Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: lady lawyer; rickomatic; Tennessee Nana
Re: post #88...

Not a bad "apologetic" post from an LDS apologetical view, LL...from a "Christian" perspective just a wee bit of a problem with your narrow interpretation of Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-20. That "wee" problem is the "broad" and "blunt" slam of the LDS Church that ALL non-Mormon churches are "apostate."

Yeah, we know it'd be nice if you could just slam the churches of Joe's home town in NY (from your perspective, "Obviously, they deserved it.")

Yeah, we know it'd be nice if you could just slam the Christian posters on FReeper threads (from your perspective, "Yup, they ESPECIALLY deserve it.")

The problem is the Mormon claim of the apostasy is all-inclusive...and it's rather slyly deceptive of you to suggest that it's anything less than universal.

But I'm glad you posted the other portion of that LDS "Scripture" section because it's rarely quoted...it's a fascinating eye-opener to see how much Joseph Smith relied only on feelings...a burning of the bosom...a burning elsewhere (marrying 9-ll wives already married to other men), not to mention the dozens of others--including young teens...note all the "feeling" words below Smith used to judge people he didn't know (what? you're going to take the word of a 14 yo kid that he was able to correctly assess every church and church leader in the region & beyond? Smith did what 14 yo confused kids do...they base evaluations entirely upon FEELINGS):

Smith: ...religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued -- priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another...

You: I never fully understood those paragraphs until I started reading some of the anti-Mormon stuff on FR, posted by "Christians" who saw no irony in being ugly and insulting in order to prove that they are more "Christian" than us Mormons.

Mormons more than anyone should be quite sensitive to what it's like to be pushed or "ushered" out of their homes (Missouri & Nauvoo). A number of those "gentile" folks weren't what I would call "hospitable"--many whom took LDS homes & land after they left.

Now think of this word picture: Folks in Christ are "settled" in as Christians...along comes somebody who accuses ALL (not some) these Christian "sects" folks of being "corrupt"...they are accused of embracing ALL (not some) creeds which are abominable...what's more, he AND his immediate followers accuse ALL of them of being "apostates"...he and his followers basically accuse every Christian & every Christian sect of belonging to the spiritual graveyard, and attempt to bury them...And just like the "Gentiles" who came & took over the LDS land in MO & IL, the Mormons come as squatters and camp on the so-called "graveyard" of Christianity...Whenever anyone visits the squatters huddling over the alleged graveyard of Christianity and claims that "No, those Christians aren't dead, they're alive & well, thank you" the common retort is, "Oh, so you think these dead folks we spiritually buried are more 'Christian' than us Mormons, eh? Well, we're as much a Christian as they are/were."

When we object to our alleged apostate graveyard status, too many LDS don't ever seem to have qualms about pushing us out of our "home" identity as "Christians." (Please note the endless stream of LDS insinuations that if we "dare" even try to establish any definitional "boundaries" as to what a "Christian" is we are acting in some "self-righteous" manner).

Imagine a Mormon online discussion where some LDS folks are putting down some of the practices of polygamous fundamentalist Mormons. Could you then imagine the utter gall if a polygamous fundamentalist Mormon said to the LDS folks:

...to be honest, I never fully understood those paragraphs until I started reading some of the anti-fundamentalist Mormon stuff on XYZ,posted by "Mormons" who saw no irony in being ugly and insulting in order to prove that they are more "Mormon" than us fundamentalist Mormons.

So you're telling us that being a "Mormon" is a "Mormon" and that fundamentalist polygamous "Mormons" are both "Mormons" and also "Christians" too? (I mean who would you be, according to your apologetic, to tell Warren Jeffs' successor(s) that they are not either "Mormon" or "Christian?"

107 posted on 02/20/2008 9:33:36 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies ]


To: Colofornian

That’s what really bothers you, isn’t it? The success we Mormons have in converting your co-religionists.


111 posted on 02/20/2008 9:38:40 AM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

To: Colofornian; lady lawyer; rickomatic; Tennessee Nana
Not a bad "apologetic" post from an LDS apologetical view, LL...from a "Christian" perspective just a wee bit of a problem with your narrow interpretation of Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History, vv. 18-20. That "wee" problem is the "broad" and "blunt" slam of the LDS Church that ALL non-Mormon churches are "apostate."

This brings forth another question - was there a revival going on in 1820? Records indicate that the answer was no. If this was not happening, then did Smith really have a visitation at all? Why, after this alledged visitation, three years later Smith sought to join one of these apostate churches?

122 posted on 02/20/2008 9:46:38 AM PST by Godzilla (Lets put the FUN in dysfunctional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

To: DelphiUser; rickomatic; lady lawyer
If you are not a Catholic, they say the same about you, do you call them names?

(Not sure what you mean here, DU?)

Whether or not he [Smith] was right, he believed that statement came from God.

DU, I think what many LDS and non-LDS who read the broader context of the First Vision statement by Smith pass right over is how a 14 yo lad simply invested WAY to much in confused teen feelings...and that's why Lady Lawyer actually did us a favor by citing the broader context of Smith's First Vision statement...here's what she quoted:

Smith: ...religious feeling, in order to have everybody converted, as they were pleased to call it, let them join what sect they pleased; yet when the converts began to file off, some to one party and some to another, it was seen that the seemingly good feelings of both the priests and the converts were more pretended than real; for a scene of great confusion and bad feeling ensued -- priest contending against priest, and convert against convert; so that all their good feelings one for another... (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith - History)

A confused 14 yo Smith seemed to measure everything by feelings--good feelings, bad feelings, religious feelings, burning in the bosom feelings, burning for your neighbor's wife feelings (9-11 of his "wives" were already married to other men), burning for your neighbor's daughter feelings (false eternal welfare promises were given to young teen girls and their family members if only she would marry him...the Kimball girl is probably the best example of this).

The PBS show, "The American Experience," re: its two-part series on Mormonism mentioned this recently yet again. But the Kimball girl herself later wrote exactly what Smith promised re: eternal spiritual benefits that would accrue to her family if she agreed to marry him.

140 posted on 02/20/2008 10:01:08 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson