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.
By the way, the term "Anti-Mormon" comes from some of the first people who joined and fell away from the church. They called themselves "Anti-Mormons" to emphasize their separation from and opposition to the church and some of today's most vocal critics are actually literal descendants of this group. So, its not a name we came up with.
Time to switch bait.
You must have read over the brood of vipers and whitewashed tombs portions of the gospels then.
For my part, I have no problem stating that I am not a “Christian just like you.”
That is because you are a mormon, not a Christian.
He didn’t just denounce them but then explained why He did it.
________________________________________
Jesus is God...
He doesnt have to explain anything ...
He owes no explanations...
Now THAT's what I'm talkin' about!!
God destroyed Soddom and Gamorrah. Does that count? Then there’s always Noah and the flood. How about that? Or what about in the Old Testament where God commanded Moses and the children of Israel to destroy the inhabitants of the Promised Land? Or when Israel became wicked and the Lord allowed Israel to be conquered and scattered? Is that not biblical precedent?
Funny that ...
God destroyng the cities he doesnt like...
Sodom, Gomorrah, the cities of Lehi, ....
By the way, the term “Anti-Mormon” comes from some of the first people who joined and fell away from the church. They called themselves “Anti-Mormons”
_________________________________________
No ...
The term “anti-mormon” was given to Christians and other non-mormons by the mormons themselves...
Mormons used the word like an N-word...
The mormons wrote ugly things about “anti-mormons” in their early newspapers...
(Lokk it up yourself, lazy thing)
Then there’s always Noah and the flood....
.....Is that not biblical precedent?
_________________________________
Did we forget God’s “bow in the sky” promise ?????
If you'd bothered to follow the thread up a little further you would have noted the post was addressing something a little different - the portrat of Jesus in the BOM as a bringer of destruction, versus the Jesus of the NT forgiving His murders - significant difference. Secondly, the destruction of those cities/civilizations in the OT were not linked to the arrival of Jesus to preach to his so-called "other sheep". They were separate judgements. 3 Nephi Jesus takes credit for the destruction upon his arrival. Kills thousands upon thousands, then almost immediately breaks into the clone of the sermon on the mount.
Just because there may be a precident, that precident must remain true to the character of Jesus shown to mankind at that time. The biblical Jesus came to seek and save, the bom Jesus came to zot and kill.
It is easy to destroy cities that never existed in the first place.
Again what is the point of Christ’s death otherwise...
Very strange POV...
It is easy to destroy cities that never existed in the first place.
_______________________________
Gollies...
Even a feeble mormon “god” might manage to accomplish that ....
We feel your pain...
Yep, if anyone deserved to get zotted, it was Israel where Jesus had spent 3 years teaching and preaching. The poor bom peoples did not have that benefit, yet 16 cities got zotted.
We post Scripture - not play defense...
And SO much more 'destroyed' than that darned ol' BABYLON! or JERICHO! Or TYRE!
if anyone deserved to get zotted, it was Israel where Jesus had spent 3 years teaching and preaching.
_______________________________________
And Jesus even said that Sodom and Gomorrah would have better odds in the judgement than the city of Capernaum...
because the people of S and G didnt get the gospel preached in order to accept or reject Jesus...
While Capernaum had Moses and the prophets and jesus Himself and they still didnt believe...
Old Lehi’s cities didnt do as well as the cities of the Sodomites...
“And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to Heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” Matthew 11:23, 24
"Even when He threw out the money-changers in the temple, he didn’t just denounce them but then explained why He did it. When the Pharisees and the Sadduccees tried to trip up the Savior with their questions, what was His usual response? He cited the scriptures and explained the point of doctrine in question."
That would include the time that he called the Pharisees and the Sadduccees vipers and whited sepulchers. Matthew 23:33:
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
But that is one verse in a chapter that is 39 verses long. He uses the example of the duplicity of the Pharisees and the Sadduccees to teach, not just denounce. Here are a few of the verses that preceed verse 33:
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
25 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
26 Thou blind Pharisee, cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.
27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness.
28 Even so ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.
29 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
Matthew 23:24-33
He denounces and then teaches. Denunciation in and of itself is worthless if it isn't followed up with teaching. In the Doctrine and Covenants it states:
"41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;
42 By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—
43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy;
Doctrine and Covenants 121: 41-43
Sharpness may be needed from time to time and Christ was certainly sharp in Matthew 23, but never was "sharp" with anyone without using "persuasion...long-suffering... gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned." The Gospel can not be spread by any other means.
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.