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.
I have a project for you. Create an "Errata" publication that covers the LDS.org site, the BOM and other document. there are many close ended statements, definitions and such that are obviously incomplete despite being presented as such, at least if what you are saying is true and I am not presenting the truth. For it is those publication that I use in making my supposedly incomplete statements.
It is a huge undertaking from what I can see, but a worthy one, it will save much time and future misunderstanding. The hubris is one you and you team, it is up to you, for I and many others, have used your information, not our own.
I know you are up to the task, I'd get busy, we are counting on you!
Not today weedhopper unless you are willing to give up your preconceived notions.
And unlike yesterday, do not ask me questions about mine. Teach me your understanding, I already know mine.
And this in reply to.......
This Church is so open with it teachings, you will have very little trouble finding what you want to know.
OK, whats up with temple ceremonies? Describe them, perhaps a script or youtube link.
You may say you know yours, but your answers and dialogue to date indicate otherwise. Does having stuff that challenges your testimony make you feel bad or uncomfortable inside? What are you willing to sacrifice?
So Mormon publications are incomplete, for i have posted from where my conclusions come...
You have work to do man, get to it!
It is easy to say some one is wrong, another thing to actually show it. I have yet to see anything in the way of actual documentation that there are exceptions to Mormon leaders being prophets. Slight of hand does not count, indeed it is a little pathetic and a transparent avoidance of actually trying to defend yourself. You know,as everyone who read the thread does, I was referring to earthly leaders, for I mentioned priest and pastors from the get go.
Of course perhaps you need no documentation, I, we, should take your word on it as an "authority"....
Whew, I have seen twisting, but wow...
I really am almost (almost mind you) convienced that fp actaully beleives all of this and that he is making cohernt arguemnts...
Sorry, meant to ping you.
Can't handle the truth - interfers with their 'testimony'.
Well I would get on with it then, you really have posted little if any facts.
+++++++++
True,
I am focused on THE FACT that you do not show a desire to learn something that might just prove your prejudged conclusions are wrong.
What I would like is to see where I am wrong, not just be told that I am. i want the same level of documentation to show I am wrong
+++++++
If you really wanted to see where you might be wrong, you would take the time and effort to do it.
All I see is whining because someone will not do it for you. This way, you can take a shot at him and not have to face anything you might learn for yourself.
Because that would put mormonism in an unfavorable light, to really HAVE to answer the hard questions and not just spin and spin and spin.
Here you go, your first opportunity, and it is a familiar topic. Are the LDS leaders (plural) prophets?
Here is the complete entry on LDS.org about Prophets:
You said no initially before saying I tricked you or vice versa or whatever.
OK no tricks, where is this wrong or incomplete? The hubris is on you however, this is your organization and you are the one making the charge I am wrong, or presenting half truths. Fill in the rest. I am giving you an opportunity to correct me. To win if that is what is important to you.
Oh yes, and you must use documentation, “because I say so” don't fly...
You will have time, for I am off to a meeting and will be gone for a while. Build me a good defense.
As to what that means, well...
It doesn’t seem to like links, but I’m sure F is internet saavy enough to find it - I did.
They have been given plenty of shots here lately. Haven't been able to hit the broad side of a barn at point blank range with a shotgun yet.
I am giving you a shot at the title.
Show me here, right now on Free Republic, a national forum for all to see that I am wrong.
No coy comments, no excuses, not “well if you really wanted to know”, for I do.
I am giving you an opportunity to be a teacher on a national stage.
Hit me with your best shot, I am a big boy, I can take it. give me documentation I have obviously missed. I am a blank slate tonight. Correct my errors.
You have plenty of time, show me what you got.
+++++
Another try to get out of your responsibility to teach the truth.
This time you try to make me the fall guy.
Teach what you want. As long as you are happy, why should you worry about those who learn from you.
I have never lived under a rock (wholly unlike a certain set of fictional golden plates under the hill Cumorah) in my life,and I was by no means verblly assaulting you for having a particular form (or forms) of dyslexia.
I am familiar with several different forms as such - including the most widely known as well as dysgraphia (in which the sufferer writes whole words with the front and back halves of the word switched or juxtaposed - for some reason this does not usually simultaneously affect the eye/brain recognition and reproduction of numbers), and I have not in these pages ever made fun of anyone for having to deal with such a limitation.
I will say you are being needlessly sensitive, because my comments had absolutely nothing to do with my tolerance, nor the lack thereof.
I identified specific elements in a specific post,calling to attention the fact that they inherently made the post unintelligible.
A more productive approach - your task, if you will - would have been to refine elements of that post - perhaps one at a time, by asking me which parts I did not understand, and then explaining your meaning to me.
I have had to do that before with things I have written, so it really has naught to do with tolerance - unless we should all be made to tolerate having a one-sided discussion with someone whose arguments we cannot grasp.
I wish you no ill will.
A.A.C.
Oh yes, and you must use documentation, “because I say so” don’t fly...
++++++++++++++
You gave us a good example right here as to how you study.
You can refer back to that.
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.