Posted on 05/22/2012 8:47:57 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Try as I might, I can't resist posting my thoughts on this topic which will probably subject me to criticism from each side. First, I have previously sporadically participated in so-called 'anti-Mormon' threads to ridicule MormonISM defenders, when they were here and feeling proud (resty & PD come to mind). But I have ceased that for some time. Your comment made me contemplate 'taking sides'. I think I understand primary motivations for each side. Allow me to expand on my definition of the remaining 'sides'.
I would suggest that nearly all FR posts defending MormonISM are gone, which I would attribute to the strength of what I'll call the FR Mormon Truth Squad (FMTS). The motivation is very personal, a calling if you will, as many FMTSer's are ex-mormon and know the heresy and falsehood's firsthand. Others saw the strength of Mormon defenders here circa 2007/2008, and their negative impact on that GOP primary, and rose to combat that too.
The remaining 'other' side at FR is personal too, but not to defend MormonISM. It is to defend a real person, an individual they know as a good person who is currently in the Mormon faith. [Although I will never understand how MormonISM, founded by a polygamist pedophile con man, still thrives, there are good conservative people in this 'faith' with a very bizarre (kind word) belief system (remember, even many of our FMTSer's once were mormons).] Therefore, they see the posting of truths about MormonISM, over and over with exaggerated hyperbole, as an unfair attack on their friend.
Your posts always refrain from hyperbole or immaturity. You think seriously about things and I agree with you that Christians should at least stand aside if they don't have the stomach ....
However, presuming that the Christian objective of the FMTS is to 'save' Mormon souls [there is no other reason to boldly proclaim the Gospel truth to others is there?], they might try a little different strategy, eh? I'm reminded of a couple of passages from the Bible ....
If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ... I Corinthians 13:1.
... but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ ... Ephesians 4:15
I like to thank you for this post, it is now apparent that you have know idea what mormonism shunning is and how it can destroy a person, their families and their life.
At least now I can surmise where you are coming from with regards to mormonism.
The point of condemning "mormonism" and ridiculing its tenants, is to disqualify its most famous member, Mitt Romney, from the presidency.
Proclaiming Mr. Romney ineligible by virtue of his membership in the offending religion, voters have no choice but to cast their all-important vote for Virgil Goode of the liliputianous Constitution Party.
Follow the daily (hourly) threads exposing the evil transgressions of Donny and Marie's religion here on FR...you know what stinkers the Osmonds are!
At least now I can surmise where you are coming from with regards to mormonism.
Once again, a shunned individual can leave the faith without fear of being shot at. My former father-in-law was shunned and threatened regularly with death for his conversion to Christianity. He and his wife gave up wealth and standing to come to this country to be free to worship and raise their children as they saw fit.
So you have a hard time selling me that shunning is in any way comparable to a threat of death, since I have known very brave people who were willing to die for their faith.
None of you trolls are fooling anyone...with one possible exception.
I have an even more basic issue. A poster on this thread has staked the position that Mormonism is a graver threat than Islam. Having married into a family of Christian converts that fled a Muslim country over forty years ago to escape persecution and death threats, I find that position stupid and absurd.
A person who opposes the homosexual agenda isn't -- as the MSM & homosexual activists would have you believe -- anti-"homosexual."
To oppose their agenda -- even vociferously so -- doesn't make you against them as people.
Hence, you have bought the liberal & MSM lie & Mormon PR falsehood.
I agree completely with you. I even posted a pictoral essay to clarify that point at post #116.
Your presumption is inaccurate. There are hundreds if not thousands of people reading FR and with the plethora of mormon based propaganda now found on the internet, some of those lurkers/readers are being shown that there are reasons to not accept Salt Lake's party line.
There are a few former mormons who have been saved due to our activity, for which we praise God, but we are aware of the larger audience.
Bet the rent Mormons and most observers take anti MormonISM as anti Mormon especially when the distinction is attempted by
the chief tormentor in this Forum.
You see...Ann Romney became an apostate to her faith. She placed a cultist as a priority over what we the church are to place: Jesus Christ AS the bridegroom of the church.
_________________________________________
Ann Davies was only 15 and a pretty young empty headed thing when George Romney picked her out to be a future wife for his son Willard...
George took Ann into his own home and taught her how to be a good Mormon wife...
and cut her off from her family...
By the time Willard got back from his draft dodging trip to Paris, stars-in-her-eyes Ann was well on her way to being mind controlled and conformed to Mormonism...
How any self respecting woman would put up with her own parents being barred from seeing her married is no mystery...
Her parents were now “the enemy”...
George purposely picked a young one...
one who could be manipulated..
Ann has never had a life of her own outside Mormonism and wealth ever since...
What normal female would consider it a financial hardship to be in danger of having to sell some stock in order to keep the husband in college ???
What normal female would not have at least worked part time at McDonalds and yet be considered an expert on working mothers ???
What female would have NO underage children left in the home for more than FIFTEEN YEARS and yet be touted and champianed as a “stay-at-home-Mom ???
What female would look down on as less the women who have NO Choice but to work ???
Whaty female would try one-up-manship with working mothers by declaring “Well I have had my struggles too ya know> Cancer. MS” as though other women havent had the same challenges ...
and yet still worked...
didnt get to stay home...
or have the same expensive healthcare she had...
Thats Ann Davies Romney...
Thats the blind sheltered world she lives in...
Thata the phony world she lives in...
Never a part of the real world...
Granted other women not Mormon can think as dumb and act like that...
But thats Mormonism...
BTW Ann puts her expensive shoe in her mouth each time she opens it...
Willard should have asked Michele Bachmann to speak for working mothers...
at least she did work outside the home...
“No hate crazed pig like you can preach anything! You are like a shyster lawyer and the law.”
Oh, you were sooo close to a new record Ad Hominem attack score!
I suggest you might try working Hitler, Nazi or at least KKK into your attacks in order to push your score up into new record territory.
If you are going to ignore: facts, evidence and logic, you should go way bigger on the personal attacks.
So, we are responsible for the reaction by others to our posts?
You can bet the rent that when those 52,000 mormon missionaries knock on the doors of Christians, they take pro-mormon as anti-Christian.
Lecture the mormons.
I would say this is a fair assessment.
However, presuming that the Christian objective of the FMTS is to 'save' Mormon souls [there is no other reason to boldly proclaim the Gospel truth to others is there?], they might try a little different strategy, eh? I'm reminded of a couple of passages from the Bible .... If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. ... I Corinthians 13:1. ... but speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him who is the head, even Christ ... Ephesians 4:15
If you had a friend diagnosed with cancer but who refused to accept the diagnosis so they could begin accept to treatment, somehow, someway, that person has to be exposed to that which will bring them out of denial.
At some point, those around that person would need to stop enabling them in ways which foster their continuing to go on with business as usual...because, as we've seen, enabling behavior in lots of ways to certain lifestyles isn't very "loving" -- no matter how lovey-dovey it comes across.
You see, people seem to forget that tough love is still love. And you cite 1 Cor. 13, yet you somehow managed to leave out 1 Cor. 13:6: "Love rejoices in the truth."
Too many people tend to pit truth vs. love. But they are married; and like married couples, they will at times appear to be at odds with each other.
So...#1...We are not simply called to preach the Gospel, but together, the Law and Gospel, for its oft the Law that drives people TO the Gospel.
#2...You don't condemn Jesus for his "strategy" of how he spoke to the Pharisees and Teachers of the Law, do you?
In John 8, he labeled them as children of the devil. In Matthew 23, he labeled them those who traverse land and sea to make others "twice the son of hell." -- and called them whitewashed sepulcres -- clean on the outside; filthy on the inside.
You see, people don't realize that the "strategy" depends upon to whom you are talking. Jesus comforted the afflicted; and He afflicted the comfortable.
The religious Pharisees types he did the latter; others He did the former. Failure to distinguish these two oft' causes the errors of incomplete statements such as what you've given here.
If I was assigned a mission to Mormons, I'd prefer to live closer to SLC. If I was on a mission to Muslims, I'd prefer to live closer to Cairo.
Given that you Dirtboy have the relatives with a Coptic Christian background, I'd suggest that you live closer to Cairo for potential mission & ministry.
Given that I am the descendent of a Mormon polygamous leader, that I live closer to SLC for potential mission & ministry.
They are not Coptic and they voted with their feet decades ago to come here. Some folks understand a real threat to their freedom. Others are too confused to tell the difference.
Ok, who is the Virgil Goode person you keep talking about? I just looked at my ballot that came in the mail today and their name is not listed.
So who is he and why are you so focused on them?
GF is right: So we're responsible for the reactions of others? Plus, it's posters like yourself which have already tried to improperly reinforce this false notion of opposing an "ism" makes you against the person who holds it.
...especially when the distinction is attempted by the chief tormentor in this Forum.
You know, earlier this week I came across a book about Roman Catholic exorcists. I scanned thru it and noticed how the demonic entities were "tormented" about the presence of the applied cross.
Dark forces are obviously tormented by not only the cross, but by light -- by truth.
If I was to embrace the "need"/the "cause" to withhold truth...light...the proclamation of the cross according to which entities it "tormented," I'd have to go on quite a crusade of Bible-burning, book-burning, radio-and-TV preaching hounding, Internet censorship communist-style, etc.
Some folks understand a real threat to the soul. Others are too confused to tell the difference.
Yea, Debs. Who is he? Inquiring FReepers want to know. We need to compare him to Tom Hoefling. AND, does the Falcon Party have a nominee yet?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.