Posted on 11/23/2013 8:42:02 AM PST by Colofornian
Following the distribution of the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith DVD last month, there have been many conversations and opinions published online regarding the Christian outreach effort. One exchange took place on the Salt Lake Tribune’s public forum.
A Catholic woman, who believes in “love and charity to all” wrote to express her dismay over the DVD distribution, ending her letter with a kind hope that Latter-day Saints had been able to enjoy their Church’s General Conference despite the “sport” engaged in by “anti-Mormons.” Perhaps this was not the most charitable and loving letter “to all” in consideration of the nature of her concerns.
At any rate, this letter brought a thankful response from a Latter-day Saint who wrote:
As an active Latter-day Saint and a returned missionary, I have gotten in more than my share of arguments with the so-called “Christians” who feel a compulsion to build their own insecure beliefs (and yes, often they were insecure) by tearing others’ beliefs down. So when I read S.J. Moormeister’s kind comments (“Anti-LDS DVDs,” Forum, April 3) I was reminded why I always liked Catholics so much during my mission.Two years and I never once had a Catholic tell me I was going to hell for my beliefs; rather, they were always kind and generous to us. Ms. Moormeister does a service to herself and to the parish that she attends. Thank you so much for not participating in the bigotry that is so common these days. I did enjoy conference very much. Thank you again.
Matthew Call
Ephraim
Mr. Call’s experience with Catholic folk was perhaps more magnanimous than he realizes, given the historic position towards Catholicism expressed by LDS leaders through the years. Consider these public declarations offered without apology (then or now):
LDS Apostle Orson Pratt:
Q. Is the Roman Catholic Church the Church of Christ?
A. No: for she has no inspired priesthood or officers…
Q. How long since the Roman Catholic Church lost the authority and ceased to be the Church of Christ?
A. She never had authority and never was the Church of Christ…
Q. Who founded the Roman Catholic Church?
A. The Devil, through the medium of Apostates… (The Seer, 1854, 205)
LDS Apostle Daniel H. Wells:
I would rather preach the Gospel to a people who have not got any religion than I would to a people who have got a great deal of religion. You take the Catholic world. What impression can the truths of the Gospel make upon them as a people? Scarcely any impression at all. Why? Because they are satisfied with what they have got, which we know is an error, and which is not calculated to stem the tide of wickedness and corruption which floods the world. It never will convert the world to God or His Kingdom, or convey a knowledge of God unto the children of men, and it is life eternal to know Him, the living and true God. (Journal of Discourses 24:320, 1883)
LDS Apostle Hyrum M. Smith:
Christianity, as it is known in the world today, has fallen far short of the accomplishment of what might have been expected of it. It has failed in establishing those principles which Christ taught among the children of men. The great Catholic division of the Christian world, the Catholic church, is a national liability to any country. It wields a great power over the minds and the hearts of the children of men, but it is a power for evil rather than for good. It brings countless thousands regularly to confession; it rarely brings a single man to repentance and the abandonment of his sins. (Conference Report, October 1916, 42)
LDS President David O. McKay:
At one time it grieved me to know that this Church was not numbered among Protestant churches. But now I realize that the Church of Christ is more than a protest against the errors and evils of Catholicism.” (Conference Report, April 1927, 105)
LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie:
It is also to the Book of Mormon to which we turn for the plainest description of the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Nephi saw this “church which is most abominable above all other churches” in vision. He “saw the devil that he was the foundation of it” and also the murders, wealth, harlotry, persecutions, and evil desires that historically have been a part of this satanic organization. (Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, 130)
Apparently, sometime around 1960 LDS leadership decided they ought not to say these sorts of things in public if they want to make friends in the world. If Orson Pratt and David O. McKay, et. al., publicly expressed their religious convictions today, would we find the Anti-Defamation League releasing a statement condemning their remarks as “nothing more than [Catholic]-bashing… hate directed at all of us”? And would Mr. Call agree with that? I wonder if he would rebuke his Church leaders for “build[ing] their own insecure beliefs” by “tearing others’ beliefs down.”
DAMNED are the MORMONs who do NOT embrace polygamy!!!
"Now the way he translated was he put the urim and thummim into his hat and Darkned his Eyes than he would take a sentance and it would apper in Brite Roman Letters. Then he would tell the writer and he would write it. Then that would go away the next sentance would Come and so on. But if it was not Spelt rite it would not go away till it was rite, so we see it was marvelous. Thus was the hol [whole] translated."---Joseph Knight's journal.
"In writing for your father I frequently wrote day after day, often sitting at the table close by him, he sitting with his face buried in his hat, with the stone in it, and dictating hour after hour with nothing between us."
(History of the RLDS Church, 8 vols.(Independence, Missouri: Herald House,1951),"Last Testimony of Sister Emma [Smith Bidamon]," 3:356.
"I, as well as all of my father's family, Smith's wife, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, were present during the translation. . . . He [Joseph Smith] did not use the plates in translation."
---(David Whitmer,as published in the "Kansas City Journal," June 5, 1881,and reprinted in the RLDS "Journal of History", vol. 8, (1910), pp. 299-300.
In an 1885 interview, Zenas H. Gurley, then the editor of the RLDS Saints Herald, asked Whitmer if Joseph had used his "Peep stone" to do the translation. Whitmer replied:
"... he used a stone called a "Seers stone," the "Interpreters" having been taken away from him because of transgression. The "Interpreters" were taken from Joseph after he allowed Martin Harris to carry away the 116 pages of Ms [manuscript] of the Book of Mormon as a punishment, but he was allowed to go on and translate by use of a "Seers stone" which he had, and which he placed in a hat into which he buried his face, stating to me and others that the original character appeared upon parchment and under it the translation in English."
"Martin Harris related an incident that occurred during the time that he wrote that portion of the translation of the Book of Mormon which he was favored to write direct from the mouth of the Prophet Joseph Smith. He said that the Prophet possessed a seer stone, by which he was enabled to translate as well as from the Urim and Thummim, and for convenience he then used the seer stone, Martin explained the translation as follows: By aid of the seer stone, sentences would appear and were read by the Prophet and written by Martin and when finished he would say 'Written,' and if correctly written that sentence would disappear and another appear in its place, but if not written correctly it remained until corrected, so that the translation was just as it was engraven on the plates, precisely in the language then used."
(Edward Stevenson, "One of the Three Witnesses,"reprinted from Deseret News, 30 Nov. 1881in Millennial Star, 44 (6 Feb. 1882): 86-87.)
In 1879, Michael Morse, Emma Smith's brother-in-law, stated:"When Joseph was translating the Book of Mormon [I] had occasion more than once to go into his immediate presence, and saw him engaged at his work of translation. The mode of procedure consisted in Joseph's placing the Seer Stone in the crown of a hat, then putting his face into the hat, so as to entirely cover his face, resting his elbows upon his knees, and then dictating word after word, while the scribes Emma, John Whitmer, O. Cowdery, or some other wrote it down."
(W.W. Blair interview with Michael Morse,Saints Herald, vol. 26, no. 12June 15, 1879, pp. 190-91.)
Joseph Smith's brother William also testified to the "face in the hat" version:"The manner in which this was done was by looking into the Urim and Thummim, which was placed in a hat to exclude the light, (the plates lying near by covered up), and reading off the translation, which appeared in the stone by the power of God"("A New Witness for Christ in America,"Francis W. Kirkham, 2:417.)
"The manner in which he pretended to read and interpret was the same manner as when he looked for the money-diggers, with the stone in his hat, while the book of plates were at the same time hid in the woods."---Isaac Hale (Emma Smith's father's) affidavit, 1834.
Peacemaker does not exist in that soul!
Well Resty; it appears that you; too; agree with your past leaders in their livid bashing of Christianity!
(Replies #14 and #15 in case you missed #14.)
Your protestations of PEACE rings a wee bit hollow.
Use the secret decoder ring, Elsie.
Some things are best hidden in plain sight...
I am just curious do you feel the same way about Hindus, Buddhists, Roman Catholics, and all others who do not have your message of salvation?
Time for some chamomile tea to settle your nerves
In case YOU haven't noticed; none of these groups say they are the only true Christians in the world; and then turn around and BASH the 'other' christians.
Good advice!
Does it work on MORMONs who KNOW that they are HELL-BOUND for NOT embracing POLYGAMY?
Well, #4 got yet another pass interference in that 2nd qtr...
What kind of Mormon football ethics do they digest in Provo?
<><><><><
This is your best ever.
Penalties on the football field reflect on Mormon ethics. Wow. Clearly you are not much of a football watcher.
Liberty Univ - non denominational evangelical - has a football team that over the course of the 2013 averaged just under 5 penalties a game (54 in 11 games).
Is that reflective of evangelical ethics?
#1...shows you aren't very good @ football discernment...because averaging under 5 penalties per game is actually quite good...
#2...Many penalties are mere mistakes & don't involve intentionality...
...like false starts...
...encroachment...lining up in neutral zone
...illegal motion (like 2 men in motion)
...illegal shift
...illegal formation
...illegal touch (like a defender who didn't see his foot stepped out & being the first one to down a punt)
...many running into the kicker are mistake-driven (less so roughing the kicker, a separate penalty)
...kicking the ball out of bounds
Some penalties are a matter of inches & can involve simple miscalculation...
...block on shoulder (legal) vs. block on back of shoulder (illegal)
...personal contact by defender on receiver lst 5 yds from line of scrimmage (legal) vs. 5+ yds (illegal)
...grasp-hold by linemen (legal) vs. grasp-turn (illegal) or grasp-restraint (illegal)
...blocks in free blocking zone (legal) that would be illegal just outside of that zone
...lineman down field a couple of yds (ok) vs. lineman ineligibly downfield 3 yds (illegal)
...Certain blocking techniques vs. defender on line of scrimmage OK -- but not OK done vs. linebacker not on line of scrimmage
...Sideline interference -- coach on field (OK) vs. coach on field who gets in way of sideline ref (flag-worthy)
...Even late-hits out of bounds could be OK by inches these days
I hope you get the point...cause I could go on with that...
The most intentional penalties on the field tend to be things like...
...Intentional grounding
...Holding-restraint -- like where you see jersey pulled away
...Pass interference
...Facemask
...Many personal fouls
...Many blocks in the back (occasionally, these involve miscalculations by a few inches)
...Unsportsmanlike conduct
...etc
When patterns are detected on THESE types of penalties -- where a player has been flagged twice in the same half -- yes, that's cheating. It's not just a player who was "overzealous" on a given play.
So if you can show certain Liberty players are engaged in the intentional penalty patterns, yes, that's a reflection of on-the-field ethics & integrity. Same is true with BYU, ANY team.
Wise up. Don't let your football naivete' show forth.
Another "inches" type of miscalculation could be a QB who by inches was over the line of scrimmage when his pass was released.
You failed thereby to show what type of penalties Liberty was getting flagged for...
Everybody's human.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Everybody makes miscalculations.
And many players get overzealous on one play during a game.
All that is understandable.
What "goes over the line" -- intentionality-wise -- are the "cheating advantages" certain players repeatedly engage in.
And when their church leaders claim that they are "gods-in-embryos," then yeah, I hold such "divine entities" to a higher standard than the rest of us who are mere "anthros."
Everybody’s human.
Everybody makes mistakes.
Everybody makes miscalculations.
And many players get overzealous on one play during a game.
All that is understandable.
<><><
Unless, of course, you play for BYU, and then penalties are moral failures.
Can you describe the plays on which those 2 interference calls were made? I assume you watched the game and are prepared to discuss their intentionality, and how the specific plays played out.
Talk about the routes the receivers were running. Was it man to man coverage or zone? Were they on the sideline? Over the middle? Did the defender get a good bump at the line of scrimmage on the receiver? Was the play a back shoulder throw? Where were the defenders eyes? On the ball or on the receiver?
All this speaks to the intentionality of the act.
"DaVaris Daniels, WR: Daniels caught six balls for 107 yards and a touchdown, crossing the century mark for the second time this season. He proved difficult to defend 1-on-1 all day, drawing pass interference flags and teaming with TJ Jones to give Tommy Rees a strong tandem in tough passing conditions."
Source Week 13 helmet stickers
So. NEXT time ND gets the ball...very first play, of course...ND is going back to D. Daniels. Rbt. Daniel, not wanting to get beat again is flagged for interference...lst play of drive that started @ 6:48 remaining ... penalty gave ND a first down @ ND 36...sideline route.
Here, you can see the penalty for yourself in a photo taken by a Chicago Trib photographer: Photos: Notre Dame 23, BYU 13 (scroll down to third pix from bottom)
(a) Robert Daniel is not looking @ the ball + is face-guarding with right arm in face of DaVaris Daniels; and
(b) Robert Daniel has initiated contact on the receiver with right elbow (& likely left hand -- unseen in photo)
BOTH (a) and (b) are grounds for interference ... face-guarding without looking @ the ball is flag-worthy.
Both calls were 1-on-1 coverage.
Correction: This occurred in First qtr on same drive that the initial pass interference occurred -- happening 7 plays after initial pass interference call.
Funny stuff. Wasnt really looking for the play by play.
I guess my disconnect is as follows ... when I learned the game of football, if a defensive back was faced with a choice of a 15 yard penalty for interference or a huge play/touchdown, well it was wink wink nod nod, if you know what I mean. Don’t give up the score. We’ll get em on the next play. Try to make it look like legitimate defense if you can, but don’t give up the score.
Now if you want to call that a moral failing, well, OK. The BYU guys are, by your definition, moral failures.
Cinemark Theaters Showing Classic Christmas Movies in HD This Month http://www.ldsmag.com/article/1/13599
There be venial ones and mortal penalties...
Football: stealer of my life’s minutes!
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.