Posted on 05/04/2007 5:46:36 AM PDT by Saundra Duffy
They Shoot Mormons, Don't They? Religious bigotry, alive and well today
May 4, 2007 - by Saundra Duffy-Hawkins
“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):
1) “It is just too weird.
2) “A Mormon president will supercharge Mormons’ missionary work.
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)
King signs off with “Yours for the cause of Peace and Brotherhood”.
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.
References
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
I meant to include you in the post #1763, but I did not, I apologize.
“Now you must accept me as a valid candidate for POTUS, since I am a Christian. Right?”
Well, I’d probable vote for you if you ran. Maybe I can incorporate your new religion in my new religion.
“Please explain how he would be president of 10 years...”
2 years of nomination campaign plus 8 years presidency, sorry to be unclear.
“And all so you can slip your Trojan horse into a position of power.”
[If there was any evidence of this, you would have seen it in Mass.]
I see evidence right here in the dissembling of the apologists.
“Why on earth would we want to have a murder implement used to kill someone we love around, I suppose if your mother was killed by a gun, you’d hang it from your neck with a gold chain.
That is how the cross is seen by some Mormons. You won’t see them on our buildings, it has nothing to do with Baal.”
Oh, but it has a lot to do with Baal. You worship Josph Smith so much that you can’t bare the thought of giving up his occult rituals.
Always a slippin and a slidin, never a straight answer.
“He is quoted as saying that, but that is not that same as setting down doctrine by revelation. “
Hoo Yeah, a slippin and a slidin.
The prophets of Mormonism are divinely inspired truth - unless they aren’t divinely inspired truth. And sometimes we have revelations that what WAS divinely inpired truth (like blacks being the son’s of Caine) aren’t real revelation.
I’m going to try to write that line into business contracts with mormons. This contract is binding, unless I decide it wasn’t binding. That’s the ticket.
“FastCoyote your whole premise is off kilter
and than you want the LDS to defend your strawman. “
Ummm, sure. That’s a new tactic, posting a little graphic rather than explaining why my premise would be a strawman. I guess now I could post a picture of someone kissing my butt, and that would win the argument???
You have to do better than this restornu. Quote me out of context, give me something to work with 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.”
Whooo Hoo, here comes the threats to the mods. I guess you’ve used that before effectively to stifle debate once your usual spin stops working.
You always know when someone has lost the debate when they start claiming the other side used “inappropriate language” while not providing any quotes! And if I am corrected by the Mods, I will gladly follow their lead, but in general it is hard to take me to task because I’m generally quoting from Mormon source material.
But, I guess if you aren’t man enough to debate mano a mano without crying to the Mods and playing victim, it means your position is pretty weak.
I’ve been called everything from a bigot, to “loony grey matter” by you guys and I’ve laughed it off and provided counter examples without crying Mommy to the Mods. Wonder if you are strong enough to do the same.
“Just remember this, your right to swing your arm ends at the tip of my nose. Basically your right to speak is not absolute.”
Pretty interesting how you’ve conflated physical violence with free speech. I’ve never threatened any violence, it’s not in my nature, though I’ve been threatened by Mormons before. If my right to speak is not absolute, then neither is yours, but I would have thought you were strong enough to survive rigorous debate. If you aren’t strong enough, please let me know and I will avoid you.
“And you have no right to be heard.”
I think that is the point of your diatribe, shutting me up because it’s too hard to argue with my points. Much easier to try and get someone banned, you can just feel the frustration.
“You may speak, I may listen, or ignore.”
I sure haven’t held a steel bow to your head making you type your replies to me.
“You may not insist that I agree with you.”
Please provide a reference to where I said that. chirp chirp
“You may not speak for me, or anyone else, without my/their permission.”
Reference please? chirp chirp chirp
Seems to me you are speaking for Jim Robinson and acting as if you are a Mod right now, wonder if you asked him? And if you have some proof that I was “speaking for someone else”, please provide the reference and I will stand corrected.
But, all we’ve seen so far is innuendo - born of what looks like frustration. Not a single quote. Seems like you fight your battles by getting people banned rather than arguing persuasively. Sort of like Harry Reid’s technique, calling for investigations and impeachment ‘cause he ain’t holdin no cards.
So, let me know if I’m “banned from speaking with you”, it’s not like it is much of a pleasure debating someone who cries wolf all the time anyway.
But we actually agree on this point. This world is but a type and a shadow. Once you accept this premise, then we must look at marriage in a different light.
Marriage is a type and shadow of a heavenly reality in two primary ways:
(1) Its 2-in-1 reality is reflective of a 3-in-1 reality in heaven. Two people as one on earth is reflective of three Personages as one in heaven.
(2) Our marriage on earth is but a foreshadow of the greatest universal covenant marriage of eternity--that of the Church to the Lamb. To know somebody intimately on earth, and commit yourself to that person in covenant for a lifetime, is meant to describe eternal life: "And this is eternal life, that you know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." (John 17:3)
Here's another passage about our covenant commitment to knowing the Lamb: "For thy maker [John 1, Col 1, Heb 1 all says Jesus created us] is thine husband; The Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel. The God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God." (Is. 54:5-6)
"For as a young man marrieth a virgin, so shally thysons marry thee; and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejoice over thee." (Is. 62:5)
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.
If you don't want to call your everlasting relationship with the Lamb a "marriage," so be it. Call it an eternal covenant relationship. Call it one where you trust one another. Call it one where He loves you with a sacrificial love and you love Him with all your heart, mind, soul and strength. Call it one where you intimately know and relate to Him daily (John 17:3). Call it one where you submit to him as Eph. 5:24-25 and other verses around there describe. In these phrases, I've essentially describes many of the most important things we do in our marriages on earth, anyway.
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.
All I ask is that if the Bible links these two concepts of Jesus as Savior and Jesus as Bridegroom in a very close manner, why are you so bent on separating them? (You know more than the prophet or the apostle who wrote them at God's beckoning?)
Allow me to repeat those linkages: "For thy Maker is thine husband; The Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer [Savior] the Holy One of Israel..." (Is. 54:5)
And also: "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies...This is the great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church." (Eph. 5:25-28, 32)
And: "Come hither, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb's wife." (Rev. 21:9) [Lamb being the saving sacrifice]
So the first parable is about being prepared.
I agree. It is a parable about being prepared. But a parable about being prepared for what? A picnic in heaven, and there's not enough light there so enough oil has to be there in case the picnic runs late?
The oil represents the Holy Spirit who anoints us. If we are filled with His presence and light, it is His holy presence who makes us worthy to go live in a close, intimate relationship with the Bridegroom. What? You think Jesus just ran out of role descriptions He was to play upon His return and randomly picked that one out of the air--because, frankly, he didn't have to even use a virgin-bridegroom analogy to make the same point.
The Second parable is about being true to your covenants.
Yes. But what's the most important covenant we have? (Our relationship with him, both now and forever)
The third parable is about the patriarchal order of the family.
Yes. But what is the patriarchal order of the earthly family modeled after? (The patriarchal order of the heavenly family.) Our wives are subject to us just as we are subject to the Head of the Heavenly Family. We have been died for, just as the Lamb was sacrificed for us, the church.
The fourth is about the members being ready in the last days
Again, yes. But "ready" for what? A picnic stroll down Pearly Gate Lane? Haven't you ever noticed the great details a bride-to-be goes through as she readies herself for the wedding? How she readies herself to give herself in every way to her bridegroom? You think she wants an extra 10 pounds here and an extra 10 pounds there? You think she wants all these blemishes to just "beam" at her groom? (Obviously no. She is preparing for a special merging that can compare to nothing else)
The fifth Scripture is about Jesus’ second coming an him taking possession of the government.
Perhaps you can frame it that way but upon first glance using a government metaphor kind of leaves you colder than what John is describing in Rev. 21. Look again: "And I, John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God." (Rev. 21:2-3)
Haven't you ever wondered why the Bible, written over 2,000 years, begins with an earthly wedding merger ("Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh"--Gen 2:24) and ends with a heavenly wedding merger? The most important part is not the wedding, as Rev. 21:3 shows, it's the dwelling together in commitment and trust.
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.
Of course. (Ya wanna point me to a bride who if they've planned a mega wedding feast doesn't send out invitations?) We're so spoiled, we forget how special that offer is of water to a hot and thirsty world.
But, again, you reduce the impact of a wedding feast invitation by focusing on the invitational delivery of them. Yes, it's important they get there. I would say both the Honor of recognizing who the Bridegroom is [like how we would feel being specially invited to a Prince's wedding] as well as how we are going to be delivered to the wedding feast is the key.
Read the last phrase of Rev. 22:17 again: "And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." Freely. Free. Gift. Grace. 100% Grace. Unearned. Unmerited. No Spiritual Boy Scout badges.
What? You think a bride has to "earn" her way into the Bridegroom's heart? You think she has to "service" him to get His attention? Do you think the guests of honor at a wedding must pay their way in? They've got to perform some great service to be invited? Is that the way LDS run their weddings? (Almost sounds like it, since you have to have a temple recommend to see your child's wedding; and to have a temple recommend requires surpassing a certain measurement of spirituality, including paying for that privilege via a tithe)
“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. ]
Ummm, a lot of people did the same thing in 1939, that’s why we had something called World War Two. Christ will make the decision who makes it to heaven, but he gives us free will to decide between right and wrong. If I decide Mitt Romney is unsuitable for the Presidency because our religious differences are large enough, then that is a judgment I will make whether or not you try and force me to think otherwise.
“I wasn’t going to say anything, i didn’t want to embarass anybody. Besides, I find when I tell people my IQ, it chills the conversation. So don’t ask, I don’t want to tell, but it is higher than 135.”
As discussed with Tantiboth, high IQ leads to magnified insight, and magnified error. That’s why it can be a poor predictor of the truth. I met some brilliant people at Stanford who I wouldn’t trust to tie my shoelaces. And I have met you :)
“I will exalt my throne above the stars of God” (Is. 14:13) = a thrown above the stars, but not necessarily above God. The next verse he talks about ascending above the clouds, but not above God. He doesn’t say, “I will be above the Most High,” but rather: “I will be like the Most High.”
Now if it was quite troublesome (and evicting) to God for one of His up-until-then perfect angelic leaders to issue a grab for divinity, how do you think God fills when a not-so-perfect mere mortal makes a grasp for divinity?
Isaiah 42:8
“I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
Luke 20:
34 And Jesus said to them, The sons of this world marry and are given in marriage,
35 but they who are counted worthy to have part in that world, and the resurrection from among the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage;
36 for neither can they die any more, for they are equal to angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection.
Equal to angels but NOT equal to God.
Nope, staying Mormon was not painful, I’ve done that for over 20 years as an inactive Mormon. Being judged and ostracized by my neighbors, customers, and family who are LDS (because I no longer live “right”)... That is painful.
Having members at FreeRepublic tell me I am not “worthy” of calling myself Mormon, that I am untruthful, even though it is true, and it is my heritage, THAT is painful....
But seven, I’ve HAVE learned something since I found Christ five years ago. Admit it when you’re wrong, ask for forgiveness, change then move-on. Perhaps it would behoove you to do that in this case.
You seven, may not have been the most offensive. There have been strings of Mormons on strings of threads. You’re not the only Mormon poster on FR (unless you have multiple personalities). So move on. It wasn’t always you, you weren’t always involved.
Resty and I, have had knock down, drag-outs. But I know she does what she does out of pure intent and love (she has told me) and so when my feelings are hurt, I forgive her automatically. Isn’t that right resty?
Exmormon screens out repeated hits. Some site do that you know.
For example if there are 15 of my replys on this thread, my URL is only recorded once, counting one visit.
You two try this one on for size. Mine is also.
I never went to college.
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.