Replies

Caucus threads give religious people who are generally good conservatives a reason not to just abandon FR to the anti firestorm...

Come now, DU. Can we compete w/the $millions Lds, Inc. devotes to calling us "apostates" & "corrupt" & worst names in its translations of books & curricula & mass media & Web sites into hundreds of languages?

If we are "anti-Mormon," then Mormons are anti-Christian! You are, plain & simple, against the Christian. Otherwise, you wouldn't let SLC get away with bashing us as "apostates," "whores of Babylon," "corrupt," "the church of the devil" and the like!

Worse, your personal wallet has been paying for it for years!

Were you not "anti-Christian," then we would see you "distance" yourself more than just "I don't go to Web sites discussing Christian theology." We would actually see you critique the sources of that name-calling.

But we don't -- from YOU or from other Mormons. It's status quo; business-as-usual.

My point? Even though we CANNOT compete with the hundreds of $millions at the disposal of Lds, Inc. to label us how they will, does that mean that we conclude -- like you have -- that we will automatically abandon working with Mormons on various mutual causes?

(I.e. defending marriage; working on behalf of our youth in efforts like Boy Scouts; manning food pantries together, etc...Why is it that I -- more so than the average evangelical -- knows the hundreds of horrid things that Mormon leaders have called us...and yet I'm still willing to work on conservative causes with Mormons to a degree...and yet Mormons can't do the reverse? You & other Mormons keep claiming Lds can't stomach some critiques and continue working w/us? Why not? They can pay for their leaders to dish it out -- but they don't want return commentary?)

...when I see my religion, my flag or my wife disrespected, I feel it my duty to respond.

DU I'm not going to say that Mormonism isn't disparaged on FR; but I will say that a hefty chunk of it is simply regurgitated Mormon leader quotations coming right back atcha!

Yes, I know that's not a pretty sight. (It wasn't very pretty when it came out of those Mormon leaders' mouths the first time).

But what I don't understand, DU, is if Christians can put up w/the absolute filthy crap that Lds leaders have hurled at us for these past 180 years -- labeling us things not based in truth -- I don't understand how come Mormonism is withering under primarily a "revelation" of its own history and theology???

What exactly is so "anti" about seeing if Mormonism can stand up to its own history and theological consistency?

Let them have their beliefs, I have mine.

DU, I assume you are (and/or have been) a tithing Mormon. Having said that, what I mean is -- it's simply too late for you to make this statement with full truth-bearing disclosure.

Your contributions have already trickled into the coffers of publishing curricula & books & missionary training that calls us "apostates" -- and worse. The fact is, your leaders' belief system hasn't allowed us to have our "own belief" system minus your leaders' commentary.

We can't simply be -- to use the denominational names you used -- Baptist, Calvinistic, Lutheran and Catholic; no, your leaders have had to tinge our church as being the "church of the devil" by applying 1 Nephi 14:9-10 to us!

Just because you have personally delegated this commentary to your leaders, and funded their efforts in the process, doesn't alleviate you of your role in all of this!

I assume you did your two-year mission. How many times did you use the phrase (or a similar one to it), "universal apostasy and restoration?"

Was PD out of line for posting this? I don't know, but it could have been handled better.

PD can post what he wants to. The issue here is where he posted it -- what boundaries he attached to it.

Were you not "anti-Christian," then we would see you "distance" yourself more than just "I don't go to Web sites discussing Christian theology." We would actually see you critique the sources of that name-calling.

With what time? I spend all my time on Defense here with myriads of peoples attacking my faith. I'll tell you what, You guys all take a week off and ping me to threads where "Christians" are being attacked and I'll come to your defense! Deal?

Yeah I didn't think so. It'd be fun.

As foe Being "anti Christian", LOL! I am a true follower of Jesus. Calling me anti Christ is not just stretching things, it's farce.

DU I'm not going to say that Mormonism isn't disparaged on FR; but I will say that a hefty chunk of it is simply regurgitated Mormon leader quotations coming right back atcha!

I will agree that lots of what is posted is accurate quotation as far as that goes, it's the editing that is the problem. you see the add this last election cycle about Taliban Dan? He said the words, the clip was not doctored, it was however edited because his intent was the exact opposite of the edited clips meaning. that happens to us a lot in these "Quotations"

What exactly is so "anti" about seeing if Mormonism can stand up to its own history and theological consistency?

What a masterfully crafted question. it's not our history that we disagree with, I study tat all the time myself. It's the spin anti's put on it that makes it anti. have you ever seen a propaganda film from WWII? I have a collection of cartoons and movie shorts that have been banned as politically incorrect. you would surely learn a thing or two from watching the collection.

DU, I assume you are (and/or have been) a tithing Mormon. Having said that, what I mean is -- it's simply too late for you to make this statement with full truth-bearing disclosure.

No, It's not.

Your contributions have already trickled into the coffers of publishing curricula & books & missionary training that calls us "apostates" -- and worse. The fact is, your leaders' belief system hasn't allowed us to have our "own belief" system minus your leaders' commentary.

Really? So where in the missionary Discussions does it call you apostate personally? (It does not)

Do we name your church, if you go to one, specifically? (we don't)

Has your church, if you have one ever claimed to be the "true church" or declared another group to be apostate (like us for example?)

If so, you have nothing to complain about.

We can't simply be -- to use the denominational names you used -- Baptist, Calvinistic, Lutheran and Catholic; no, your leaders have had to tinge our church as being the "church of the devil" by applying 1 Nephi 14:9-10 to us!

OK, Theoretical question, If God causes a scripture to be written, is a church leader responsible for what it says, or God?

None of the Current church leaders can in any way be held responsible for the content of the Book of Mormon. Joseph smith translated that Book by the Gift and power of God. God is responsible for what is in it, and you are free to go to him in the matter as soon and as often as you like.

Just because you have personally delegated this commentary to your leaders, and funded their efforts in the process, doesn't alleviate you of your role in all of this!

So if I pay tithes to God, I am responsible for what God does with my tithing...

I will not bother to argue with you, arguing with the insane is a fruitless endeavor.

My father once said "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still" -- Not sure where he got it, but it's saved me a lot of headaches.

I assume you did your two-year mission. How many times did you use the phrase (or a similar one to it), "universal apostasy and restoration?"

I served in Taiwan, the phrase you are using does not translate well for they would be thinking of Buddhism, I did however after teaching them who God was give them a brief over view of Christan history and the fall. (Not trying to be difficult, just accurate)

The church did Fall, that is documented. the first council of Nicea where they changed the very definition of God to make it more acceptable to pagans is a great example. You can argue with me all you like, but the Catholic churches own records make this crystal clear.

Delph Was PD out of line for posting this? I don't know, but it could have been handled better.

PD can post what he wants to. The issue here is where he posted it -- what boundaries he attached to it.

and what was done as punishment. if this is how all other improperly posted caucus articles are handled from now on, well we just had the misfortune to be the first. if they are handled in a "nicer" way then we were singled out.

Delph