DU, you have thrown as many stones as anyone else on FR...I know, having been the target of some of them, along with Godzilla and MHG.
Playing your favorite victim card, I see.
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 12/07/2008 11:35:59 AM PST by Admin Moderator, reason:
Enough already. |
Posted on 12/03/2008 8:59:31 AM PST by Publius804
An Ugly Attack on Mormons
The easiest targets for an organized campaign against religious freedom of conscience.
By Jonah Goldberg
Did you catch the political ad in which two Jews ring the doorbell of a nice working-class family? They barge in and rifle through the wife’s purse and then the man’s wallet for any cash. Cackling, they smash the daughter’s piggy bank and pinch every penny. “We need it for the Wall Street bailout!” they exclaim.
No? Maybe you saw the one with the two swarthy Muslims who knock on the door of a nice Jewish family and then blow themselves up?
No? Well, then surely you saw the TV ad in which two smarmy Mormon missionaries knock on the door of an attractive lesbian couple. “Hi, we’re from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints!” says the blond one with a toothy smile. “We’re here to take away your rights.” The Mormon zealots yank the couple’s wedding rings from their fingers and then tear up their marriage license.
As the thugs leave, one says to the other, “That was too easy.” His smirking comrade replies, “Yeah, what should we ban next?” The voice-over implores viewers: “Say no to a church taking over your government.”
Obviously, the first two ads are fictional because no one would dare run such anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim attacks.
The third ad, however, was real. It was broadcast throughout California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.
What was the reaction to the ad? Widespread condemnation? Scorn? Rebuke? Tepid criticism?
Nope.
The Los Angeles Times, a principled opponent of Proposition 8, ran an editorial lamenting that the “hard-hitting commercial” was too little, too late.
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Because otherwise wolves in sheeps' clothing will lead people astray. That is what Paul fought against.
Please explain to me how men, without God's assistance settle these disputes.
Of course we need God to be in control. It is the internal witness of the Holy Spirit that equips believers to fight against heresies.
Last question is someone who believes in Jesus, but has a diff rent understanding than you do "passing themselves off" or do they really believe?
They believe in something that is false - that does not come from God. Not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will go to heaven.
Why would you want to hijack a thread for that debate?
You are the one who said it’s okay to tell them they are wrong, why?
I’m sorry, but I think that’s a silly comparison. Someone posting on a forum is not disrupting your church service.
brytlea>>But, if one puts their position on a forum, they should expect debate<<Why? Because that’s what you think?...I think differently. I think that when someone posts something about a religion, be it how the gays are targeting LDS or how the Pope is wearing red shoes today, that poster should not have to defend his/her beliefs. It’s not an invition to debate. It shouldn’t be. It’s not about Dogma. Nor is it meant to be….I can’t imagine anywhere on FR, one of the Jewish FReepers posting about the events in Israel and having to defend why Jesus is not his/her savior. It isn’t done nor should it be. The LDS and Catholics should be afforded the same luxury.
Debate is fine, but the issue here is a clearly anti-Mormon ad broadcast in California because of the Church’s opposition to gay marriage. This being a news forum, it seems appropriate the debate center around that particular slander of the LDS, or disagreement with their position on gay marriage. I suppose joining the gay lobby in general criticism of the LDS might be relevant, but it’s odd, and I think better done on the religion forum where it’s accepted, and where lurkers here for news won’t be looking.
netmilsmom, just in the last week you’ll find a number of threads on the Mumbai massacre victims, Obama’s appointment of Gen. Jones, a bush appointee, and of Daniel Kurtzer, another Bush appointee, which centered around how the stupid Jews who voted for Obama are getting what they asked for. A bit absurd when it comes to appointing Bush people, but I can assure you that people look at their threads and simply shake their heads at the stupidity. 300 posts here, over 2,000 thread views. I bet there’s a bit of head shaking going on. Not a good way to win political support.
I’m sorry netmilsmom, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Did I hijack this thread? If so I apologize, it certainly was not my intent.
>>netmilsmom, just in the last week you’ll find a number of threads on the Mumbai massacre victims, Obama’s appointment of Gen. Jones, a bush appointee, and of Daniel Kurtzer, another Bush appointee, which centered around how the stupid Jews who voted for Obama are getting what they asked for. A bit absurd when it comes to appointing Bush people, but I can assure you that people look at their threads and simply shake their heads at the stupidity. 300 posts here, over 2,000 thread views. I bet there’s a bit of head shaking going on. Not a good way to win political support.<<
I’m so sorry, my FRiend. It breaks my heart. I thought that the Jewish FReepers were free from that garbage. How sad that FReepers can’t see we are all on the same side.
I’m truly sorry.
>>Someone posting on a forum is not disrupting your church service.<<
There was a thread about gay disrupting a mass in MI.
It became a dogma debate.
Pointing out the similarity since I’m familiar with the reaction to those threads. While I suppose it’s possible the discussion here pleases Mormons, my suspicion it that a politically conservative Mormon unfamiliar with the site reading the reaction to these ads isn’t anxious to sign up.
That doesn’t surprise me. All I’m saying (and I guess saying very badly) is that if you don’t want to engage in that, don’t. No one is likely being persuaded one way or another. But, even so, it’s not the same thing as someone showing up at your house of worship (altho many of us spend more time here than we do in church!) and disrupting that.
What a ridiculous analogy.
Mormons believe in Jesus Christ
So do Muslims, but they are obviously not Christians. Christianity requires more than a belief in Jesus--it requires a true belief in his divinity, with everything that entails (such as salvation by faith).
I can just hear the howls if a California group pushed a lot of money into Utah to influence THEIR laws!
Hmmmm, I wonder why they were so silent then?
DU, you have thrown as many stones as anyone else on FR...I know, having been the target of some of them, along with Godzilla and MHG.
Playing your favorite victim card, I see.
But "Christian" isn't quite as nebulous as you and others have stretched it to mean. A "Christian" is literally a "Christ one" -- one who belongs to the true Jesus Christ.
First of all, it can't just be any "Christ"...and secondly, just because Christian doesn't denote a specific organization does NOT mean that "Christian" doesn't involve a specific ORGANISM -- that organism being the Living Body of Christ. LDSism is tied to one organization; Christian is tied to one organism.
Fundamentalist Mormons do not want to be known as Mormons. [acipher]
Well, now you're just playin' with words. fLDS have the "LDS" part of their name for a reason! Even if fLDS don't want the "moniker" of "Mormon," doesn't mean they want to discard "LDS."
They want to be knows as a break away or protestants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. [acipher]
No they don't. I mean, yes, they want to distinguish themselves from mainstream LDSism, but, no, they don't want to break away from the identity of being a "Latter-day Saint." As a matter of fact, because no LDS leader has ever dumped Doctrine & Covenants 132, the fLDS actually see themselves as "originalists" in terms of following Joseph Smith.
The biggest issue being they want to live Polygamy. Currently, a polygamist is immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church.
Well, now in one sense, you're arguing in a circle. On the one hand, DieHard the Hunter says...
...that if you say a Mormon is not a Christian, that it's unkind, unnecessary and un-Christian...
...but then when I point out that if you apply the same standard to LDS, that for them to label fLDS as not "Latter-day Saints" would likewise be unkind, unnecessary, and un-Mormon...
...you point out actions fLDS do that cause LDS to label fLDS as "ex-communicative"
So...based upon this, please explain something to me here: Why do you think it's "OK" for LDS to label fLDS as outright heretics for having many or more than one wife, yet seemingly...
...some FREEPERS here don't see anything heresy-wise about LDS having many or more than one god.
Why is polygamy such a "hot-button" issue that gives LDS full-blown permission to be "unkind" toward fLDS -- but polytheism isn't regarded with equal weight & concern?
Currently, a polygamist is immediately excommunicated from the Mormon Church.
(Not if they live in the LDS "celestial kingdom"...and not if they're around when the Mormon Jesus returns...as LDS apostle Bruce R. McConkie promised in his book, "Mormon Doctrine" that Jesus' return would then reinstute the "holy practice" -- "holy practice" being his words)
< snort! >
/mark
Yeah, we are in agreement on this. I was creating a springboard from which I or someone else could make the clear point that we are to hate the sin but love the sinner.
It is certainly what God does or I would be royally screwed! We all would. Every one.
(This coming from somebody who belongs to an organization where the stress is on men's revelations? ... from an organization where the stress is that 100% of everything God does is revealed to prophets? ... Based upon a literal, wooden interpretation of Amos 3:7: Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.)
Last question is someone who believes in Jesus, but has a diff rent understanding than you do "passing themselves off" or do they really believe?
Believing in the "wrong" Jesus is no light matter. The apostle Paul asked the Corinthians: Suppose someone comes to you and preaches about a Jesus different from the Jesus we preached about? (2 Cor. 11:4)
Likewise Jesus made it clear that it wasn't simply just knowing any old god. He prayed to His Father: "And THIS is eternal life -- that you KNOW the ONLY TRUE GOD, and Jesus Christ whom He has sent." (John 17:3)
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.