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.
Well, you use the word Mormon like the “N-Word” so, you have little right to complain.
No, Elsie, you never play defense. You don’t answer questions so, how could you?
you have little right to complain.
______________________________________________________
As an American citizen, I retain my Constitutional right to complain...
And you exercise it ad nauseum.
the word Mormon (is) like the “N-Word”
_________________________________
Well, Joe Smith chose it so blame him...
You mind read about as good as ol’ Joe Smith “read them there rocks in his hat...
Stop reading that there book of mormon...
You’ll feel better...
he didn’t just denounce them but then explained why He did it.
That would include the time that he called the Pharisees and the Sadduccees vipers and whited sepulchers. Matthew 23:33:
__________________________________
vipers and whited sepulchres would not have needed explaining in those days...
nor now...
OK, that says all that needs to be said about you. Nooooo, you don’t hate Mormons....not at all....I’m pretty sure Christ would not approve of you last statement. Just guessing.
I’m pretty sure Christ would not approve of you last statement. Just guessing.
_________________________________________
And I KNOW the Lord Jesus Christ of the Bible doesnt care...
What does He have to do with mormons and what they think ???
Mormons are not Christians...
OTOH, the opinion or “approval” of some mythical mormon “god” / New Age spirit guide named “christ” living on the planet Kolob
(Isnt that a cheap champagne ??? Joe Smith always did serve the cheap stuff at inflated prices)
is of no interest to me as a Christian...
Who is Jesus teaching - not the scribes and pharisees, but his followers and disciples. The scibes and pharisees received no teaching from Jesus in this chapter. Read a little more reggie to get the context.
They received no teaching because they chose not to. And that was part of the point Christ was making. They could have learned. It was there for them to learn. Christ was offering it to them and they rejected Him preferring to hold on to their belief that the fact that they were descendants of Abraham, this alone made them holy. His followers and disciples learned because they were willing to be taught.
I doubt even your concept of Christ would approve of what you said.
"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:
You stated Jesus would cite scriptures to them (scribes and pharisees) and explain the point of doctrine. That is entirely absent from the context of MT 23. Your reply indicates that your initial interpretation was wrong.
Whereas our REFORMED Gospel® CAN be spread by secret Temple Rites®.
--MormonDude(And, if ANY of you GENTILES even DARE to POST them; WE have the POWER to get them removed!!*)
*they're NON-scriptural you see...
That would be the AN-word.
Now even YOU are channeling Fproy!
Figures.
Yeah, dont be calling us no “chicks”
We’s “wymyn” or sumpin..
:)
This should be called “Christian” forum and not “Religion” forum. Scroll up and substitute the word
“Pope” for the words “Joseph Smith” and tell me thats something you’d tollerate. I don’t think so.
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.