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

Saundra Duffy

[tantiboh]

“You aren’t coming off as well with your recent posts. You are moving the argument from a factual basis to a personal one. That is a weak position.”

You’re right; I have been in a rather foul humor today. I’ll try to be more careful. Thank you for the advice.

[MHGinTN]

Are you watching any of the SPurs v Suns game?

[Colofornian]

I’m guessing by your posts that you are of the Catholic faith. Correct me if I’m wrong.

(No)

Don’t you believe that unbaptized children who die go to hell...

(No)

I can't speak for God beyond what He tells us in His Word: So let's look at what David said, when his infant son died (2 Sam. 12:13-23 for full context...I'll zero in on v. 23): "Can I bring him [infant son] back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me."

Now if this infant son was in hell, was David saying he was "hell-bent" so to speak? {BTW, since the LDS position on murderers, I believe, that they cannot be saved; that would seem to put David & Moses--both of whom murdered others--David, indirectly & Moses, directly, in precarious positions spiritually, does it not?}

I know that Baptists believe God sends any soul who has not confessed Christ to hell...

My understanding of Baptists is that it's more along the lines of LDS--an age of accountability where children are either less accountable or not accountable prior to that age. Either way, "age of accountability" was a typical early 19th century issue debated, so you would expect Joseph to comment upon it & take a position, which he did in D&C.

Anyway, the "age of accountability" isn't Biblical unless you realize that the Bible holds babies accountable:

"The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." (Ps. 58:3) See also: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." (Ps. 51:5)

Joseph Smith's problem was he never read this part of the psalms.

even if that person never heard the name of Jesus Christ and otherwise lived to the best light and knowledge that he had. Do you believe this also? If not, what remedy is there for the soul of this person or the child mentioned above. Because, God knowing all things future and past, would have created these souls simply to thrust them into the lake of fire and brimstone you define. Is this your God?

Again, Scripture reading is important so that we don't lash out with "straw men" versus our Living God. We can't accuse a God of lack of light when even the sun bears down rays that reveal a certain portion of who He is. Theologians call this "natural revelation"--versus the "special revelation" of Scripture.

Romans 1:18-25: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, whol hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manfifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkeneded. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man..."

That means if your God looks like corruptible man (body, not spirit; once in a fallen state, etc...you've fashioned an image of God in the image of man & are guilty of idolatry). or has the Church changed its position on that?

[Colofornian]

Let's "break down" the latter part of D&C 134 you cite:

V. 11: We believe that men should appeal to the civil law for redress of all wrongs and grievances, where personal abuse is inflicted or the right of property or character infringed, where such laws exist as will protect the same

This is what got Smith arrested--when he ordered the destruction of a printing press that ran an "expose'" on Smith's philandering deeds. "Physician, heal thyself."

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

v. 12: but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to...

While you can say the apostle Paul was no "free-the-slaves abolitionist," you'd never hear Paul say that slaves were not worthy of receiving the gospel.

This shows the utter detestable contempt that LDS held slaves in--including black slaves. The apostle Paul DID preach the gospel to such a bond-servant by the name of Oneismus (Philemon 10, 13, 15,16)...Paul says that Onesimus departed from Philemon for "a season"--but only to be welcomed as an eternal brother.

v. 12 (cont'd): nor to meddle with [bond-servants]...

Again, Paul DID meddle. He first converted Onesimus, THEN he appealed to Philemon directly, even offering to pay whatever bond was owed on behalf of Onesimus (v. 18-19)

So, what was the LDS' take on Paul's handling of Onesimus?

V. 12 (cont'd): ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Oh, sure, it's better to protect the "status quo peace" of governments engaged in slave-holding than to "interfere" with them.

For EVERY LDS PERSON WHO HAS NEVER PUBLICLY OBJECTED TO D&C 134:12...remedial education for you!!! [Go rent the Wilberforce movie!!!] No wonder those who see LDS as representative of Christianity thinks the entire Christian church constitutes a bunch of racists!!!

[Colofornian]

Many African Americans have been able to trace their ancestry back to plantations and some can trace back further to the slave ship trade. I have read about many successful endeavors in this regard. It is a wonderful service that the Church provides and I am very proud to mention it here.

Are you "proud" of LDS treatment of Blacks as well? I just posted this feedback of D&C 134 in response to another poster posting it. What do you think of D&C 134:12:

v. 12: but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to...

While you can say the apostle Paul was no "free-the-slaves abolitionist," you'd never hear Paul say that slaves were not worthy of receiving the gospel.

This shows the utter detestable contempt that LDS held slaves in--including black slaves. The apostle Paul DID preach the gospel to such a bond-servant by the name of Oneismus (Philemon 10, 13, 15,16)...Paul says that Onesimus departed from Philemon for "a season"--but only to be welcomed as an eternal brother.

v. 12 (cont'd): nor to meddle with [bond-servants]...

Again, Paul DID meddle. He first converted Onesimus, THEN he appealed to Philemon directly, even offering to pay whatever bond was owed on behalf of Onesimus (v. 18-19)

So, what was the LDS' take on Paul's handling of Onesimus?

V. 12 (cont'd): ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Oh, sure, it's better to protect the "status quo peace" of governments engaged in slave-holding than to "interfere" with them.

For EVERY LDS PERSON WHO HAS NEVER PUBLICLY OBJECTED TO D&C 134:12...remedial education for you!!! [Go rent the Wilberforce movie!!!] No wonder those who see LDS as representative of Christianity thinks the entire Christian church constitutes a bunch of racists!!!

[sevenbak]

All this talk about infant baptism and accountability in interesting. Since you brought up Joseph Smith's beliefs on this, let's look at them. I’m going to share a reference from the Book of Mormon that deals specifically with this, and will most likely get flamed for it, but I don’t care. In light of all this, I think it needs to be said, at least from an LDS perspective.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/moro/8

[DanielLongo]

What is your particular faith? More particularly, what is the name of the church you attend?

[sevenbak]

What an absolute falsehood!!!!! For you to stand there and keep a straight face while misrepresenting the doctrine concerning D&C 134:12 is absolutely unbelievable. Lets’ take a look at what you so conveniently snipped out shall we?

v.12 ...but we do not believe it right to interfere with bond-servants, neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters, nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life, thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.

Mormons were driven from Missouri because they favored freeing the slaves. It was an ugly time in our country, but it was the law. Your misrepresentation is absolutely unconscionable!

[DanielLongo]

And still you do not answer the questions straightly. Yes or no will suffice:

Does an infant who dies unbaptized go to hell? Yes or no

Does an individual who does not confess the name of Christ while in this life, though he has never heard or been taught about Jesus Christ, go to hell? Yes or no

Certainly this is not too difficult. I just want your perspective. I don't need a sermon.

[Truth-Miner]

I’m on the side of Truth as best as I am able. If you can’t handle that them I’ve misjudged you.
As for Delphiuser, I often do not agree with him or some of his tactics. But I do recognize him as someone seeking for the truth to the best of his ability.

Now as far as me being part of this wagon circling. I’m not a part of any such conspiracy.
As I said “You don’t have to accept my “advice” or “help” I gave it freely and I don’t demand that you accept it.”
There are no strings attached, no demands, no intended manipulation or coercion. It’s apparent your perception of my intent differs from my intent, thoughts, and feelings.

I guess I haven’t walked in your shoes long enough. In the meantime do you want to use mine?

[MHGinTN]

I know your shoes won’t fit. Thanks anyway.

[DelphiUser]

Finally getting around to following up on this. You seem to keep bringing the convo back to God's authority over me; and I keep trying to bring the convo back to God's derived authority--something He didn't inherently have.

Are we talking about Mormon beliefs here, or yours?

If we are talking about your beliefs, then you are right, if we are talking about Mormon beliefs here, then I am.

I Said: Eternal does not always mean the same thing in the scriptures. Eternal is one of God’s names so an eternal covenant (Like Moses’ covenant) was with God, not supposed to be forever... And a lot more… You said: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. [This one's for Tantiboh, too, based on his earlier invite to "explore common ground" as to how Joe redefined terms]. Joseph redefined "damnation" as being all "damned up"--as stoppage, not as eternal hell fire. The problem is that you've never read the Bible and the Book of Mormon with this "new" def of "eternal" or "damnation." (Just try it). The prob is that the same "adjective" (be it eternal, everlasting, etc.) is applied to heaven just like hell. If hell can be stopped; if spirit prison is just a lousy vacation at a scumbag motel; then that doesn't say much positive about the longevity of heaven, now does it [Because the same exact qualifiers used to describe hell in the BoM & the Bible are used to describe heaven]. In your post you invited me to set you straight I must say you are not very teachable here, Grin, not that I expected better.

Please show where you think the BOM would be “Messed up” by reading dammed as stopped in your eternal progression. I am good, but not a mind reader. The YEAH, yeah, yeah really does not help your argument, not that you have made any at this point.

So much for "perspective." [What? You can't even read the Bible or BoM w/out a JoeSmith decoder ring to find out what "plain" meanings have been changed from the BoM. I'll I can say is how utterly misleading that is to someone reading the BoM...to not have the D&C passage where Joe redefines "damnation" so that they could realize that "No, the BoM, REALLY IS different than the Bible."]

It’s not a “Joseph Smith” decoder ring, it’s the Holy Ghost.

Me: So, simply put, an orginal god or a council of gods authorized the progression of others to join them as either a "greater council" or gods, or to progress from man to god. [Either way, it was "authorized"]

You: Now you are going off the path here. God the father authorized it. This is his universe; he needs no permission from anyone....God the Father is self-contained.

Let me introduce some other quotes (which also) has "educated" me on what LDS believe:

“The doctrine of a plurality of Gods is prominent in the Bible. The heads of the Gods appointed our God for us...you have got to learn how to be Gods yourselves…the same as all Gods have done before you…” Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 370-372, 346

Yes, as I explained to you , except you didn’t read, God the Father appointed Jesus Christ to be the God of this world. You are so busy trying to tell me what I believe you cannot her me tell you what I believe.

Question: Doesn't your Heavenly Father, having rec'd an "appointment" as God, mean that He rec'd His authority from these "plurality of Gods?"

No, It means you did not listen to what I said, um read what I wrote

“We shall go back to our Father and God, who is connected with one who is still farther back; and this Father is connected with one still farther back, and so on.” Heber C. Kimball, JoD, vol. 5, p. 19

Yes, there is a patriarchal order to the family we are in, however, it has nothing to do with authority, that is a religion you are creating yourself, it is not a belief of mine nor of any Mormons I know.

This further emphasizes my previous "so on" comment. How is this quote above distinct from my "computer language" comment about infinite regression of gods? “our God is a natural man...where did he get his knowledge from? From his father, just as we get our knowledge from our earthly parents (JoD, vol. 8, p. 211)

Knowledge comes from learning as anyone can tell you.

Doesn't LDS directly tie "knowledge" and "authority?" Doesn't this tell about a divine generation upon generation of both knowledge & authority?

No we don’t Satan has knowledge, but no authority

“our Father in Heaven was begotten on a previous heavenly world by His Father; ‘He was begotten by a still more ancient Father; and so on from generation to generation, from one heavenly world to another.” Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 132

Yep, the patriarchal order, so does your Dad get his authority from your great grand father? This whole line of questioning is silly. And I was right, you cannot separate the relationships from each other, you lack the perspective of the spirit.

Yet another "so on" comment similar to my previous comment.

Yeah, you asked to be taught, then you say the same things over and over refusing the knowledge I tried to give you.

Orson Pratt taught that “The Gods who dwell in heaven…were once in a fallen state….” The Seer p. 23 [whereas Mormon 9:19; Moroni 8:18; Mormon 9:9-11 all say unchangeable]

This is so out of Context it’s funny

“We believe in a God who is Himself progressive...whose perfection consists in eternal advancement...a Being who has attained His exalted state” (A Study of the Articles of Faith, pp. 430, 1952 James Talmage

Yep, God id ever progressing, and ever in advance of anything we can currently conceive of. What you thought Gods just sat on clouds and hurled lightning bolts?

There we have it. If you have a "fallen being" God...one who progressed and will advance eternally, as Talmage wrote; obviously, the "un-advanced"--the "lower degree progressives" at one point held less authority. And, I would point out, "fallen beings" could not have had much authority at all--certainly not divine authority. All of this de fact proves a line of authority extending beyond your God.

All this proves is that you were not really teachable. You insist on running into the corner and suffocating just like the turkeys I talked about in the round pens.

Well, you can’t save them all.

You are wrong about what we believe, I understand you think we believe that, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Stop telling us what we believe, OK? And for the record since you have been told you are interpreting our beliefs incorrectly, to continue to say what you have been told is wrong is to lie.

[MHGinTN]

But the poster doesn’t ridicule you or condescend, right?

[DelphiUser]

MHGinTN

The fact that you keep posting about my posts without pinging me is a very sad sign to see. No that it injures me per se, but it shows you in a very bad light.

MHG, you claim to b a Christian, but you refuse to forgive a comment that was not aimed at you several threads ago. I was talking to a poster who was not bothering to read my posts before responding. I said that I was under matched in the debate. It was my true assessment, however you took offense and started trying to tweak me. I moved to a new thread, you again started tweaking me, which is all well and good. Another poster got banned in part because I fought with him. I have expressed regret, over his banning, even privately, and publicly apologized to you. (although why you care so much about his banning is a mystery to me) You have stated that I am so arrogant that you do not think you must follow forum rules and ping me to posts, this does not make me look bad, It does however show that you have not forgiven me. I do not need your forgiveness personally. I am concerned not for your reputation here, but for your soul. I beg you do not let this canker in your soul, hate, or even a grudge is not befitting a Christian, and I believe you are sincere in your wish to Follow Jesus Christ.

Just a one scripture if I may:
Matthew 5:21-25
21 ¶ Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
23 Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;
24 Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.
25 Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.

MHG, do not be angry with me, this is not a command it is a request. Quite frankly, I am a jerk sometimes and I say things to make people react, chalk it up to my autism, or intellect, or whatever you need to say to yourself to make it OK, but do not carry a grudge for quite frankly I am not worth it. I am just a pajama clad guy in Utah posting on a forum.

Go with God, May he heal the wounds that cannot be seen.

[DelphiUser]

MHG,

Can you see what you are doing? You make comments about my posts that are most defiantly condescending, and arrogant, your “side” post strikes and sunken battle ship comments, I could post things like “Oh my Gosh the Quarterback is toast!” when some pithy comment is made from my side, but I do not. Even so, you are offended by my posts. So be it. To those who are looking to be offended, it is easy to find something to hang your attitude on. This has become a good discussion, of late, it would indeed be sad to see the “Truce” be broken because the “Sides” were too sensitive.

(Please note there was no condescension arrogance or insult intended in this post if such was detected it is recommended that you have your equipment checked immediately for false positive generating glitches)

[DelphiUser]

I am a Mormon for Fred!

That makes two of us!

If there are any more Freed Heads lurking on this thread, please speak up!

[RichRepublican]

Another Mormon for Fred here!

[DelphiUser]

“wagon circling” – I drive a Saturn SL2 than you, nice car too, bought it new in 95 and it still looks like new and runs like a top (approaching 200K).

Please do not call it a wagon, it gets sulky.

As for advice, the laws of economics also apply to speech: talk is, and always will be cheap because the supply exceeds the demand.

What size do you wear, and I just can’t deal with high heels, although I did manage to wear a pair of pumps for a play once (I was supposed to be a very ugly girl, I was perfect for the part!)

Sorry, decided the thread was just too darn serous, and couldn’t help myself!

[DelphiUser]

BBL-Er BBE (as in Be Back Early in the Morning?)

I’d better stop trying to post and just go to bed.

[arderkrag]

Would you vote for an atheist? Whether he is an atheist or not would not play into my decision. My vote is based on the person's positions on issues. Does the truth about God and man matter to you? Absolutely. But I'd much rather vote for a pro-life atheist than one who claims to be Christian but has no problem killing babies. Mormonism is worse than a mere cult Then don't be a Mormon. I'm not one. But I wouldn't refuse to vote for someone merely because they are a Mormon. Anyone who does that is a loon. As a Christian I believe that government officials are "ministers of God". Indeed, they are. Read the bible. Even those who opposed Israel were chosen by God to do so. And when they weren't, God lead Israel to wipe them out. A Mormon President would be a minister of a false god. Again, God uses the leaders of countries to accomplish His will. (See previous comment.) If you don't think your vote will be judged by the God who judges "every idle word", think again. Of course it will be. That's why I vote based on their positions on issues. Wow. Sense and reason. You know that isn't allowed here! This is the internetand this is a religous discussion! You're only allowed to hold knee-jerk, reactionary views! Get with the program!