Did SOMEone say, "BANK"?
Posted on 05/24/2011 4:07:08 PM PDT by ken5050
As for recalling missionaries and basically committing spiritual harry carry as a way to get you to stop attacking us, well it's not going to happen. you have really strange ideas about what we do. Ideas that I would never describe as “accurate” BTW.
as for asked to leave, I was speaking my opinion, of what kind of things should get a person banned. If asked to leave by Jim, I will. Until then you'll just have to put up with my sporadic appearances.
Delph
Your goal is to get your jolies... [says Cantabile, not just judging outward behavior but inward motivations]
Haven't you ever read 1 Samuel 16:7 which talks about how man looks at the outward, but only God sees the heart? My. How do you do it?
How do you manage to judge internal motivations?...and then complain four graphs later about "judging?"
What? Do you use a magic 8-ball to judge internal motivations?
A personalized urim & thummim?
Why do you feel threated by the LDS? If they come to your door, all you need do is tell them you're not interested. That's what I do, and I do the same when the JW's show up.
Cantabile, why do you feel threatened by those who oppose LDS? If they post on a thread, all you need to do is not respond. Or is it that your advice is so weak that you can't live on it yourself?
If you want to know how to deal with Mormons, all you need do is consider the example of Jesus confronting the Samaritan woman at the well. Did He trash her beliefs? Did he condemn her as a heretic? No, he treated her with the respect due to every human being, and thereby convinced her that He had the words of everlasting life.
Massive confusion of audience. When the apostle Paul dealt with pagans, like Acts 17 on Mars Hill, he was "distressed" it says. He realized how afflicted they were by so many gods. He sought commonality with the "unknown god." He was patient with them.
Same chapter. Acts 17:2 re: how Paul dealt with Jews in the Synagogue. He reasoned with them. Same with Acts 18 (reasoned with them). In Acts 19:8, he "argued persuasively" with them...
Jesus was likely MUCH more forceful with the legalistic Pharisees. He labeled them children of Satan (John 8); he called them inward sepulcres (tombstones).
Today, Mormons are among the leading legalists of our times. Most fit in the Pharisee category, not your woman at the well. The woman at the well had five husbands and was living with another man. Does that sound like your average Mormon?
May I suggest you study God's Word a bit more before you try to export faulty applications?
And I will give this place not one penny until the bashing stops. ("Except, of course, the bashing I, Cantabile, pour out on others...calling them torturers, tormenters, superimposing imagined motivations such as 'jollies' and insecurity, bashing posters as 'disgraceful...hate(rs)' etc...Of course, that's allowed because I, Cantabile have paid for a license that gives me a right to bash!")
Did SOMEone say, "BANK"?
Exposing people's HERETIC religion WOULD tend to torment them; wouldn't it!
Galatians 5:12
And I would be one of the first to endorse your right to exercise your discretion in the ballot box, so what’s your point?
Oh?
I am VERY 'secure'. Secure in the FACT that false teaching is COMMANDED to be exposed and rooted out.
If that ain't your thing; I have no problems with you.
But when you try to say that it CAN'T be MY thing; then we DO have problems.
When the facts are with you; argue the evidence.
When they are not; argue the law.
I really am not trying to convince MORMONs.
They are VERY sure that they are right.
I am merely presenting the OTHER side of the story. The one that MORMONism does NOT want to be heard.
If FR is not your cup of tea, you can leave any time you wish.
Bah!
Emma had THAT beat!
52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to brejoice.
Yup!
Those were the days all right!
The ones BEFORE Tweety and Twitter and Facebook.
THAT’S where they’ve all gone!
So. You're trying to be "nicer than Jesus?" Have you read Matthew 23 lately? John 8? A whole host of other interactions Jesus had with the legalists of His day?
Have you ever heard the phrase, comfort the afflicted; and afflict the comfortable?
Do you believe Jesus practiced that? If the comfortable do not believe they have cancer, will they seek a physician?
Did not Jesus say only those who have need of a Physician seek Him? Do not we all have spiritual cancer?
Do not Mormons say they are literal spiritual children of a god who are sent to this planet to inhabit bodies and don't take on sin til age 8? Doesn't that mean they don't see themselves as having a special sin nature? Doesn't that mean -- since they are also taught from youth that they are "gods in embryo" -- that given their "god" course that they don't need to embrace the cross?
If you think you are a god or are becoming one, doesn't your pride need to be addressed? Maybe even "afflicted" -- so that you'll seek the Great Physician, after all?
I would like to see FR return to its position as a viable, influential political forum, not the refuge of certain privileged bigots
For those who delight in calling us "bigots", I sometimes wonder if people calling others "intolerant" are trying to showcase their "tolerance" or rather their "intolerance" of others? (I think FR poster, Osage Orange summed this up well one time with a Q to a poster: "I guess that makes you an anti-anti-Mormon bigot, eh?")
In light of the origin of the word "bigot" I find all this a bit ironic. Originally, the word “bigot” was developed in a Catholic context & wasn't originally aimed at anyone outside of a historic Christian (Catholic) context.
"Bigot" is etymologically tied to "Beguines." It's a French word, and was used abusively for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood, with the meaning of attaching "excessive devotion" to this sisterhood...(yeah, the devoted do get slapped around a bit). So, yes, in one way the original meaning of that word has survived as it's tied to perceived intolerance. (I don’t know if the Beguines were actually intolerant or not). The Beguines were probably at least perceived as practicing "spiritual one-upsmanship"--and others didn't like it--they felt looked down upon. Perhaps they felt scorned because such sisterhoods tended to isolate themselves more and because of that, the Beguines perhaps were perceived as being spiritually snooty (we simply don't like how excessively devoted they were).
But to wind this back to what I said. "Bigot" is originally tied to "excessive devotion." I suppose it's possible that the Beguines were indeed "excessively devoted." (It's also just as possible that the other Catholics' perception were largely wrong...but once a reputation develops...). But let's just say they were excessively devoted. If that's the name-slinging you wish to engage in, Cantabile, I'll just take the high road and claim a historical context.
But if you want to insist on the full contemporary usage of that term -- that "bigot" means "intolerant" -- then you need to answer Osage Orange's q I cited. Because aren't you showing religious intolerance toward us? On what grounds is your "intolerance" so "allowable" (& therefore elitist, IMA), whereas anyone else's perceived "intolerance" is called into question?
Did SOMEone say, "MILLET"?
On the other hand from the viewpoint of a Western Christian or Mormon, finding any difference between Taoists and Buddhists is equally difficult.
Getting beyond the problem of observation from afar there's this problem of self-depiction. The current Mormon church (in all it's many manifestations ~ hundreds of groups) is made up mostly of CONVERTS who were used to calling themselves Christian.
I think that explains a lot of it.
A buddy of mine in the Army became a Mormon because tithing (and its promise) was less costly than a comparable insurance policy. I'm sure he still thinks of himself as a Christian ~ but I never did. He's kind of like Milo Minderbender in Catch 22.
Well; he 'translated' the BIBLE as well!
|
Color coding explanation:
Added stuff... Changed stuff... Rearranged stuff... Removed stuff...
*(UNDERLINED stuff is the DISTRACTING reference on every fifth word that infuses LDS 'scripture' online.)
|
No; you got it wrong AGAIN!
The REASON is that MORMONism is PERFECT Christianity (Headquarters says so), thus, any NEED or TENDENCY for VIOLENCE is removed from the pure love that is MORMONism.
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.