Posted on 11/13/2014 8:53:33 AM PST by greyfoxx39
Yes, they believe differently than you do. They're allowed to. Get over it.
Well, darn!
Its not about polygamy;
Liberal democrats are the conservative enemy, causing great harm to our country.
Mormons generally, with exceptions like Harry Reid, are conservative, on our side and in fact participants here.
Theologically they are wrong.
The way they live and contribute to society is more positive than negative.
Olog has made good comments in this regard.
So, I think your analogy is flawed, but I also think your premise is flawed.
I don’t think many people post obsessive highly emotional threads about liberal Democrats. We post objective analytical criticisms not meant to drum up visceral responses but to engender rational objective thinking on which policies and philosophies are best for the country.
One more thing, re this:
“Funny how only Mormonism is defended in this common fashion.”
Whom do you think has defended Mormonism on this thread?
I don’t see anyone defending Mormonism.
I have heard of Mormon mass murders, though...
If your primary concern is for the temporal world, why are you posting in the RF where our primary concern is with the eternal?
LOL, we have seen that on the Rommney threads for years by guys taking on the thread all day long, fighting, hijacking, and arguing to defend him, "I'm not defending him".
This is the religion section of freerepublic.
Religion is the topic.
ALL: Note a few things that can be derived from this Mormon poster in just 13 words uttered:
1. He says "probably Isaac as well" because he likely knows (it's been pointed out before to him on FR) that Isaac's alleged "polygamy" status is NOWHERE to be found in the Bible...and it's solely based upon Joseph Smith erroneously saying so in Lds "scripture" -- Doctrine & Covenants 132:37...which Joseph Smith singlely wrote to convince his first wife, Emma, that all these extra lovers was dictated to him by his Mormon gods. (And yes, Smith uses "gods" plural in that very "revelation"...see vv. 19-20)
So what's QUITE telling here is that even Teppe the supposedly faithful Mormon doesn't take Joseph Smith at face value anymore! Here, D&C132:37 clearly tosses Isaac into the polygamy ring...and Teppe can only conclude it was a "probable" thing.
You see, Joseph Smith did& said so many unbelievable/disbelievable things that even the faithful wain!
2. The Book of Mormon uses anachronisms...for example, "church" is "ecclesia" ... Greek... and is found in the New Testament, written in Greek. Jesus first used that term in Matthew 18. But the Book of Mormon frequently uses the word in its alleged B.C. books.
Well, likewise, Teppe uses "Christianity" -- which essentially assumes a New Testament-timed Christ who came incarnated...and then says its founders were all Old Testament figures. (Go figure)
Then, if you take a look at the next 19 words by Teppe -- they too are of special interest: "You should probably find another religion. Obviously, God does not look at polygamy in the same way you do."
Why?
3. If you go to this thread, LDS.ORG Essay on Nauvoo Polygamy: What did Readers Expect? [LDS apologist on church admissions] -- and click on the original link written by a Mormon apologist from FAIR...Lds' foremost apologetics group...you will find Brian Hales saying:
"In lauding the Churchs effort to explain this difficult topic, some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not. On earth, polygamy expands a mans sexual and emotional opportunities as a husband as it simultaneously fragments a womans sexual and emotional opportunities as a wife. The practice is difficult to defend as anything but unfair and at times emotionally cruel...The essay explains that plural marriage was an excruciating ordeal for Emma...
So here the Mormon apologists are out there conceding polygamy is...
..."an excruciating ordeal" (note the word "excruciating" is tied to the word "crucifix")
..."unfair"
..."emotionally cruel"
...and then...on top of that...
...Hale adds:
"...some may assume that in defending the essay we are in fact defending polygamy. We are not."
Well, Brian...when you have Mormons like Teppe making comments like he does in this & other threads (& he's far from being the ONLY Mormon doing that)...
Imagine being at a debate & hearing such a command of such rhetoric from his lips!!! ROTFL :)
I don’t really pay much attention to which forum a post is in.
I do, though, think my reaction is within RF if one has to dissect it.
My comment is to the effectiveness of the presentation.
And about the anonymous writer’s spirit.
A lot of atheists or ex-religionists obsess and emotionally involve themselves in the object of their scorn.
I rather question whether the ex-Catholic who spends all his time and emotional and intellectual energy on the Catholic Church really has left the church rather than just changed the nature of his association.
Same for the Atheist obsessed with finding weird things in the Bible.
This seems like that sort of thing.
I see that YOU still have the memo; too!
Office of First President & Living Prophet®: February 2nd, 2014
URGENT! It's been noted there has been a DRASTIC falloff in the number of MORMONs who actually can (or will) engage in opposing ANTIs on FreeRepulic (spit!) I am forced to re-issue and old memo you all received about 3 years ago.
|
ifinnegan hasn't created an about page.
If religion is the topic it could have fooled mr.
It seems the topic is American history and about current sociology-political issues.
Still, i hear you and feel my responses are Within the Religion topic.
Getting a little personal there, aren't you? This IS the religion forum!
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.