One thing I’m noticing here is a distinct inability by the anti mormon posters to recognize irony, analogies, etc.
For example, I made reference to Martin Luther, the Old Testament, Protestantism, etc. To show how one could criticize their religion along similar lines. I don’t have any interest in criticizing protestantism or mormonism. But they post lengthy (super lengthy) defenses not realizing the main point.
I made these ironic analogies exactly because the original post called on Catholics and Protestants to jointly reject the mormon “heresies”. I attempted to remind them that RC’S obviously can view protestantism as a heresy, and in their humorless responses they have stated that the RC church indeed had committed many wrongs and deserved the protestant revolt. So much for a joint response by all “traditional christians”.
I can discuss any religion and the list of differences in mormon theology was somewhat interesting. However, the intent of the post plainly was to convince me that mormonism is some kind of threat to be parried. Except that we all seek to preserve our own religion versus others, I think the alarm about mormonism is fantasy.
“Traditional Christians” fought hundreds of years of wars in Europe, viewing each other as heretics worthy of extermination. America was established as a sanctuary from all that, and mormonism does not even come close to being worthy of religious alarm.
Modern day Islam obviously is a greater concern, and even there the American approach is not to ban any religion. But that is another subject.
For the record, I have no problem with any peaceful law abiding religion. I don’t even underdtand where some posters got their particular concern about mormonism. However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
I agree with you.
I was also accused of some breach of Chhrstian behavior should I compartmentalize politics and my Christian beliefs. I thought “Render unto Caesar” clearly applies here - but evidently not.
I’m now wondering if I should stop going to my Jewish haberdasher, or my Hindu grocer, or my agnostic money manager, or the Muslim donut shop, or (GASP!) my Mormon dentist!?
Of course, just as my choices in each of those areas are guided by how each performs compared to other choices available, so is my vote informed by the performance (or actions) of the candidates, not by their religious affiliation. I don’t dislike Obama because of his Muslim upbringing, it is one thing that gives me pause, but if he implimented Reagan type policies, it wouldn’t matter to me. Heck, I wouldn’t care that he was friends with Bill Ayers, if he were like Reagan!
I do have a pretty clear understanding of the...shall I call it “obsession”? I perceive that most of these anti-ISMs are former Mormons. I too left a cult in which I was raised, and for several years I was impassioned about the “wrongness” of the teaching and of what was done to my family. I played the same tune on a different fiddle. The time came that I realized that my life, my salvation and my happiness could no longer be touched by the leaders of the cult - and I was finally free. Free from fear and anger and, most importantly, free to forgive.
In this thread, I asked a few simple questions - intended to discern the underlying motives of the poster. I got my answer, which confirmed my guesses - but then was beset by relentless badgering that implied some nefarious motivation for my questions - devolving into questions (the all important “?”) of the sincerity of my beliefs, my position (or the fervor thereof) on abortion and on and on and on. Frustrating for me, one who enjoys the rigors of a good, honest debate.
I have enjoyed your posts on this thread - which is why I posted to you in the first place.
So THAT was your reasoning?
Silly me; I thought it was a red herring drug across the trail...
Some?
Who exactly failed to express their concern?
However, I certainly think it’s valid to post back explaining my belief they are mistaken.
Mistaken about WHAT?
It is hard to follow the reasoning, if the facts are merely vaguely referred to.