An evolutionary biologist could tell you why his middle finger is sooooooo long.
Posted on 01/31/2009 9:48:29 AM PST by Zakeet
Edited on 01/31/2009 11:43:32 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Speaking at its annual conference held in Detroit in July 2007, NAACP Chairman Julian Bond called on the American public and the entertainment industry to stop using the “N-Word.” Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick added, “Today we’re not just burying the N-word, we’re taking it out of our spirit.” I applaud this effort, and with it I offer my own challenge to Mormons everywhere to bury their own infamous “N-word,” that being the word “anti-Mormon.”
As with the word “[snip],” the word “anti-Mormon” is meant to be nothing more than an ugly pejorative. It is usually slapped on anyone who questions or disagrees with the teachings of the LDS faith and implies that the perceived critic is somehow “against” (anti) Mormons (as individuals). I’m certainly not against Mormons; in fact, I personally feel I have something better to offer them than what they already claim to have. Technically, that makes me “pro-Mormon,” though I admit I am against Mormonism.
Far too many Mormons automatically assume that Christians who wish to challenge LDS presuppositions are somehow motivated by hate. Such an assumption seems to be borne more out of laziness on the part of the accuser rather than the result of critical thinking skills. It is easy to accuse someone of hatred; after all, that word gets a lot of mileage in our dumbed-down culture. The intellectually indolent person somehow feels no need to evaluate what has been said once he has successfully assassinated a person’s character. However, when Mormons flippantly throw down the hate card, they certainly run the risk of bearing false witness.
I would be the first to admit that this disparaging label had some real meaning during the early and mid-1800’s, but it certainly does not fit the great majority of people Mormon apologists have attached it to in modern days. Articles from LDS apologetic groups such as FAIR and FARMS (now the Neal Maxwell Institute) are peppered with this word, sometimes to the point of monotony. The irony is that while such organizations desperately want to be recognized for their “scholarship,” they fail to realize that true scholarly material tends to refrain from such ad hominem. This behavior has not gone unnoticed by those known for their thoughtful contributions to this subject. In their book Mormon America, Richard and Joan Ostling note, “The FARMS team is particularly shrill in its rhetoric, an odd pose for an organization that seeks to win intellectual respectability for the church. All too often Saints use the label ‘anti-Mormon’ as a tactic to forestall serious discussion” (p. 376).
Modern Mormons who equate questions and disagreement with persecution need to do some serious rethinking. In my opinion, Mormons who lump those who challenge the truth claims of Mormonism with the persecutions of the past actually bring dishonor to the Mormon pioneers who truly suffered. Considering what some of the early Mormons went through, I am sure they would view with contempt a modern Mormon who whines about being “persecuted” simply because someone challenged their faith.
Thankfully, some Mormon thinkers disagree with fellow members and have chosen to refrain from using this unnecessary language. They recognize that even though some folks have sharp theological disagreements with Mormonism, their purpose is not at all to bring harm to the LDS people. “Anti-Mormon” is an overused moniker that needed to be jettisoned long ago, and I call on every Mormon to bury their own “N-word,” once and for all.
An evolutionary biologist could tell you why his middle finger is sooooooo long.
There you go; channeling Fproy.
Why can ANY mormon EVER point out the error THEY so readily see, for the REST of us to see?
Does it exist ONLY in their minds??
And you seem to have no luck trolling with that tidbit...
Strange...
No more Chick references.
Funny how so many both over and under fifty are either
...ignorant of their full and unexpurgated history, or else willingly become dupes for those within their club who are constantly working to scrub and revise their history,
(even unto parsing the words of their own past “prophets” and presidents to mean other than their fully contextual original intent was ever intended to convey!)
It must be a form of hell on earth for current LDS members and historians - deciding which 19th century mormons to utterly elevate, and which to excoriate for denying or damaging the faith.
Cowdery?
Well - he was an original “witness” to at least one of the nine different accounts of how the bom was received (even today’s LDS folk can generally bring themselves to acknowledge two or three stories that were at various times purvey by “Huckster Joe” Smith and his willing accomplices) on the one hand
- but on the other hand he later testified, and admitted the whole of it was a lie, and that the two priesthoods were in fact NEVER handed over by John the Baptist and Paul (or Peter - whichever apparition it was that appeared that particular time...) and renounced Smith as the liar he was...
So we have to renouonce Cowdery then - sort of - except when we need him - unless we can make his recantations go away. Presto! they’re gone!
The estranged wife of a church Elder, contemporary of Smith? A woman who gave a matter-of-fact account of Smith’s blatant efforts to coax her into having an illicit sexual affair with him?
Well, she must have been lying.
Anybody who ever breathed a bad word of any sort about good ol’ Joe must be a discreditable liar of the lowest order .
Except she was not the only woman to ever recount such a story. There were several.
But I guess that “testimony of several witnesses” thing only applies when it supports whom (or what) you want it to support.
Several witnesses say that the bom was received in a certain form and via a certain method (in direct and absolute contradiction of OT and NT warnings against divination)
and therefore it is unassailable holy writ - more reliable than the bible (this despite more substantive revisions to the bom in 178 years than the bible has undergone in almost 1700 years) and should be considered to augment/supersede the bible on matters of doctrinal conflict?
But several witnesses independently corroborating factual accounts of Joseph Smith’s reprobate behaviour?
Worthless...ignore them - all of them. And while you are at it, ignore the man behind the curtain as well.
The problem is that the bom was neither divinely given, nor divinely received - therefore the stories will inevitably diverge in their important details, the character of those claiming to bear witness to it will unavoidably be erratic, inconsistent, and questionable, and the later interpretations will inalterably grow to be at wide variance in some respects with the original intent of the people involved, and their understandings.
You cannot un-ring a bell. You cannot erase from history the variance between Smith, Brigham Young and a score of other “illustrious leaders” having spoken ill of black people, denying them a theological path to be in heaven as full citizens, and elevating that as standardized and immutable teaching for the whole of the church for over 130 years.
Pun intended, it cannot be whitewashed.
The REAL BIBLE says that “there is neither man nor woman, Greek nor Scythian”...etc...in Christ Jesus.
So even while these racist founders were thundering their low beliefs, their unscholarly bastardizations of the bible and of Christian faith - REAL Christians were set about the Lord’s work - establishing the earliest vestiges of the underground railroad, the first schools which would accept and teach blacks as pupils, and generally upholding Pure religion (according to James...you know - visiting widows and orphans in their infirmity)
But never fear - G_d changed His mind about the blacks after all.
Maybe they always COULD get into the Christian heaven, but the mormon celestial heaven - well, just like the temples, they had to complete a few critical secret rooms before we could let the ‘servants of the servants’ in.
You just never know where folk like that might wander off to once they come in the front door...
(/sarc tag)
Maybe they will eventually decide to shelve all their objections to that whole ‘trinity’ thing. After all, the polygamy issue and the blacks issues were no more, no less immutable in church doctrine at one time.
But I’ll bet they will still want to believe they can become gods each over their own planets...all of that power...so alluring and seductive!
A.A.C.
in the kitchen, cooking it up. you know where you can go if you cannot stand the heat.
I am sorry but the manifold grammatical and spelling errors, missing words, incomplete thoughts, sentence fragments, and erroneous thinking make post #69 an all-but incomprehensible mass of non-cogency.
A.A.C.
Funny how so many here who are over 50 forget their own church history!
Much of that was recorded in “Birth of a Nation” by D. W. Griffith
_____________________________________________
I didnt think there was any mention of mormons in that movie...
But just for you I watched it again..
Thank me...
And nope...there is none...
Unless you were taking a fictious rendering of the Civil War and the Reconstruction Era in the South to be an excuse for the racism within the doctrines and practices of mormonism...
Joe Smith and Brigham Young were racists long before the Civil War...
They didnt need an excuse...they were just twisted thata way...came natural like...
Note to Resty: Not everything is about mormonism...
Never has been...never will be...
Stuff like that happens when sputtering and snorting.
Ya THINK???
|
The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.
Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses. |
Genesis 4:9-15
9. Then the LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" "I don't know," he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"
10. The LORD said, "What have you done? Listen! Your brother's blood cries out to me from the ground.
11. Now you are under a curse and driven from the ground, which opened its mouth to receive your brother's blood from your hand.
12. When you work the ground, it will no longer yield its crops for you. You will be a restless wanderer on the earth."
13. Cain said to the LORD, "My punishment is more than I can bear.
14. Today you are driving me from the land, and I will be hidden from your presence; I will be a restless wanderer on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me."
15. But the LORD said to him, "Not so ; if anyone kills Cain, he will suffer vengeance seven times over." Then the LORD put a mark on Cain so that no one who found him would kill him.
If Cain was not born with this characteristic - and he was not -- then in the ordinary course of nature, his descendents would not inherit it.
While God could certainly change Cain's genetic make-up if He willed the 'mark' to be inherited, where in the text does it suggest He wished to do so?
The text says NOTHING about folks killing Cain's OFFSPRING - just HIM.
Even if the 'mark of Cain' were imagined to be heritable versus 'a tattoo', where does the text even hint that the 'mark' is 'black complexion', versus 'a birthmark shaped like the State of Utah'!
Genesis 4:16-26
16. So Cain went out from the LORD's presence and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.
17. Cain lay with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch.
18. To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.
19. Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah.
20. Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock.
21. His brother's name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play the harp and flute.
22. Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain's sister was Naamah.
23. Lamech said to his wives, "Adah and Zillah, listen to me; wives of Lamech, hear my words. I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for injuring me.
24. If Cain is avenged seven times, then Lamech seventy-seven times."
25. Adam lay with his wife again, and she gave birth to a son and named him Seth, saying, "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him."
26. Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh. At that time men began to call on the name of the LORD.
Genesis 5
1. This is the written account of Adam's line. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God.
2. He created them male and female and blessed them. And when they were created, he called them "man. "
3. When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth.
4. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
5. Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.
6. When Seth had lived 105 years, he became the father of Enosh.
7. And after he became the father of Enosh, Seth lived 807 years and had other sons and daughters.
8. Altogether, Seth lived 912 years, and then he died.
9. When Enosh had lived 90 years, he became the father of Kenan.
10. And after he became the father of Kenan, Enosh lived 815 years and had other sons and daughters.
11. Altogether, Enosh lived 905 years, and then he died.
12. When Kenan had lived 70 years, he became the father of Mahalalel.
13. And after he became the father of Mahalalel, Kenan lived 840 years and had other sons and daughters.
14. Altogether, Kenan lived 910 years, and then he died.
15. When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he became the father of Jared.
16. And after he became the father of Jared, Mahalalel lived 830 years and had other sons and daughters.
17. Altogether, Mahalalel lived 895 years, and then he died.
18. When Jared had lived 162 years, he became the father of Enoch.
19. And after he became the father of Enoch, Jared lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.
20. Altogether, Jared lived 962 years, and then he died.
21. When Enoch had lived 65 years, he became the father of Methuselah.
22. And after he became the father of Methuselah, Enoch walked with God 300 years and had other sons and daughters.
23. Altogether, Enoch lived 365 years.
24. Enoch walked with God; then he was no more, because God took him away.
25. When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he became the father of Lamech.
26. And after he became the father of Lamech, Methuselah lived 782 years and had other sons and daughters.
27. Altogether, Methuselah lived 969 years, and then he died.
28. When Lamech had lived 182 years, he had a son.
29. He named him Noah and said, "He will comfort us in the labor and painful toil of our hands caused by the ground the LORD has cursed."
30. After Noah was born, Lamech lived 595 years and had other sons and daughters.
31. Altogether, Lamech lived 777 years, and then he died.
32. After Noah was 500 years old, he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth.
Genesis 6
1. When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them,
2. the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose.
3. Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."
4. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.
5. The LORD saw how great man's wickedness on the earth had become, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all the time.
6. The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.
7. So the LORD said, "I will wipe mankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth--men and animals, and creatures that move along the ground, and birds of the air--for I am grieved that I have made them."
8. But Noah found favor in the eyes of the LORD.
9. This is the account of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked with God.
10. Noah had three sons: Shem, Ham and Japheth.Nowhere does the text say that the sons of Noah went over to the area where Cain's descendants were living for a wife.
sis 9:20-27Gene
Mind-reading and attributing motives, oh ye of the thin-skin.
As you can see on this thread, the tactic of defense seems to be a perpetual whine of "we are persecuted"....a staple of the belief since the 1800s.
ROTFL!
Excellent and very accurate post.
Persecuted? harumph! How do they stand it?
??? What..are anti-christs? Little devils? Little satan's?? LOL!!
That's a new one........
Now the following line of yours Grig...is a ROFLOL! line..:
"Anti-whatevers only make themselves look rather weak when they play the victim over being correctly labelled."
Many of the mormon's I read here...and know in "real life" are professional victims for mormonism.........
fwiw-
Criticism is all well and good and frequently necessary but the spirit in which it is offered is a key factor. When someone you love and who loves you offers criticism, it is done so in a loving manner. It may hurt to hear but the recipient knows that the critic’s intent is pure because they know and can feel the love from him or her.
However, when criticism is offered in anger and hate, it is a very different animal and is glaringly obvious and recognizable in tone and intent from the former. There is no obvious concern for the person being criticized. And when the critic has a history of antagonism, no criticism, no matter how sincere the critic may be, will not be received well by its intended target.
Its very much like the criticism we Conservatives hear from Liberals. They have, as history has shown, no love for us and the criticism they offer is insincere at best. And that fact is patently obvious to any Conservative.
My final point, Christ allowed himself to be lifted up upon the Cross after hours of agonizing pain and humiliation (both verbal and physical) and yet never uttered a word in of antagonism towards his tormentors. In fact he said, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” His love for all mankind was still there even as they murdered him. Our Lord went through far worse than any of us will ever experience, are we greater than he that we can get so worked up about doctrinal differences? Shouldn’t we follow His example?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
the “anti-Christs”
Mormonism started out as anti-Christianity ....
Do I relly need to post all those horrible things said about Christians by mormon leaders like Joe smith, Brigham Young et al ???
. When someone you love and who loves you offers criticism, it is done so in a loving manner.
________________________________________
And involves whips...scurges anyway...
And lovely soft fuzzy words like “hypocrites” and “whited sepulchres” and “whited washed tombs” and “ya’lls full of dead men’s bones” and “are you blind?” and “you’re all murderers” and “snakes!!” and “yo bad as yo Daddy”
Get the idea, Zakeet ????
Stay sweet, now, ya hear ????
Mind-reading and attributing motives, oh ye of the thin-skin.
Look lady your actions and post speak for you that is not mind reading, nor thin skin!
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.
This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."