Posted on 09/15/2009 8:21:31 AM PDT by Colofornian
"Obviously the holy practice (of polygamy) will commence again after the Second Coming of the Son of Man and the ushering in of the millennium." (LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966 edition, see pp. 577-579 for context)
If anyone wants to know why I post what I post, this is a decent summary from the point of view of an Indian Evangelical.
Besides, over the years a dozen or so Lds missionaries --out the literal million-plus they've sent out -- have visited me. I'm hospitable. I invite them in. We dialogue. They move on. Hopefully, they haven't felt "threatened." With a few, we've met repeatedly. Been on good terms.
Hey, I'm hospitable to them. I simply hope they return the "e-living room" treatment when I visit those who fund the resources Lds missionaries take with them.
I find that my “No Trespassing” signs work pretty well for keeping the Mormans and Jehova’s Witness folks away from my door.
I don’t know what the point is of posting this on a political web site. If the purpose is to create division, I think most of us have learned to brush that off, praise God.
The article has an intemperate tone.
It’s posted in the religion forum. This isn’t a solely political website.
If you do not wish to see RF posts, do NOT use the "everything" option on the browse. Instead, browse by "News/Activism." When you log back in, the browse will reset to "everything" - so be sure to set it back to "News/Activism."
“I don’t know what the point is of posting this on a political web site. If the purpose is to create division, I think most of us have learned to brush that off, praise God.
You are on the Religion Forum of FR. If you don’t want to see any religious articles, you can adjust your settings.
Jesus was the Archangel Michael before he was born in the flesh.
Satan is Jesus' brother.
There is no Trinity (because their founder couldn't understand it.)
The "Holy Spirit" doesn't exist as a moving force or part of God.
Jesus has not always existed...he was a created being, not "with God at the Beginning."
Since the Bible says you should "only worship God", those multiple parts of the Bible where people worshiped Jesus (Disciples in the boat, Wise men from the East, etc.) are re-translated as "payed obeisance to Jesus".
And since EVERYBODY knows the Wise Men were really Astrologers, their worship doesn't count, of course.
There's more of course, but those are the highlights. We had to ask them about this, as the prepackaged spiel about "here comes the Kingdom of God don't you want to be part of it) left this stuff out. It is worth noting that although the Bible says if a prophet is wrong about any tiny thing, his word is not of God, the JW's have proclaimed Christ's immanent return a half dozen times in their history and been wrong. (Current church dogma is that Christ "returned secretly" to Earth in 1914. You remember that, right? When His toe touched the mountain and shattered it so the whole world heard? Remember?)
As an anti-mormon you continue to be obsessed with all things LDS. I am continually surprised that this website which is conservative and freedom loving continues to promote thru loose moderation attacks on any religion. All conservatives should seek to unite against the dark oppression that exists and seek a more Christ-like dialogue between each other. I’m sure my comment will spark mass postings (usually canned and rebroadcasted) from the normal dozen or so anti-mormon folks. You know who you are.
Tried to keep that neutral...kill it if anyone gets in a snit.
Tried to keep that neutral...kill it if anyone gets in a snit.
I am Catholic, which is why I am aware that writing articles that use innuendo and exaggeration is sinful. It violates the 8th commandment.
Sounds like it belongs right here in the Religion forum. BAD RELIGION.
#1, Re: political web site -- you can set your settings so that "religion" section headlines don't pop up on your screen. (That way, you can toolie & 'temperate' away & not be 'bothered' w/any religious overtones at all)
#2, nobody forced you to read the article -- or comment. 'Tis a Free Republic world & you could zoom on by just like we all do whether it's a chicken-dressed up teen standing roadside gyrating, or billboards, or TV commercials.
If the purpose is to create division...
#3, Perhaps you just don't understand that the supposed first words expressed to the founder of Mormonism by his unnamed entities who appeared to him was to...
...label ALL other churches as unjoinable (he later called all Christians "apostates")
...label ALL Christian sect professing believers as "corrupt"
...and label ALL Christian sect creeds (Catholic, Protestant AND Orthodox) as an "abomination" to the Mormon god.
IOW, we don't even need to "create divisions" because Joseph Smith, Jr. opened up the widest divisive frontline you could ever imagine -- all right from the get-go!
If you don't believe, feel free to peruse any Mormon Pearl of Great Price "scripture." (Just go to Joseph Smith - History, verses 18-20...it's all there in black & white)
Sorry, my comment was intended for Colofornian.
The Mormons kept coming to my door until I started asking about their having to call their women to heaven and them being "Eternally Pregnant". When I asked about their Elders belief in the "Mother Ship" and the Planet Kobol - they said I really did know something about Mormonism. When they asked if I had read the Book of the Mormon, I said I had (I read it twice) and said that the Bible is far superior to me.
The "Witnesses" stopped coming after I asked why didn't Christ come bodily and Establish a visible world government in 1914? and how were folks bodies preserved since then? (Rather than being Frozen as they want to now).
How ya feelin’ Pete? Head spinning yet from getting smacked around? LOL
Would you like cheese with your whine.
Well, you didn't address this to me, but let me ask you: By your open critique of somebody's religious expression on this thread, are you yourself then thereby engaging in an "attack" upon a religion?
And if you are, then why are you violating your own personal standard?
If you don't think you're attacking somebody's religious expression, it sure sounds like a disagreement -- a critique -- and so please explain the "degree" of difference you see between a so-called "attack" and critique? (One man's critique is another man's "attack", eh?)
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.