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.
Faith is both simple and complex. Faith has a lot to do with the object of that faith. I have faith in my stockbroker, for instance. Why is that faith justified?
They are masters at turning words and it is somewhere written in the NT that Jesus also spoke this!
I wish I could find that verse.
They who?
Elsie, you've posted Millet's message on many threads...I, like probably many other FREEPERS, never took the time to view what this BYU rep has been saying about us Christians.
So I viewed it. Not only at 2:02 does Millet say "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions," he goes to cite Alma 11 (Book of Mormon) as the source of this wisdom -- and says that the person in Alma 11 asking questions was skilled "in the devices of the devil."
What's the implication? A BYU prof is essentially telling his students, "Hey, people out there are skilled in 'the devices of the devil.' So, you're not obligated to answer their questions."
The import for FREEPER discussions with Mormons, based upon Millet's advice? When a Mormon refuses to directly answer your question, for all we know, they are following Millet's advice to consider you as a tool of the devil!
Does Millet let his slander go at that? (No!) He cited a Quorum of the 12 "prophesy" from 1845 and a Brigham Young reference to opposition to temple development as originating in the "Bells of Hell." So? Opposed to a Mormon temple? Guess what BYU profs are telling their students about that? Your opposition is rooted in hell!
Millet went on to tell about his first week as an LDS missionary where he preached on a soap box in Wall Street. What was the VERY first "preaching assignment?" He was told to preach about the "apostasy" and restoration! (LDS are so obsessed with labeling us all as "apostates" that they can't find much else to focus on as a primary message!)
What else does Millet do in the message?
He essentially coaches students that if they don't like the question, change the question in their mind and answer that instead!
Also, he cites 3 Nephi 11 about the "spirit of contention" and that "we do not argue, debate" -- totally ignoring what the apostle Paul & Apollos did in Acts 17, 18, 19. (Folks, this shows that LDS allow the Book of Mormon to trump plain Bible teaching)
Finally, Millet says he has a friend to interviewed 600 Mormon Africans about when they accepted the Mormon version of the gospel...and 90% of them answered, "When I heard the name 'Joseph Smith' on my doorstep."
So much for Mormons' baseless, weak claims that they don't substitute "Joseph Smith" for "Jesus Christ!" Walk into any Mormon bookstore and who is the prominent theme there? (Smith)
Wasn't going to evaluate your understanding. Secondly, you will need to refine your question with greater detail. Faith is both very broad and very specific, so you will need to refine what you want. Finally, you will still need to evaluate what you will be willing to abandon.
what is the point of heaven.
+++++++
Please explain your understanding of what heaven is and what out duties will be.
+++
Please enlarge your statement so I can understand where it is broad and where it is specific.
Unfortunately, you have not stated specifically what aspect of faith is involved here? As stated earlier:
Faith has a lot to do with the object of that faith. I have faith in my stockbroker, for instance. Why is that faith justified?
What fundamentals of faith concern you, define it, then we would have a better starting point.
So what are you implying that you are equating with those that Millet is talking about?
Do you believe that some that are non LDS that they got caught up unaware they were using the tools of the opposition to badger and harass the LDS?
Timeline...Subject...
0:59 “Anti-Mormons...”
1:16 “ATTACK the faith you have...”
2:02 “We really aren’t obligated to answer everyone’s questions...”
3:57 “You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you.”
Do you think there is a different that some are more qualified to harass the LDS?
I am most definitely NOT anti-Mormon. Nor am I anti-Muslim.
I AM, however, anti-Mormonism, anti-Islam, anti-hindu, and against any other belief system that leads it’s followers away from Jesus and his message.
I think people get tangled up in these things more than is prudent. I believe in the trinity (because I believe God and I believe the authority of the Bible) even though I don’t understand it any more than a man who sees in black and white can understand red.
But that’s ok.
A lot of people firmly believe their car works even though they do not understand the workings of an internal combustion engine.
Can we at least have Jack Chick materials in the “friday funnies” threads?.
Can you say POLYTHEISM??
I thought you could.
it is somewhere written in the NT that Jesus also spoke this!
I wish I could find that verse.
___________________________________________
Ask Joe Smith...
He use to quote the Bible in his “talks”
He knew the Bible quite well...
Well enough to copy and distort whole passages in his own “religious books”
Joe Smith hardly ever quoted from his own “religious books” though...
He gave the book of mormon etc a pass...
Wonder why ???
Them BYU dudes hear all KINDS of things!
it is somewhere written in the NT that Jesus also spoke this!
I wish I could find that verse.
___________________________________________
Keep looking...
I, for one, expect you to post the source...
>>Same here. I’m not Mormon, but those I’ve met seem to be good people. It’s easy enough not to be a Mormon if you disagree with their beliefs.<<
Some of the guys I work with are muslim. They are all pretty nice too. It is not the person that is necessarily the problem. It is the belief system.
In fact, the person is the victim. And one we, as Christians, should endeavor to rescue.
I wish I could find that verse.
(I'll bet if it were in the BoM you could find it ;^)
Can you say “the young man went away sorrowful because” ?????
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.