead people astray. That is what Paul fought against.
Please explain to me how men, without God's assistance settle these disputes.
Of course we need God to be in control. It is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that equips believers to fight against heresies.
Last question is someone who believes in Jesus, but has a diff rent understanding than you do "passing themselves off" or do they really believe?
They believe in something that is false - that does not come from God. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will go to heaven.
Why would you want to hijack a thread for that debate?
You are the one who said it’s okay to tell them they are wrong, why?
I’m sorry, but I think that’s a silly comparison. Someone posting on a forum is not disrupting your church service.
brytlea>>But, if one puts their position on a forum, they should expect debate<<
Why? Because thats what you think?...I think differently. I think that when someone posts something about a religion, be it how the gays are targeting LDS or how the Pope is wearing red shoes today, that poster should not have to defend his/her beliefs. Its not an invition to debate. It shouldnt be. Its not about Dogma. Nor is it meant to be .I cant imagine anywhere on FR, one of the Jewish FReepers posting about the events in Israel and having to defend why Jesus is not his/her savior. It isnt done nor should it be. The LDS and Catholics should be afforded the same luxury.
Debate is fine, but the issue here is a clearly anti-Mormon ad broadcast in California because of the Churchs opposition to gay marriage. This being a news forum, it seems appropriate the debate center around that particular slander of the LDS, or disagreement with their position on gay marriage. I suppose joining the gay lobby in general criticism of the LDS might be relevant, but its odd, and I think better done on the religion forum where its accepted, and where lurkers here for news wont be looking.
netmilsmom, just in the last week youll find a number of threads on the Mumbai massacre victims, Obamas appointment of Gen. Jones, a bush appointee, and of Daniel Kurtzer, another Bush appointee, which centered around how the stupid Jews who voted for Obama are getting what they asked for. A bit absurd when it comes to appointing Bush people, but I can assure you that people look at their threads and simply shake their heads at the stupidity. 300 posts here, over 2,000 thread views. I bet theres a bit of head shaking going on. Not a good way to win political support.
I’m sorry netmilsmom, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Did I hijack this thread? If so I apologize, it certainly was not my intent.
>>netmilsmom, just in the last week youll find a number of threads on the Mumbai massacre victims, Obamas appointment of Gen. Jones, a bush appointee, and of Daniel Kurtzer, another Bush appointee, which centered around how the stupid Jews who voted for Obama are getting what they asked for. A bit absurd when it comes to appointing Bush people, but I can assure you that people look at their threads and simply shake their heads at the stupidity. 300 posts here, over 2,000 thread views. I bet theres a bit of head shaking going on. Not a good way to win political support.<<
I’m so sorry, my FRiend. It breaks my heart. I thought that the Jewish FReepers were free from that garbage. How sad that FReepers can’t see we are all on the same side.
I’m truly sorry.
>>Someone posting on a forum is not disrupting your church service.<<
There was a thread about gay disrupting a mass in MI.
It became a dogma debate.
Pointing out the similarity since I’m familiar with the reaction to those threads. While I suppose it’s possible the discussion here pleases Mormons, my suspicion it that a politically conservative Mormon unfamiliar with the site reading the reaction to these ads isn’t anxious to sign up.
That doesn’t surprise me. All I’m saying (and I guess saying very badly) is that if you don’t want to engage in that, don’t. No one is likely being persuaded one way or another. But, even so, it’s not the same thing as someone showing up at your house of worship (altho many of us spend more time here than we do in church!) and disrupting that.
What a ridiculous analogy.
Mormons believe in Jesus Christ
So do Muslims, but they are obviously not Christians. Christianity requires more than a belief in Jesus--it requires a true belief in his divinity, with everything that entails (such as salvation by faith).
I can just hear the howls if a California group pushed a lot of money into Utah to influence THEIR laws!
Hmmmm, I wonder why they were so silent then?
DU, you have thrown as many stones as anyone else on FR...I know, having been the target of some of them, along with Godzilla and MHG.
Playing your favorite victim card, I see.
But "Christian" isn't quite as nebulous as you and others have stretched it to mean. A "Christian" is literally a "Christ one" -- one who belongs to the true Jesus Christ.
First of all, it can't just be any "Christ"...and secondly, just because Christian doesn't denote a specific organization does NOT mean that "Christian" doesn't involve a specific ORGANISM -- that organism being the Living Body of Christ. LDSism is tied to one organization; Christian is tied to one organism.
Fundamentalist Mormons do not want to be known as Mormons. [acipher]
Well, now you're just playin' with words. fLDS have the "LDS" part of their name for a reason! Even if fLDS don't want the "moniker" of "Mormon," doesn't mean they want to discard "LDS."
They want to be knows as a break away or protestants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [acipher]
No they don't. I mean, yes, they want to distinguish themselves from mainstream LDSism, but, no, they don't want to break away from the identity of being a "Latter-day Saint." As a matter of fact, because no LDS leader has ever dumped Doctrine & Covenants 132, the fLDS actually see themselves as "originalists" in terms of following Joseph Smith.
The biggest issue being they want to live Polygamy. Currently, a polygamist is immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church.
Well, now in one sense, you're arguing in a circle. On the one hand, DieHard the Hunter says...
...that if you say a Mormon is not a Christian, that it's unkind, unnecessary and un-Christian...
...but then when I point out that if you apply the same standard to LDS, that for them to label fLDS as not "Latter-day Saints" would likewise be unkind, unnecessary, and un-Mormon...
...you point out actions fLDS do that cause LDS to label fLDS as "ex-communicative"
So...based upon this, please explain something to me here: Why do you think it's "OK" for LDS to label fLDS as outright heretics for having many or more than one wife, yet seemingly...
...some FREEPERS here don't see anything heresy-wise about LDS having many or more than one god.
Why is polygamy such a "hot-button" issue that gives LDS full-blown permission to be "unkind" toward fLDS -- but polytheism isn't regarded with equal weight & concern?
Currently, a polygamist is immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church.
(Not if they live in the LDS "celestial kingdom"...and not if they're around when the Mormon Jesus returns...as LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie promised in his book, "Mormon Doctrine" that Jesus' return would then reinstute the "holy practice" -- "holy practice" being his words)
< snort! >
Yeah, we are in agreement on this. I was creating a springboard from which I or someone else could make the clear point that we are to hate the sin but love the sinner.
It is certainly what God does or I would be royally screwed! We all would. Every one.
(This coming from somebody who belongs to an organization where the stress is on men's revelations? ... from an organization where the stress is that 100% of everything God does is revealed to prophets? ... Based upon a literal, wooden interpretation of Amos 3:7: Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.)
Last question is someone who believes in Jesus, but has a diff rent understanding than you do "passing themselves off" or do they really believe?
Believing in the "wrong" Jesus is no light matter. The apostle Paul asked the Corinthians: Suppose someone comes to you and preaches about a Jesus different from the Jesus we preached about? (2 Cor. 11:4)
Likewise Jesus made it clear that it wasn't simply just knowing any old god. He prayed to His Father: "And THIS is eternal life -- that you KNOW the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." (John 17:3)
Don't stop there with the key distinctions...
...how about that Mormons believe in many gods?...
...that Mormons trace their "authority" to what was revealed to a 14 yo lad (or 16 depending on which version of his "first vision" you believe in)...
...that Mormons believe their elder spirit brothers from a spiritual pre-existence were Jesus and Lucifer...
...that Mormons believe that father-god was once a man...
...that Mormons believe they, too, either are already gods or can become one...
Mormons believe that all who believe in and accept as their savior Jesus Christ are Christians. [DelphiUser]
Yes, but then on the basis of Joseph Smith's first vision, found in Mormon scripture Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-20... it proceeds to label these Christians as "corrupt" (all of them); and as having 100% creeds which are supposedly an "abomination" unto the Mormon god.
We believe they have not had the full truth available to them... [DelphiUser]
Well, how nice of you to slander the Bible as being less-than-forthright of God's prime AND comprehensive truths! (Need we call any more Mormon witnesses to the stand than somebody who slyly yet openly condemns the supposed "shortcomings" of the Holy Bible???)
Talk about over reaching.
To defend the truth of Christian doctrine against that of a 19th century cult that deliberately distorts scripture, leads people astray, and mocks the true sacrifice of Christ is not "hate."
This is a broken 45 rpm record that refuses to stop being played. Someone change the channel, and cancel the sequel.
By that definition, Paul was a "hater" for warning against false teachings.
There is bitter irony in your post. In your claims, you sound more the like the Left than you even realize. Anyone who disagrees with atheistic liberals is a "hater."
Moreover, Mormons of late see an opportunity for victim hood, hence all the thread about Mormons being persecuted. The fact is that Christians (which Mormons are not) have been assailed for centuries for denouncing homosexuality, and other deplorable sins.
I could say "Welcome to the party pal" and be encouraged, but the latest Mormon campaign of victim hood appears to be another transparent attempt to gain favor - and it is unconvincing.
Keep reading, you’ve obviously not caught up.
You know it's really more accurate to say that LDS believe the pre-incarnant spirit named Jesus was a son of God -- not THE Son of God. Now, if Jesus' birth to Mary made him more than that -- it that elevated Jesus to THE Son of God status, would you care to elaborate, especially based upon Brigham Young and other LDS prophets' and apostles' statements, what exact role Elohim played in the conception of Jesus within Mary?
I really question anyone who can say the line is drawn here for what is real belief in Jesus Christ on what is not. [acipher]
You've just refuted yourself. You question whether any line can be drawn in what is real belief in Jesus Christ. Yet if your "question" was poured into concrete as THE "standard" -- then why is your curvy "line" absolutely so?
>>The word hate is so overused today.<<
I hate that!
Seriously, I agree. If I am angry, it does not mean I hate. If I disagree, it does not mean I hate. If I call someone a name, it does not mean I hate.
And most importantly, if I hate what someone does, it does not mean I hate the person doing it.
>>Now ignore it. Not so easy, huh?<<
Actually, yes it is. I am either an active participant or I ignore it. It depends on whether the responses have merit and or are “interesting” to me.
Not if you buy into 2 Nephi 25:23: ...saved by grace AFTER ALL WE CAN DO...
According to this thought, grace is an after-burner that ONLY kicks in after you've done EVERYTHING you can do...everything spiritually...
So, have you done EVERYTHING you can do?
If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, then I certainly hope your belief is sufficient for His Grace to apply to you.
If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true, then the same 2 Nephi 25:23 Book of Mormon standard would apply to us as well. And then, no, NONE of us has ever done enough ("all we can do") to justify God's grace ever coming our way.
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) [and, as Isaiah said, all our works are like "filthy rags" before our all-holy God]