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.
The Founder of MORMONISM was unhinged; as he directed HIS 'hate' against ALL of Christiandom!
Well; we call folks who correctly point out your beliefs - Christians.
Anytime we misrepresent things here on FR, freely use your freedom to freely post the TRUTH as you know it.
And, BTW, quit telling us to STUDY the matter for ourselves if you will NOT do the former.
When I read the article I thought that the author was using the wrong word. Instead of using "the word that must not be spoken" he should have used the word 'bigot'. The majority of Americans equate anti (when used before a religion, race, ethnicity, race or nationality) as a pejorative that connotes bigotry. Thus ANTI=Bigot and not the "n-word'.
I think the author knows this too, but my guess is that he uses the "n-word" because it has much more shock value than does the word bigot.
There is a difference between being “anti-mormon” and being against every false way, including the teachings of mormonism.
“Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way.” PS - 119:104
“The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” Mark 12:31
“Do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them.” Ephesians 5:11
All true. All commanded.
Just because Mitt was Mormon does not make socialized medicine and other weak conservative stances now Conservative planks...
Nice excuse for you guys to hide behind though wasn't it. Saved all that having to deal with facts ans such....
Seems kind of silly to me. Anti-mormon is simply an accurate word for people who are against mormonism. I have mormon friends, and I don’t hate them, but it is fair to say that I am anti-mormon since they adhere to a silly cult that is easy to prove false with logic and reason.
Back before I joined the LDS Church, I was a W.A.S.P..
As a young W.A.S.P., living in the northeast, I was taught that the white man was better then others, and the blacks were the lowest of all.
As a teenage W.A.S.P., I moved to the south.
I was taught the proper way to keep the sub-human race of blacks in their proper place.
After joining the Mormon Church, I learned of the true brotherhood of all men.
I had been taught wrong as a W.A.S.P., and until joining this Church, I had accepted the training of my youth.
On the day that the Revelation about all worthy males being able to hold the Priesthood was given, I was told about it from two of the men I worked with.
Because of the way they picked on the Church I told them something like this.
—I know that the day will come when the blacks can hold the Priesthood, it is just that I do not believe you.—
You see, even back in the 70’s, I had studied enough to know that one day the blacks would hold the Priesthood.
And even then, many people were not telling all the facts about the Mormon Church.
By leaving out parts of the truth, they can make statements look like something they are not, and pretend we said something we did not say.
I know; but by trying to AVOID the truth, many LDS members act like the things their past leaders have said are now meaningless, but cannot come up with anything that SLC Headquarters has published to refute what history has recorded.
Sorry you were taught wrong stuff as a youth.
A cursory read of the NT would have told you that your 'teachers' were wrong.
Good of you to stay with the LDS Organization UNTIL Heaven opened up access to black MEN.
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 seem to remember that the Southern Baptists are a church FOUNDED to DEFEND white supremacy and Negro Slavery.
Cry me a river. Anti-Mormon is a fully accurate label for those who go out of their way to insult, attack, belittle and marginalize us. Likewise those who behave that way toward Catholics are rightfully called anti-Catholics, and those who act that way toward Christianity in general are anti-Christs.
The meaning is literal, anti is active opposition with intent to harm in some manner, not mere disagreement that respects the rights and dignity of others, and I don’t think any objective person would have a hard time finding a thread or two here that proves there are anti-Mormons and other kinds of anti’s here too.
Anti-whatevers only make themselves look rather weak when they play the victim over being correctly labelled. It’s the same tactics liberals use when you correctly label them and I don’t think that is a coincidence.
When another group tries to...
"Anti-Mormon is a fully accurate label for those who go out of their way to insult, attack, belittle and marginalize us."~ Grig
This is the samething they are doing to Rush Limbaugh trying to marginalize him so every time one see his name they have contempt to make the God given gift of Rush impotent
Right out of the Marxist hand book!
"The meaning is literal, anti is active opposition with intent to harm in some manner, not mere disagreement that respects the rights and dignity of others, and I don’t think any objective person would have a hard time finding a thread or two here that proves there are anti-Mormons and other kinds of anti’s here too." ~ Grig
One wonders why a “prophet of God” Joseph Smith needed the Danites when Jesus only needed this...
Mat 26:53 Thinkest thou that I cannot now pray to my Father, and he shall presently give me more than twelve legions of angels?
Why did Smith need Humans to protect him if he was chosen of God?
While I am thinking of it, which one of the Danites died by choking on his own vomit after getting drunk?
***The goths and the romans sure hated each other though. People will make up the silliest excuses to hate each other.***
The Goths, being Arian, and the Romans Trinitarian, you would think Christianity would be Arian today, but it was the Goths that converted to Trinitarian beliefs.
Do you have a link?
I thought goths just got exterminated. The only thing they converted to was worm food.
placemark
***I thought goths just got exterminated. The only thing they converted to was worm food.***
Go back and read your history. they took over Spain, North Africa and later became Trinitarians. Where do you think the West Goths were when they opposed the moslem invasions and reconquest of Spain.
As for links. before I got internet I used the Public library. It is still there.
THey aint there now, are they?
Ok, I was wrong.
***Got a link?***
http://history-world.org/goths.htm
***The Visigoths then moved on to southern France and Spain , where they finally settled. Al- though they were tolerant of the Catholic worship in the areas they con- trolled, they were isolated from the Latin population for almost two centuries by their refusal to give up Arianism. They were finally converted toward the end of the sixth century.***
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.