Posted on 04/17/2011 2:58:04 PM PDT by greyfoxx39
MORMON
ATTITUDES OF SUPERIORITY
1. I’m Superior; I have a special gift of the holy Ghost -- you don’t!
2. I’m Superior; I have God’s true priesthood power -- you don’t! 3. I’m Superior; I can go in God’s secret Temple -- you can’t! 4. I’m Superior; I’ve been Endowed with special Gifts and Knowledge -- you’re just normal! 5. I’m Superior; I’ll have my family with me in heaven -- you’ll be with strangers! 6. I’m Superior; I’m becoming a God -- you aren’t! 7. I’m Superior; My women know their place as servants of man and yours don’t. 8. I’m Superior; YOUR creeds are wrong because they come from man - mine comes from God (you can find each one printed in our Scriptures). 9. I’m Superior; I don’t HAVE a creed - I’ve got 13 Articles of Faith. 10. I'm Superior; I have 4 "Bibles"-- the standard works (5 if you count the JST) -- you've only got one: in as far as it is translated correctly. 11. I’m Superior; I can lie with impunity about such things as church membership, church growth, church doctrine, church history, church influence, etc. — -- You can’t. 12. I’m Superior; I am right (everybody knows) when I say 'evangelical' Christians are lunatics -- -- You’re a hideous narrow-minded bigot, who is persecuting me by practicing discrimination by saying I'm not a Christian.
13. I'm Superior; I have a testimony about a prophet -- you don't. 14. I'm Superior; I have a Scripture-producing Amos 3:7 prophet -- you don't 15. I’m Superior; I have a Living Prophet who talks to god every day -- you have a dim-witted hireling of Satan who only talks to himself. 16. I'm Superior; I have my calling & election made sure -- you don't. 17. I’m Superior; I have magic underwear to protect me from the bogey man -- you don’t. 18. I’m Superior; I have secret clasps and grips to give the angel so I get admitted to the celestial kingdom -- you don’t ;so you can’t. 19. I'm Superior; I know secret handshake codes for afterlife entrances-- you don't. 20. I’m Superior; I will see Joseph Smith setting on the right hand of GOD, when I get to Mormon heaven, and he will recognize me and judge me favorably -- You’re on your own; when you get to wherever you’re going! 21. I’m Superior; I’m going to hie to Kolob -- you’re going to who knows where. 22. I’m Superior; I get to have a harem and act like a celestial stud for time and all eternity -- you don’t. 23. I’m Superior; I have sun stones, moon stones, sky stones, cloud stones, Saturn stones, and the evil eye of Osirus guarding my temple -- You have nothing but a stupid cross.
24. I’m Superior; My church has billions in assets stashed away -- yours has taken a stupid vow of poverty. 25. I'm Superior; Last - we have the power to keep a whole race out of our priesthood if we wanted to reinsert our 148-year legacy (we ARE still keeping an entire GENDER at bay!) 26. I'm superior; I have the "higher law" -- everyone else "lives under the "lesser law' because I say so...(over and over). Revision 46.5
Semi-Official creed of the EXclusive club of Freeper Flying Inmans.
All rights liable to be abused.
|
That's funny....I've known plenty of mormon's that don't own any weapons. None.
Yeah...probably right.
I have seen the claim that Mormans are the “nicest” people. Well my neighbor is one of the “nicest” people I have met. That is not the issue. This issue the fallacy of Mormanism.
We see that claim over and over and over.
Being nice is fine, but if one follows the lies of Joseph Smith all the "niceness" of one's life will not matter in the end. And, I don't think that it's particularly "nice" to try to convince the world that mormonism is part of the worldwide Christian community. That's bearing false witness.
Y’all betta stop wiff tha anti snake rollin jokes
y’all bigits yo
I dun rolled a snake jest yestadee mornin...
Tidae thet therar snaks reel holee lik
Hollyee Snak Rola(We’uns roll them therar snakees lik nobods biznizze)
Got that.
I guess my point, then, is that if their doctrine is either false, no good, evil, bogus or whatever, they sure seem to turn out OK (obviously not ALL of them, but surely a pretty good percentage).
Come on pharmboy, pull your head out of the sand. Utah is the scam capitol of the nation. Utah is one of the highest users of anti-depressant drugs in the nation. I'm sure others here can provide more details on just how wonderful a life / how well these mormons are turning out. Lots of weirdos and wackos have been on the front pages, not to mention Romney and Reid. So much for the propaganda from SLC
I'm sorry, but you lost me citing Jeff Lindsay as a credible source when he listed FARMS and FairLDS as sources, among other "faith-promoting history" sources.
My guess is that you are familiar with the term, but it is the official policy of the LDS church that the church and church historians - including academic historians at BYU and other universities - publish only historical facts about the church and its leaders that are positive, promote LDS faith, and are not likely to cause members to question their faith, or drive away converts.
As you may know, historians - LDS historians who are members of the church - are excommunicated, disenfellowshipped, or, at the very lease, have their temple recommends pulled for writing TRUE church history that is not faith-promoting.
The practice started long before LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, but he's most famous for giving the practice a name.
Here's a summary, but I'll follow this post up with some more details and links, generally to www.lds.org, www.fairlds.org, FARMS, BYU's website, etc.
When LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer implemented the LDS Church's policy of "faith-promoting history' in 1991, he specifically stated that Mormon historians should not publish or state facts about the church's history unless they promote faith. He stated his concern that new members ('seedlings in faith", i believe he called them) could be turned away if they knew all of the church's history, so that only positive facts about the LDS church should be published.
All published facts should be filtered through the historian's faith and testimony, not through academic standards. (This was not entirely new; Apostle Ezra Taft Benson had admonished LDS historians in 1976 and 1981, and perhaps on other occasions, that they shouldn't follow the tenets of their profession if it damaged the church or destroyed the faith of members, and BYU professor Louis C. Midgley gave a presentation to LDS historians in 1981 in which he said it was "depressing" to see LDS historians committed to 'objective history" instead of "acting out the role . . . of faithful Saint.")
A BYU professor gave a speech to 40 BYU history students on the conflict between academic truth as a historian and Packer's 'faith-promoting history" standard and the BYU student newspaper published an article about it.
Newsweek published an article on the conflict between LDS church leadership and LDS historians.
The BYU history professor, D. Michael Quinn, had his temple recommend pulled.
Over 50 articles quickly appeared in periodicals such as Sunstone and Dialogue: A journal of Mormon Thought (both of which are mentioned in the LDS Church's Encyclopedia of Mormonism as having six benefits for Mormons) on the conflict between being a historian and being an LDS historian under the 'faith-promoting' standard. BYU's journal, Foundation for Ancient Research and Mormon Studies specifically adopted the faith-promoting standard.
Articles appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals on 'how to read LDS history", including how to interpret common words as used uncommonly by LDS historians applying the 'faith-promoting' standard.
The LDS began to excommunicate or disenfellowship LDS historians who published books or articles that were not 'faith-promoting', i.e., were factually accurate, but contained facts that the church felt were damaging to the church or may cause members to question their faith. I believe it was September 1993 that the September Six were all excommunicated or disenfellowshipped. D. Michael Quinn published another book on how Joseph Smith and his family had been involved with divining, astrology, and other magic, and was excommunicated.
Other LDS historians have met the same punishment for disclosing facts that the church felt were unflattering or would cause members to doubt their faith, some recently.
As a result, the LDS church's official biography of Joseph Smith lists him as having only one wife. If you read deeply into the www.lds.org official history of the church, it will list Joseph's Smith's first polygamous wife - but it does not list Fanny Alger, the wife he took before he announced the doctrine of polygamy, thereby avoiding some issues (including the fact that Smith may not have actually married Alger, and an affair isn't seemly for Smith).
The 1997 Church publication on the teachings of Brigham Young, used for the education of adults in the church, refers to Young's 'wife' singular, not his wives. It does not mention Smith's teachings on the priesthood of blacks, Adam-God, or blood atonement.
Because non-LDS historians and non-LDS writers had access to many records (Packer and Benton had closed open access to the LDS archives, and the vault of the First Presidency was closed to virtually all historians), FAIR and other apologetic groups, not recognized by the LDS church, arose. These groups engage in a policy of deny, deny, deny . . . attack, attack, attack, when it comes to unfavorable church history.
Those involved with FAIR could simply rely on their faith and retain their testimony, but they spend their time attacking those who violate the LDS policy of reporting only faith-promoting history.
Members growing up in the church have a right to their religious beliefs, but they are led by the church to believe that they are told the full history of the church when in fact they are told only the 'faith-promoting' history.
I can find the citation and quotes from the FARMS journal if necessary, but one BYU professor wrote an article stating that historians who wrote LDS history that was not faith-promoting and contained historical facts that were detrimental to the church's image, or could cause LDS members to question their beliefs or what they had been taught by the church, or keep the church from gaining new members, were engaged in 'propaganda."
We've seen the term "propaganda" used frequently on FR by former member Paragon Defender, who took this BYU professor's article to heart, and by the writers for FAIR. Any disclosure of early church history, even if true, that casts the church or Joseph Smith in a less than perfect light is deemed "propaganda."
What's interesting is that FAIR publishes a different LDS history than the LDS church. For example, FAIR recognizes Fanny Alger as Joseph Smith's first wife.
At any rate, if you read things about the LDS church that you have not been taught, or that you have been taught by FAIR or apologetic groups are untrue, what's probably going on is application of the church standard of only publishing and acknowledging 'faith-promoting" history. Church members - such as LDS professors at BYU and other institutions - are required to do the same thing, or face possible loss of temple recommend, disenfellowshipment, or excommunication. It's been done; it's still being done.
Some will say this is like the Roman Catholic Church keeping silent when it settles sexual abuse cases against priests. The difference is that the Catholic Church, when confronted, doesn't deny that those cases were filed or that the settlements took place. And the Catholic Church does not kick out of the church priests, Notre Dame professors, and others if they write academic articles that mention abuse by the priests.
If you are looking for hard-core, academic facts, as supported by normal academic standards, which would meet standard for publishing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, then, yeah, the facts are there.
Incidentally, Packer's "faith-promoting' speech was "The Mantle is Far, Far Greater than the Intellect." He presented it on August 22, 1981, to seminary, institute, and Brigham Young University religion instructors. It was subsequently published in Brigham Young University Studies 21 (Summer 1981), and issued as a pamphlet by the LDS Church Educational System. You may want to check page 271, where Packer says that distorting LDS church history is justified because "we are at war with the adversary."
BYU scholars agree.
David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, in their article "Advocacy and Inquiry in Mormon Historiography," Brigham Young University Studies 31 (Spring 1991): 153, defend Mormon historians of faith-promoting motivation who "leave out less-than-desirable episodes, tell only one side of the story, or are incomplete in their treatment." In support of that, on page 176, note 76, they argue "that 'suppression of evidence' is in fact an essential step in the application of a 'viable tradition' of interpretation, not, we may add, merely an editorial right to be exercised."
So if Jeff Lindsay wants me to get my facts from FARMS, or FAIR, those groups have admitted that they are not going to give you facts that could cause you to question your faith, or show the church or Joseph Smith or other church leaders in an unfavorable light.
I do not want to question your religious beliefs. However, if you want to claim that you've been given all the facts, then I respectfully submit that you're wrong.
And you'll notice I didn't say other faiths disclose all of the facts of their faith.
But I'm not aware that any of them punish members and those in academia who dare to publish factual information if it casts the church in a bad light or could cause people to question their faith because things simply aren't as clean and tidy as you've been taught.
So, no, I don't trust Jeff Lindsay. He's suggested that I use sources that have specifically stated that they publish "faith-promoting" history - which means that anything negative about LDS history, even if true, is omitted. It means that a positive spin will be placed on all historical facts, no matter how bizarre that spin must be to be positive. It means that they have agreed that certain 'previously published' items, such as the 1830 Book of Mormon, should not be republished. It means they believe that adult study guides that direct the reader NOT to go to the original source matter are appropriate.
Jeff Lindsay does not want those who study the history of the LDS church and its teaching to know the whole truth, only the approved truth.
Are you talking about MORMONs or MUSLIMs?
The same can be said for BOTH!
1) I know many Mormons, some of them being what I consider to be friends, and they are, to a person, good, pleasant, decent people.
2) while some of them have offered to take me to church, and young men on their LDS missions have come to my door, they don't get pushy when I decline their offers. IOW, they don't meddle in my personal business
3) the article apparently is trying to make the point that Mormons are more loyal to the LDS Church than they are to their country, a point that I take issue with, based on my own personal experiences. Even if so...SO WHAT? It's not like any of them but Mitt Romney are running for national office...DINGDINGDING...I think we have a winner! More on this later.
4) similar articles appear regularly on the Free Republic main menu, sometimes bashing Mormons, sometimes Jews, sometimes Catholics, etc
5) sometimes they have all-caps headlines, such as "HAVE YOU NOTICED THIS ABOUT MORMONS?", which are obviously written to provoke people like me to click on them
6) invariably, I come away with the distinct impression that they're nothing but vitriolic rants by former Mormons or religious bigots, intended to poison the opinions of non-Mormons against the LDS Church (or the Catholics, Jews, Evangelicals, etc). In other words, it seems like you're trying to meddle with, or sabotage, my view of Mormons. Well, I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.
Given that the frequency of anti-LDS screeds has seemingly increased since the 2008 campaign, I'm pretty sure their root purpose is to convince people to not support Mitt Romney. If so, they're completely unnecessary. He has plenty enough baggage without having to bash his religion, and in the process paint all Mormons with the same broad brush. Does Romney put the LDS Church above his nation? Maybe. Do the Mormons I work with put the church above their nation? I seriously doubt it, and if they do, SO WHAT? It's their business, not mine, and not yours.
Your campaign against the LDS Church is unnecessary, at best. At worst, your Mormon-bashing is only making yourselves look like hateful, bigoted, meddling busybodies.
Have a great evening.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
Well, that is if you don't count Huntsman.
Do the Mormons I work with put the church above their nation?
Most likely. mormons voted for Romney at a rate of 92%, considering they present themselves as conservative and vote for this liberal - lds trumps all.
“This is a poorly defined term, but I would say that only the activists who attack the Church in a way intended to generate misunderstanding, fear, and shock are the ones who deserve the epithet of “anti-Mormons.” Many such “Mormon bashers” feel that the end justifies the means, and use tactics that are incompatible with the truthful example of Christ.”
Great! The Flyin’ Inmans on FR want to bring understanding and clarity and truth about the false cult of Mormonism. Nice to know old Jeffry doesn’t lump us in with those antis!
"the article apparently is trying to make the point"
There IS NO ARTICLE. Did you see the term "vanity" at the head of the post? That means that I personally have taken the time to find and present the information that follows. The various items ARE sourced to their origin, most of which are LDS sources.
You state, the article apparently is trying to make the point that Mormons are more loyal to the LDS Church than they are to their country, a point that I take issue with, based on my own personal experiences.
SAY WHAT? I'm making the point that while mormonism is attempting to claim the label of "Christian" it is anything but, and then I point out the various requirements for becoming a mormon "worthy" of mormonism's version of salvation. None of these "requirements" are in ANY WAY related to Christianity! The fact that mormons take a "sacred" oath in their temple rite to put their church above their country is only one issue.
Now then, I make the point that since no one who does not meet all these "requirements" before mormons will deign to allow them into their exclusive club, it is simply ridiculous that mormonism is running around the world, on TV, radio, the internet and with 52,000 missionaries telling Christians that their faith is false and only through mormonism will they reach salvation, attempting to co-opt the label "Christian" after 160 years of leaders and members alike demeaning everything Christian.
My question then is this: WHY IS IT THAT MORMONS BELIEVE THAT ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS INSIST THAT THEY BE CALLED "CHRISTIAN" AND THE CHRISTIAN WORLD IS REQUIRED TO BOW TO ITS DEMAND?
No Christian will be allowed to claim the title of "mormon/LDS" unless they meet the special requirements listed, but mormonism believes it can keep all its polytheistic, works-based doctrine in which it states that Christ was once a man and that a "worthy" mormon man can become a god....and bring all that baggage along and dictate to other faiths, "We're Christians, just like you"!
it seems like you're trying to meddle with, or sabotage, my view of Mormons. Well, I can make up my own mind, thank you very much.
You can indeed, make up your own mind...however there is nothing that I have posted that is untrue and at the very least you have taken the time to investigate, which is all to the good.
Your campaign against the LDS Church is unnecessary, at best.
That is YOUR opinion and you are welcome to it. We see it as very necessary.
At worst, your Mormon-bashing is only making yourselves look like hateful, bigoted, meddling busybodies.
It's too bad that you feel the need to make a personal attack when the purpose of the Religion Forum is for open debate on religious matters. As the Religion Moderator's disclaimer in reply #1 states, "Open threads are a town square. Antagonism though not encouraged, should be expected
Posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other’s beliefs. They may ridicule.
If one doesn't have the stomach to face a few truths, perhaps they should stay away from these threads.
Do the Mormons I work with put the church above their nation?
________________________________________
Yes of course if they are practicing mormons...
they have to “sustain” and believe all their mormon doctrines...
They have to obey their mormon leaders in all things
While a Christian will just go and sign up to serve in the armed forces
or when there was a draft just go down and sign up
unlike the 2 time draft dodging Romney...
a mormon must first have a meeting and indoctrination by his bishop and or the mormon leadersghip
he is told that he is a mormon first and that his military assignment is a mormon mission field first...
He is there to serve the mormon gods first...
any conflict of interest the mormon gods must be obeyed before his military authorities...
He is further told not to say he is a Protestant Christian but to have LDS for latter day saint on his dog tags and records...
Mormons in the US military ???
Yes there are a few but the % is much less than Christians in the military..
the military is a opportune mission field for mormon proslylizing more than national service...
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.