| 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California on Election Day as part of the effort to rally opposition to Proposition 8, the initiative that successfully repealed the right to same-sex marriage in the state.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 ...
One of those “deceiving spirits” was the same One that the Pharisees called a “deceiving spirit” while He was here on earth.
And thus we have all lost in some very significant ways.
The Bible tells us that Jesus was the ONLY begotten son of God. Nice try.
“I simply don’t understand the mind-set that believed the gay community would just quietly fade away and accept defeat”
I never expected them to accept defeat.
I fully expected them to riot, chased blacks down in the street and scream “ni**er” at them.
I fully expected them to harrass churches - to attempt to intimidate them.
I also expected them to riot and picket outside of businesses so the owners would suffer financial loss and even have to leave town.
Why did I expect this? Because that is their track record.
“I abhor censorship of free speech...it has been attempted against my FRiends and myself many times on FR.”
Well then, may I suggest you take another look-see at the OP and closely scrutinize what the ad was all about?
It looks to me like the ad is saying the mormons shouldn’t have been allowed to participate in the political process.
” I suppose you would censor THAT, too?”
I’ve never said anything of the sort.
I am amused that you are seeing hatred coming from everywhere else EXCEPT from the radical homosexual activists, who - in my opinion - are experts at hatemongering.
I suppose a Mormon can BE a Christian but usually not until they leave the church and its false teachings. We have a former Mormon in our church and she’s a neat lady. It’s not just MY opinion, DieHard. It’s how the traditional Christian church views Mormons.
It’s not opinion. It IS reality. If they used the Bible ONLY for their religion, there probably wouldn’t be any problem. But they use another book, The Book of Mormon, which they claim came from the Angel Moroni. It is full of heresies and false teachings. Joseph Smith was a con man who is sending people to hell because of his ramblings. THAT, my friend, is what’s the problem.
I am amused that you think you are reading my mind by painting my upholding the rights of US citizens as abhorrent.
I'm wasting no more time on this conversation with you.
“I am amused that you think you are reading my mind by painting my upholding the rights of US citizens as abhorrent.”
I am only going by your posts as best as I can.
I never said upholding rights is abhorrent.
I don’t think exercising one’s right to free speech ought to allow a person to violate another person’s right to gather in worship - to run their business - to participate in the political process.
We’ve seen the Phelps gang exercise their “right” to free speech by protesting funerals and harassing those who just want to gather to grieve.
That is abhorrent - and it is harrassment, and it is trampling on the rights of others.
The radical homosexual activists want to intimidate - harrass.
They want to discourage people from entering your restaurant if you donated to a political cause they disagree with.
They want to make it difficult for you to attend your church - and once you’re inside, they want to make it difficult for you to exercise your right to worship because they are having hissy fits outside.
“I’m wasting no more time on this conversation with you.”
adios.
BTW, our role isn't to glorify ourselves as Colofornian erroneously puts it. Our role is to do His will so that we may be glorified BY God. Both of you as ex-members should know that. What's a shame is that you probably do, & yet still mislead as to what we believe. A shame really.
He indeed called it persecution. I pretty much called him a pansy for thinking that people disagreeing with the claims of his religion is “persecution.” Now it seems he’s trying to get out of using the word (without actually admitting he was wrong).
You do realize that years ago, traditional Christians, Catholics, considered all Protestants heretics. Were they in your opinion?
MY "take" is that "works" that would pass the test of God, would NOT include such things as pleasing God by NOT drinking wine, coffee, tea, by wearing special clothing, by having to answer to a "mortal man" in order to be deemed "worthy", by baptizing for the dead via proxy, by accepting a "living prophet" who is "consecrated" to that office by mortal men who hold an imaginary "priesthood"...etc. etc.
Our role is to do His will so that we may be glorified BY God. Both of you as ex-members should know that.
BTW, I don't know where you got the idea that Colofornian is an ex. That's something I must have missed.
I think you give Smith too much credit. He was just a con man.
If he had the knowledge of Hebrew to do this intentionally, he would have never fallen for the belief that God could be discreet and seperate, which is fundamentally in conflict with the Shema -— and a fallacy created by the word choices of the King James translators.
This is just an odd coincidence. (And bad theology, since the “Lucifer” of the Old Testament, while a bad prideful guy, is not the “Satan” of the New/Job.)
So, am I to conclude from your response that you now see works (albeit not the works you set forth) as a part of being “saved”? Maybe we’re making progress here.
Forgot to ping you to 632
I don't believe you can "buy" your way into Heaven with works, but that the Grace of God is freely given and HE decides to whom.
I'll let Him decide what "works" He requires OR whether He requires them.
It would behoove those of the LDS persuasion to also let Him decide.
Neither I nor the Lord have talked about “buying” your way into heaven, but there are things discussed as qualifiers for those Heavenly blessings. Grace simply allows us to do those qualifying acts w/ efficacy. Without grace through the atonement, works wouldn't matter b/c we would all fall short.
BTW, apparently the Lord does require them as stated in the 2 scriptures I cited as well as many others I could cite. That is my conclusion. I'm still not sure what your conclusion is other than perhaps you don't know for sure. I can respect that.
It seems important tho, that if someone doesn’t believe Jesus is their savior would not be a Christian, no matter what they called themselves.
According to Fawn Broadie, citing several others, Joseph took Hebrew lessons along with several members of his flock while at Nauvoo. Apparently Joseph was a quick study and was quickly promoted into an advanced class.
I completely agree with your con man assessment, except I would add the term amoral to the description.
There is no question Joseph was a bad theologian -- examples abound on this thread alone.
But for the reasons listed in my prior posting, among others, I strongly disagree with your assessment that Joseph's worship of Lucifer was an odd coincidence.
Actually, since I’ve been thru the lessons twice and have a Mormon sister, Im pretty familiar with basic doctrine. I was hoping you would simply answer my simple question, I really don’t want to spend the time to ferret the answer out from your webpage. Thanks anyway.
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.