They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious Bigotry, alive and well today

“I wouldn’t vote for a Mormon for dogcatcher, much less President of the United States!” There’s a lot of that kind of hateful rhetoric going around since Mitt Romney decided to throw his hat in the ring – as if Mormons are some kind of hideous evil monsters. The loudest anti-Mormon shouts, sad to say, are coming from America’s so-called “Christian right”. How can Mitt Romney hope to get a fair shake in this spiritually polluted atmosphere?

There was another man running for President who faced the same dilemma – John F. Kennedy – only he was the target of anti-CATHOLIC bigotry. In his 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, JFK said the following: “. . .I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end - where all men and all churches are treated as equal - where man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice - where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind - and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their words in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.” John F. Kennedy Library & Museum (Speeches, 1960). By the way, if you listen to the audio version of JFK’s speech, you will hear the hurt and frustration in his voice and the unfair treatment surely must have caused many a sleepless night.

Fast forward to 2007 where JFK might as well have been “whistlin’ Dixie”. The hostility toward Mormons today, in my opinion, is even worse than that suffered by JFK. Although it is said that JFK lost about a million votes to religious intolerance, Romney stands to lose even more if the anti-Mormon evangelicals hang together.

According to Media Matters for America - “. . . a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media” - FOX News is not reporting accurately on the level of evangelical hostility to the Romney run. Media Matters for America points out that among evangelical leaders rejecting Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson (National Day of Prayer and Focus on the Family, respectively), the Southern Baptist Convention (collectively), Pat Robertson (Christian Broadcasting Network), and Dr. D. James Kennedy (Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida). “Among many conservative evangelicals – who comprise a significant part of the Republican base – Mormonism is considered an un-Christian cult.” Media Matters for America (2007)

While stumping in Florida, a man in the audience stood up during the Q&A portion and said the following to Romney: “You, sir, you’re a pretender. You do not know the Lord. You’re a Mormon.” Media Matters for America (2007). This is the kind of un-American, disrespectful treatment Mitt Romney will apparently have to endure throughout the entire campaign – as if just being a Mormon is reason enough to open the floodgates for free flow of pent-up hatred and vindictiveness.

For the record, the Mormon bashers know full well that the official name of Romney’s church is “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints” and the members should rightfully be called “members of the LDS Church” but the words “Mormon” and “Mormonism” have an aura of negativity so they prefer to use the “M” word as if it were dirty.

Less than five minutes cruising around the official LDS website (LDS.org) will show anyone who’s interested that the Church is a Christian organization, with Jesus Christ at the Head. There are no paid clergy – all are volunteers. Humanitarian aid is legendary. Members of the LDS Church believe in strong family values; they are patriotic, they are law-abiding upstanding citizens of their community. Many LDS young men right out of high school go on two-year missions – you know, the guys on bikes – and during their mission they don’t date, read newspapers, go to movies or watch TV; but rather they dedicate two years of their lives to serving others. Many women go on missions as well, and couples, only theirs is 18 months in length but the obligations are basically the same. Most members do not shop or go out to eat on Sundays – reminiscent of the good old days when shops and stores were closed in obedience to the Commandment, “Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy”. If they can help it, LDS Church members do not work on Sundays, either, preferring to spend the day at church and with their families. Church members are encouraged to store up a year’s supply of food and water so they will be able to care for their families in the event of an emergency. The LDS Church believes in self-sufficiency and self-reliance but in the event of a financial hardship the Church distributes food and supplies through their welfare (Bishop’s Storehouse) program. Members of the LDS Church do not drink alcohol nor do they use illicit drugs; they do not drink coffee and tea. A Mormon in good standing, therefore, will not be found in a drunken stupor puking her guts out at 3 a.m. anywhere in the world. Furthermore, members of the church are encouraged to dress modestly, be polite and courteous. And members of the LDS Church are faithful tithe payers. Come on, people, what’s not to love?

So what on earth is their beef, the anti-Mormon zealots? Why is there such disdain for the LDS Church and its members? In Hugh Hewitt’s book, “Mormon in the White House?” he states his thesis that the fierce anti-Mormon sentiment among main-stream Christians stems from one or two or all three of the following factors (in order of importance):

3) “If there is a Mormon in the White House, Salt Lake City will call the shots, at least on the biggest issues.” Hewitt (2007, p. 221-227)

Hugh Hewitt has written an exquisite book about the Romney campaign and overcoming the “Mormon problem.” It’s a good read and I highly recommend it. Of the three problem points listed in the previous paragraph, Hewitt believes – unless some unforeseen blunder destroys his chances – none of the three is insurmountable for Mitt Romney. (Plus, he has the best hair.)

Well, I’m no Hugh Hewitt, not even close; he’s an icon on the conservative radio talk show circuit. Hewitt could talk circles around me (I’ve seen him in action in Sacramento); he’s brilliant; he’s well educated, well read, no doubt a genius, plus he’s kind of cute. I’m basically a “nobody” – an overweight grandma – but after having researched for this paper, I have come to a totally different conclusion as to why there is such in-your-face angst over Romney’s religion of choice: It’s all about money, power and control (in that order). I think they’re (the evangelical religious bigots, that is) scared half to death and are revving up their attacks, not to save souls, but to save their reputations (which if tarnished would lead to financial ruin).

As I said, all one must do is browse around the LDS official web site to see what the LDS Church believes and stands for. Any reasonable person would conclude that Mormons are not evil monsters at all. In fact, they are God fearing, Christ believing, Holy Ghost following people going about doing good. “You will know them by their fruit” and the LDS has plenty of fruit and they are willing to share.

Earlier, I stated that some high-powered ministries have publicly condemned Mormons: Shirley and James Dobson, the Southern Baptist Convention, Pat Robertson, and Dr. D. James Kennedy – just to name a few. There are hoards of others. Sunday after Sunday, preachers, evangelists, reverends and ministers from all Christian denominations pound the pulpit with anti-Mormon rhetoric. I heard the message loud clear when I was a Baptist and when I tiptoed through evangelical/Pentecostal territories. Was I ever miffed when I later learned for myself the Gospel truth about the LDS Church.

Just think about it, please. If Dr. D. James Kennedy, for example, who wrote the book, The Wolves Among Us, were to admit he’d been wrong in labeling the LDS Church a “cult” that leads unwary ignorant people astray (to hell), what would become of his multi-million-dollar ministry? Suffice it to say, there’s big money to be had by sale of books, tapes, CD’s, videos, and other anti-Mormon propaganda, not to mention speaking engagements and world-wide religious crusades. We’re talking trillions, all told. I realize the anti-Mormon aspect of these ministries is but a small portion of the business, but if the truth came out, that they had been using falsehoods about the LDS Church as a cash cow, their entire empires could tumble.

The ABC News program 20/20 aired on March 23, 2007, exposed the lavish lifestyles of some of the top evangelical preachers – million dollar mansions and personal jets. ABC News - 20/20 (2007) (Again, the LDS Church has no paid clergy.)

It’s nothing new. Severe harassment and persecution has been the lot of the LDS Church since it’s inception in 1820 when a 14-year-old boy named Joseph Smith saw visions and communed with heavenly beings. Rather than discuss the spiritual aspects of the LDS Church, however, let’s stick to facts of history. Taken from a college-level early American history textbook, Joseph Smith, upon experiencing the visions and visitations, believed “that God had work for me to do, and that my name should be for good and evil among all nations, kindreds and tongues.” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 292). The textbook continues, “They were met with hostility virtually everywhere they went . . . . As the movement gathered momentum, hundreds of people joined the church; entire congregations of churches of other faiths joined . . .” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 293)

During the dark time of American history when slavery was flourishing and when Native Americans were forced from their lands, the pioneers of the LDS Church also suffered at the hands of unscrupulous politicians, governmental leaders, and angry hate-filled mobs. “In the face of relentless persecution, Joseph Smith, the founder of the church, had led his flock to Illinois. There they had established the town of Nauvoo, which by the mid-1840’s had become the largest city in Illinois with over 15,000 people. . . In June 1844, a mob of non-Mormons broke into the jail where Smith was being held and killed both him and his brother. . .The Mormons abandoned Nauvoo in the spring of 1846 as anti-Mormons pounded the town with cannon, destroying the Great Temple. In a well-coordinated migration, 15,000 Mormons moved in stages to the Great Salt Lake.” Ayers, Gould, Oshinsky, and Soderlund (2004, p. 334-335) Many walked all the way and many died along the way, including innocent babes.

Joseph Smith at one time was tarred and feathered by a mob. No jury, no trial, no judge – and they had planned to castrate him, too. On October 27, 1838, the then governor of Missouri issued an “extermination order”: “The Mormons must be treated as enemies, and must be exterminated or driven from the State if necessary . . .” Far West History (n.d.) Please note that the order called for exterminating “Mormons” making no distinction between men, women and children, and indeed women and children were subject to the extermination order.

In an event known in LDS history as “the Haun’s Mill Massacre”, precipitated by the extermination order, 30 to 40 LDS families were surprised by some 200 to 250 militia. After the smoke cleared, seventeen LDS people lay dead including a ten-year-old boy. Thirteen LDS members were wounded including a woman and a seven-year-old boy. “A few Missourians returned the next day and took plunder.” LDS FAQ (n.d.) No Missouri militiamen were killed but three were wounded. Just a few years earlier, the LDS folk who died that day had been members of other churches - Congregational or Methodist or Baptist or Presbyterian.

In l976, Governor Bond of Missouri officially rescinded the extermination order and presented apologies for the “unfortunate developments” it caused. Quoting from Governor Bond’s Executive Order: “WHEREAS, Governor Boggs’ order clearly contravened the rights to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and . . . Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering rescind Executive Order Number 44 dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor W. Boggs. . .” Far West History (n.d.) The individuals who harassed, abused, and even murdered Mormons in cold blood were never tried for their crimes.

I read Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail and it really touched my heart. There he was, suffering for the Lord in jail, and these religious leaders with highfalutin titles on the outside wrote an open letter (“A Call for Unity”) in which they criticize King’s tactics and basically blame King for the racial turmoil of the time. Though you can tell King is upset and hurt by the attack – made worse because he’s stuck in jail and can’t confront the religious leaders face-to-face – his response is gentle genius. “I wish you had commended the Negro sit-inners and demonstrators of Birmingham for their sublime courage, their willingness to suffer, and their amazing discipline in the midst of great provocation. One day the South will recognize its real heroes.” Barnet and Bedau (2005, p. 881)

King has a few choice words for the Church, too: “If today’s church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.” Barnet and Bedau (2005, p. 880)

There’s an eerie commonality between what JFK and MLK endured at the hands of the religious bigots of their day and what Mitt Romney is facing today. I hope and pray that Romney will be able to fend off these undeserved attacks from the religious hypocrites with the same grace, dignity and God-inspired resolve displayed by the other two.

A few popular bumper stickers read: “Honk if you love Jesus” and “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven” or “Jesus is my co-pilot”. Yet, apparently, these same bumper-sticker Christians are the ones waging war against Mitt Romney’s run for the Presidency solely on the basis of his chosen faith in a Church that bears the name of the Savior of the world.

ABC News - 20/20 (2007). Philanthropic donations come from your heart, but where do they end up? Ex-money manager says "enough!" to secretive Christian Ministry spending. Glenn Ruppel & John Stossel. United States: ABC News.

Ayers, E. L., Gould, L. L., Oshinsky, D. M., & Soderlund, J. R. (2004). American Passages - a history of the United States - Volume I: to 1877 (2nd ed.). Belmont, California: Thomson/Wadsworth.

Barnet, S., & Bedau, H. (2005). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Current Issues and Enduring Questions - a guide to critical thinking and argument, with readings (7th ed., pp. 867-882). Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Far West History. (n.d.). The Extermination Order and how it was rescinded. Retrieved April 28, 2007, from http://www.jwha.info/mmff/exorder.htm

Hewitt, H. (2007). A Mormon in the White House? 10 things every American should know about Mitt Romney. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc.

John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum. (1960, September 12). Address of Senator John F. Kennedy to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://www.jfklibrary.org

Lds Faq. (n.d.). What was the Haun's Mill Massacre? Retrieved April 28-2007, 2004, from Brigham Young University Web Site: http://ldsfaq.byu.edu/view.asp?q=57

Media Matters for America. (2007). Fox News whitewashes evangelical hostility to Romney's faith. Retrieved April 22, 2007, from http://mediamatters.org/items/printable/200702280002

“But you do agree that Joseph Smith (the Prophet) taught that, don’t you?”

He is quoted as saying that, but that is not that same as setting down doctrine by revelation. You misunderstand prophets if you think that every word they utter is supposed to be the Lord’s Own Gospel.

If they receive something by revelation, they make it very clear that they are speaking in the Lord’s name. When that happens, we are invited to confirm those words by the Spirit. There is no such thing as blind faith in the Lord’s Church.

However, Joseph did have an exceeding understanding of the nature of God; it is a quote worthy of consideration for our own understanding, and is a reason that I hold an OPINION that is in line with the quote.

“And you do agree that the LDS Church has not repudiated that teaching, don’t you?”

As far as I’m aware, the LDS Church has neither confirmed nor repudiated the quote.

“And you also agree that the things that the LDS Church has taught you are entirely consistent with that “teaching” of Joseph Smith”

No, I do not. But then, the study of that area of theological theory is not high on my priority list. I’m still trying to figure out faith. I’m guessing I should have that one down in another century or three.

What I do know is that God created me so that I could have the opportunity to learn to be more like Him; like a father raising a child, I have been given all the tools I need to eventually develop and grow until I am ready to receive “all that He hath.”

I can only ASSUME (my opinion) that God has placed me on the same path that He followed at some point in His existence. How long ago? Well, what is time to God? From our perspective, He has existed for eternity - a concept the mortal mind is incapable of truly grasping. Frankly, since it doesn’t matter to my own efforts to follow Jesus and serve God, I don’t think about it much.

Comment on my answer all you want; but let’s hold a discussion and engage in the exchange of ideas. I do not seek a monopoly on thought here; but I will not go in circles with you.

Wow, you can really sow unrelated scriptures together!

I am impressed, unfortunately, as soon as I started reading your collection of scriptures, I was struck by how forced the union (pun intended) of these into "We are Jesus’ brides".

Look, I am a Guy, and the idea of being someone’s bride, well, it’s not appealing, if that’s heaven, package me up and send me to hell.

So the first parable is about being prepared.
The Second parable is about being true to your covenants
The third parable is about the patriarchal order of the family.
The fourth is about the members being ready in the last days
The fifth Scripture is about Jesus’ second coming an him taking possession of the government.
The sixth is one scripture about the church delivering living waters to any who thirst and is the only scripture in the whole chapter that uses the word bride.

I would advise all LDS to stop this mega plan of future "two-timing" on Jesus Christ

Of course you would, base on your irrefutable collection of scriptures, who can resist?

(our relationship to Him and to our spouse in heaven). The heavenly family is forever, yes. But it's one family. Families within THE FAMILY. But Jesus will be our only spouse.

I disagree, you see this world is a type and a shadow, and everything in this world, even the scriptures themselves when not assembled in such a ridiculous fashion refute the very essence of what you are saying.

He's enough. We won't (and don't) need any other. Our security and dependency and relationship of knowing is with Him.

We should indeed have a relationship with him, but it is not that he will be my bridegroom, he is my savior, my God, not my husband.

OK, from the myriad of posts lambasting me for casting doubts on greyfoxx’s motives and honesty in her replies, I’m saving myself about a 100 posts. If I don’t respond to you directly, it’s because I have already done so with this post, and tonight I don’t plan to stay up till 2am. (It’s likely to get me in trouble on other posts) I can thus do a preemtive strike and answer all the accusations of lying, spinning, hamster dancing, etc, etc, etc.

I said up front earlier that I didn’t want to point out these, but my hand has been forced, so be it.

These posts are why I doubted greygfoxx being a member:

771 – “"If you are not a temple recommend holder you can not take part in the required rituals that will enable you to enter the “Celestial Kingdom” or Heaven as most Christians know it”"

This is clearly not true. A person who is familiar with LDS teachings knows that baptism is absolutely the only ordinance necessary to enter the celestial Kingdom. The ordinances of the temple are required to be exalted to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom (D&C 131), or the “third heaven” that Paul speaks of. (2 Corinthians 12)

793 - “"tithing settlement” - What is the purpose of this meeting and are you required to bring documents to substantiate your adherence to the 10% requirement?"

A member or former member would also know this is false. The fact that you were asking this question made me think you had never gone to a tithing settlement, and thus not a member.

793 – “"You have agreed that the full tithe is required in order to partake of the full blessings offered by temple ordinances.
Sounds like a bill to me."”

Again, referencing a bill made me wonder how you understood the principle of LDS tithing.

813 - "Then I must have been misinformed by members who told of taking income and tax statements to the tithing settlement, right?"

Again, referencing other’s experiences, not your own. Why take stories of members, if you’ve experienced the Tithing Settlement yourself?

1237 - "I have often wondered about this: All the temple ordinances are required for one to enter the “celestial kingdom”"

Another example of why I posted above to #771

1237 - "All the ordinances are indeed needed before one can get to the “celestial kingdom”. If the mormons are baptizing people after they die to provide them with the chance at salvation thru their temple rituals, and tithing is required of living members to obtain same, how do they collect the tithe from the dead?"

Ditto to above. Plus, not understanding the principles of Baptism for the dead and salvation by the required ordinance of Baptism unto Christ to enter Heaven, or the Celestial Kingdom.

Now, that all said, if you were just misinformed, or less active, that would also explain your lack of understanding of these LDS doctrines. So would "baiting" Not knowing you or your story well enough, I can't speculate any more, so I'm sorry if I sullied your intent.

No, unfortunately we are not all on the same side. There is absolute truth, and whatever doesn’t agree with it is not truth, but falsehood.

Who is to determine this absolute truth? Are you saying you are the arbiter of absolute truth? If not why does your opinion (or perspective) carry more weight than mine?

My philosophy teacher once told me that in matters of opinion, I am always right.

There is no “kinda halfway truth.” If orthodox Christianity is true (which I believe it is), then anything that is not orthodox Christianity is not true but is falsehood.

Conversely, if orthodox Christianity is false, (which I believe it is), then anything that is part of the orthodoxy is not true, but is falsehood

“It is a poor knife that will not cut both ways” – The analects of Confucius.

If a group of people call themselves Christians, but do not believe the Bible, and add their own writings like the BOM to the Bible, and hold beliefs that are not based on the Bible, and believe in a prophet that is not in the Bible, and have a different means of salvation than that which is found in the Bible, and have a different view of God than that revealed in the Bible, etc., then it misrepresents Christianity.

Nice run on sentence, I wish I could ramble like that, wait… Mormonism is completely supportable from the bible. It is not provable from the bible, but supportable, hten agin orthodoxy is not provable from the bible either, but it is also supportable orthere would not have been a need for a vote. The “View of God you hold to did not become “Orthodox until in AD 325 a pagan emperor called a council at Nice to put down the schisms in the early Christian church and have them come up with a dogma that would be acceptable to his fractured Roman empire. Constantine was no more interested in “Truth” than my Dog is. He was interested in the political ramifications of Christianity. Here, Go read all about it in the Catholic encyclopedia online, they have lots of records there about the early church. You might learn something; I know I have from that site.

It also confuses people as to what Christianity is, and what orthodox Christians believe.

I think you should not worry about that so much, the world knows what orthodox Christians believe. As a missionary in Taiwan, the first thing I had to do was teach people orthodoxy so I could explain why we were different. Most the people I taught had such a bad image of “Orthodoxy” that they would not talk to us until we explained that we were not Protestants or Catholics. You are well known by your fruits

Jesus said he is the way, the truth, and the life. There is no other way. There is no other truth. There is no other life.

Which is precisely why you should listen to us, but you won’t.

I imagine it is confusing for Mormons who are taught that they are Christians, or are taught some of the beliefs of Christianity, and therefore consider themselves Christians.

Yeah, It’s tough to believe something and have someone come up and tell you that they know you don’t really believe it in a supercilious tone and with mock sympathy commiserate about the pain they are causing you. It’s really tough to remain civil, but that is the only reason I can think of someone would do that, to make it “tough”.

Like I said in another post, Mormons don’t get to decide if they are Christians or not, orthodox Christians get to decide if Mormons are or not, and they are not, I am sorry to say.

ROTFLOL!

Who made you Mother Teresa for a day?

You know she is a lady I can respect, she would never say the things you are saying, she would be polite.

I really hate to burst your bubble, well actually I don’t but I will try to be nice about it. Look at it as medicine. It does not matter how many councils are called, or votes are taken. Jesus decides who the sheep are and who the goats are. Orthodoxy is not worth the paper it’s written on.

You do realize that Jesus was convicted of heresy, right? What is heresy, it is being unorthodox. I wonder how you would have voted if you were on the Sanhedrin? (I ask myself the same question sometimes so do not be offended by this)

Why do Mormons want to be considered Christians?

Why do you want to be considered female? Because you are. Same for us, because we believe in Jesus Christ, he is our savior and our redeemer!

And if you know that LDS is not orthodox Christianity, does it bother you to be “unorthodox”?

Not even remotely. The nature of God will not be determined by a vote of men no matter how learned, but will only be revealed from him to us as we humble ourselves and ask for the knowledge.

By orthodox, I mean the basic, fundamental beliefs of a religion. If one doesn’t accept these, then they necessarily do not believe in that religion, but in an adulteration of that religion or in some other religion entirely.

If you are going to say orthodox, mean orthodox. Don’t try to invent some new definition of the word that just bastardizes it. (which is what you are accusing us of doing to Christianity.)

“Be consistent, or be quiet”. (My dad used to say that)

I will sum up with, if you think you can determine if my heart belongs to Jesus, you have a pride problem. No one can know that for sure but Jesus himself and Me.

Who taught you that God "was a “man” on another planet who “became” God after going through a mortal test on an earth like ours?".

The Holy Ghost testified of the truthfulness the first time I read it. He never lies to me. Men do lie to me. Are you a man?

Is that something that the LDS Church taught you?

The church did indeed introduce me to the concept,but the Holy Ghost is my teacher here.

How did you come to that opinion?

Direct revelation is not opinion, unless you would say that it is your opinion that Jesus is the Christ. I however would go further than that.

Scripture? Tradition? A burning busom? A Doctrinal Book published by Deseret Book Company? Joseph Smith? Brigham Young? Milton Hunter?

the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy direct revelation taught me, not just some feeling or burning. This is the same method by which Peter knew Jesus was the Christ, this is the cornerstone of the church of Jesus Christ.

Is there any other church on the face of the earth other than the LDS Church that believes that?

There was, but it fell into apostasy.

So you believe that God the Father is the "head God" of the council of the Gods on Kolob?

No one said where it was held that I remember.

Is that what the Mormon Church teaches?

The Mormon Church really does not spend a lot of time here as it is not necessary to our salvation. You keep claiming to want clarity, then you run for the corner. He light in any room is better out near the center. I can see why you fell away from the church, if this is how you reason. Tell me, what was it that eventually split you off from the church? Was it questions like these? Gospel Brain teasers if you will?

So did you sit on the "Council of the Gods" in the beginning, when "the head of the gods called a council of the gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and (the) people in it."

I don’t think I would use the word concocted, but it fits you r methodology here.

Were you there? Were you sitting on the council? Were you a god then? How did you vote?

Well, apparently we both voted to come down and get bodies so we could be more like God the father. (I think we all kind of idolize him, you know?)

Your questions are really stilted, you should work on that.

That is quite an inherently flawed argument and the reason we believe Mormons will spin anything. If Hitler said he was a Christian, by your logic we would have no right to cull him from the Church.

Certainly, cull him from the church, but leave the judgment of whether or not he is a Christian up to Jesus. Kick him from FastCoyoteism as fast as you want for whatever you want, heck excommunicate me too If that trips your trigger.

There is a big difference between a church and a faith, we have faith in Jesus Christ and since you cannot tell if we really do or not, decorum demands that you give us the benefit of the doubt and accept our assertions that we believe what we say we believe.

God decides who gets into heaven, but we have free will to decide what is right and wrong. Myself, and many others, believe Mormons are false prophets, we would be wrong not to speak up.

Great, speak up, isn’t that what you are doing here?

Just remember this, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Basically your right to speak is not absolute. And you have no right to be heard. You may speak, I may listen, or ignore. You may not insist that I agree with you. You may not speak for me, or anyone else, without my/their permission. And lastly, this is not a public place, there are Mods and it belongs to Jim Robinson. I always like to think of myself as his guest. Any guest in my house who uses inappropriate language will be shown the door. I expect no less from the Mods of this forum.

It is my considered opinion, that you are wrong in your assessment of my faith, for I believe in Jesus Christ, he is my savior and king, in him only I have hope for my salvation for he is mighty to save. He can even save me, and that my FRiend takes might.

Y'all have some issues.

We are not alone.

I have never, unlike a good many on this thread, attacked a single Mormon theological doctrine.

Yet you spend time trying to tell me (in abeyance of the facts) that The BOM could not possibly be true because of DNA evidence? I could question whether or not you have a strong relationship with reality here.

I happen to think some are a little odd, but doctrines generally do look odd to outsiders.

On this I would have to agree.

I believe every single post I have made has been objecting to attempts to deny or change historical facts to protect the reputation of "The Church," or the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon or in the service of the odd Mormon fixation on getting in on the victim as saint business by portraying their early history as one of totally unprovoked persecution like that of the early Christians.

Funny, all I was doing was refuting Badly applied science which didn’t “Prove” the BOM wrong any more than not finding gold in your garden does.

Y'all are absolutely entitled to your own doctrines.

Why thank you, you can believe whatever you want too.

I don't care what kind of underwear you wear (or indeed whether you wear any),

I do, I get chafed otherwise, but that’s not a good topic for this forum…

and I don't care whether you think you will become Gods in the afterlife, and I don't care if your definition of the Trinity differs from that of most Christians or if you practiced polygamy in the past. We will all someday find out who's right about these issues, and I suspect all of us will find out we are at least partially wrong.

Undoubtably.

I do object to attempts to justify mass murder and betrayal, and to attempts to hide or distort historical facts to promote an inaccurate picture of past events.

I have never tried to do so, I have not accepted some evidence, and have expressed the opinion that there are some things we will never know. However, I have not tried to cover anything up. Denial of reality is the very essence of lunacy, and I will be sane.

I'll even give you the whole Indians as Jews business.

They are not Jews, but descendants of Joseph

That is so ludicrous to anyone who has studied pre-Columbian history that it is self-refuting. But there are very dangerous distortions about my history, the history of America, being promoted by some Mormons, and I will fight those.

Fine, I am not trying to edit history (or herstory either for you feminists out there)

I will, however, try to fight fair. I don't think anybody can review my posts and legitimately accuse me of attacking your religion.

This is where we part company, for what you have not perceived to be an attack has been felt as one. That is the whole victim, attacker thing that has been going on here. Statements that I see as harmless are taken as an attack on history, and statements that you see as harmless I see as an attack on my religion.

It’s all about perspective, you can’t see mine, and I can’t fully see yours.

Everybody is entitled to his own opinion (or doctrine). Nobody is entitled to his own facts.

On this I agree, the problem is with such different perspectives, which of us blind men feeling of the elephant is actually describing the whole thing?

None of us is.

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.