Was this post supposed to make sense?
Posted on 03/21/2009 8:22:38 AM PDT by greyfoxx39
Here is the response of a Utahn commenting on a Salt Lake Tribune online blog concerning HBO's attempt in its series "Big Love" to increase its revenues by publicly insulting the religious sensitivity of a minority religion: "Anything that gets the LDS "church's magical Mormon underwear in a twist is all right with me!!"
I write for a regional newspaper in Iowa. During the last election campaign, I suggested that Mitt Romney lost the Iowa caucus to Mike Huckabee primarily due to anti-Mormon bigotry. A reader argued that my opinion had no credence because I was a lay leader in the LDS Church.
The writer was either suggesting that I knew exactly what I was talking about and was therefore credible, or that I shouldn't be believed because I was a Mormon, which implies that the writer was a bigot.
-SNIP-
It is obvious to an outsider that Utah, or at least Salt Lake City, has within itself a deeply held culture of bigotry. A bigotry so ingrained in the cultural norm that the readers posting comments to the newspaper's blogs, apparently believing they are freethinking and ironic, are saying things online that would never be allowed into print if written about other groups.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
And would that be male eyewear for a priestholding sounding poster, or female eyewear?
Perhaps it is more like corporate eyewear.
Maybe it's a cataract instead and surgery would be required? Although, MY cataract didn't allow me to read selected posts.
Did someone mention "principles"??
Elder Dallin H. Oaks, an attorney, of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Mormon Church states, "Our individual, personal testimonies are based on the witness of the Spirit, not on any combination or accumulation of historical facts. If we are so grounded, no alteration of historical facts can shake our testimonies." ("1985 CES Doctrine and Covenants Symposium," Brigham Young University, Aug. 16, 1985, page 26)
Apostle Oaks also stated that, "My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior. Everything else [including facts, evidence, and truth itself I suppose] may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors." (Introduction p. xliii f28 in Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith: Psychobiography and the Book of Mormon)
Speaking of how Mormon leaders should only teach things that are faith-promoting, Elder Boyd K. Packer stated, "In the Church we are not neutral. We are one-sided. There is a war going on, and we are engaged in it." (Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1981) He goes on to basically call objective, impartial, and scholarly writings the evil that should be fought in this 'war'. On another occasion he claims that scholars and intellectuals are a danger to the church.
Hum...
That maybe the ticket right there, explains the shared vision issue...
Youy are being deceitful, and you know it. I referred to the Disciples having power to give the Holy Spirit power to others, just like you claim your president and priests can pass Holy Spirit power to other ‘deserving’ Mormons. You are trying to twist the perspectived knowing full well you are being deceitful. Only God bestows His Spirit in power. You cultists cannot and will never be able to pass power from God to others because only He conveys His Spirit. But you mormonism apologists just keep trying to deceive people into believing God has given you something that Simon thought he could purchase and be conveyed to him by the Apostles. Man does not force God or convey His SPirit. If that were possible, then deceptions like Mormonism would be more powerful than God’s Grace. Nice try, deceiver.
Tell you what. Since you seem to need first-hand experiential presentations, we'll put you in a time machine set for Utah 150+ years ago. (We'll make you a DB -- a "designated bishop" for that time.) You're listening to the LDS "prophet," Brigham talking about the requirement for "pay[ing] the debt."
The blood of Christ will never wipe that [the debt]out; your own blood must atone for it..." (Instructions to Bishops, JoD,vol. 3, p. 72)
After bishop instruction, you head off to hear Brigham give a message to men and women:
Brethren and sisters, we want you to repent and forsake your sins. And you who have committed sins that cannot be forgiven through baptism, let your blood be shed, and let the smoke ascend, that the incense thereof may come up before God as an atonement for yous sins, and that the sinners in Zion may be afraid. (1857, JoD, Vol. 4, p. 51)
There it is. 1857. The person sitting next to you says, "Indeed, there are sins that cannot be forgiven thru my baptism alone."
You then say, "Well, what does the prophet say to do then?"
Your seat neighbor says, "my blood will have to be shed, and its smoke ascend like incense as blood atonement."
You then say: "Well, you know Brother Mormon, Blood Atonement is a principle....not an event." [underline portion is your post #147]
Your seat neighbor responds: "Oh, you mean I don't have to obey the prophet & have my blood shed as an atonement for my sin?"
"Well, on the other hand, following His commandments, and being faithful to the end of your life are the requirements of eternal life." [underline portion is your post #237]
Your seat neighbor: "Oh, dear, what do I do? Make blood atonement only a "principle" and not an "event," or follow his commands as spoken thru the prophet and thereby be faithful by letting my blood be shed?"
Boy, what's a Mormon to do in such a predicament with such contradictory quandary?
Reading your posts, you have the smell of more than one person posting with the name 'Stourme', and you have the distinct odor of previous posters who seem to have fallen silent of late. Would you lie to us while trying to sell your cult to the readers at FR?
BTW, readers, did you notice that the Mormon apologist admitted that Jesus IS God? It must be hard to confalate so many things and still keep up with the Salt Lake talking points.
Now now let’s not misrepresnt.
There is only one god in the LDS belief system and Jesus is one of them.
Does that make it clearer...
As mud
God created that as well...
At least one of the many of the one of them did...
...welllll....actualllllly....God the one of the many of the only one, only ORGANIZED it. He didn't actually create it out of nothing. Perhaps he only added the ingredients.
The “one of the other many that is really one just mentioned in a few different ways even though they are still one” one...
You see there is still only one....
Do not read minds or attribute motives.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Two other Freepers have asked me to use a larger font when replying to them. I'll be sure to do that for you also.
But I don't want to use up thread space here repeating the post.
If you'd like, you could cut and paste it into a Freepmail to yourself to read it. Or if you'd prefer, I could do that and Freepmail it to you.
Please let me know if you'd rather I do it.
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.