An Ugly Attack on Mormons

But Mormon repentance means never committing the same sin again for what you repented.

"If you are GOING to sin; at least try one you've never done before!"

--ANON

I avoid the religious threads except on the days my blood pressure is too low.

Good one!

I avoid the religious threads except on the days my blood pressure is too low.

I hardly EVER go to a 'religious' thread; but, if it pops up on FR - then, I am interested.

RELIGION in public life is for me!

RELIGION in public life is for me!

Whadya think?

A LIBERAL Christian?

Evangelical?

A Mormon?

If you want me to care about the differences that you have with my deeply held faith, or whatever, then you need to demonstrate that you actually care.

What?

Do you think we do this time-consuming task for the FUN of it?

The mere fact that we are HERE shows that we 'care'.

I feel what you want is us to be NICE to you.

Sorry, but REBUKING is SUPPOSED to hurt your preconceived ideas and get your attention!

If you want me to care about the differences that you have with my deeply held faith, or whatever, then you need to demonstrate that you actually care.

Ultimately, all will have the occasion to hear the truth & to accept it of reject it. Those that accept & live it whether here of afterward will receive Celestial glory. Not difficult. Very much along the lines of most Christians who believe that every Muslim, Hindu, etc. will ultimately have to accept Christ as their Savior in order to be saved. We all believe in a God, even the Muslims, but Christians believe that only those that accept Christ will be saved. In other words, the truth.
It's along the same lines for us, only those that accept Christ & all His gospel will receive Celestial glory. Period.

The mormon definition of Christ's Gospel and celestial glory is so far removed from the Christian definition of Christ's Gospel and His glory that to simply compare them without stating the mormon restrictions is extremely misleading to someone who doesn't know this.

You can count on this being addressed when you post without the disclaimer.

LOL. Amen. I actually did a Mormon Bible Study years ago for a short while. Can’t remember anything I learned inparticularly, but they do start out making you think it’s regular Christianity. NOT.

Thank you, Delphi. You, too.

That is really on point!

Now I understand why the whole faith vs. works issue raised in post 551 was so difficult for you. I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. How you're able to come away from my comments & those that I cited, w/ the idea that I think Christian churches are satanic is quite frankly beyond my ability to comprehend.

You take an innocuous & very general statement such as “Apocalyptic literature is dualistic. Since it deals with types, everything boils down to opposing principles: love and hate, good and evil, light and dark”, & some how conclude that means I think Christian churches are Satanic. The rest of your post is along the same lines. You seem to see only what you want to see, not necessarily what is real or true.

At this point I'll let the readers decide what's real & what's Memorex. It's apparently all about the “win” for you, rather than a reasoned discussion about things of such great import. It's seems to be about proving you're right re: whether you are or not. A shame really.

You still haven't answered one of my underlying questions, How do you know you're correct & your Christian brethren wrong? I suspect you don't answer at this point because you can't. I understand, I wouldn't be able to given your circumstances either.

At this point, I'm done for a bit as I'm going to cut down our Christmas tree w/ the family today & thus will be engaged in much more fruitful activities. Your feelings toward me & my church not withstanding, I sincerely wish you a great weekend & a softened heart toward your fellow man. My best to you & yours.

Do you think we do this time-consuming task for the FUN of it? The mere fact that we are HERE shows that we 'care'.

You 'care' about what, exactly? Getting in every Mormon's face on FR, polluting every thread that even hints at mentioning the LDS Church with your hateful, mocking, derisive, and harassing posts? I'm sorry, but FReepers are here for, and I quote, "working to roll back decades of governmental largesse, to root out political fraud and corruption, and to champion causes which further conservatism in America." You, by your own admission and behavior, have a completely different agenda and goal. You will notice that this thread is not in the Religion forum, but in the News/Activism forum yet you've dumped a bunch of anti-Mormon religious argument in it.

I've been here on FR and a supporter for over 10 years. We used to all work together for our common cause. Then Mitt Romney entered the race and the anti-Mormons, like you, took advantage of that to dump a bunch of divisive anti-Mormon stuff all over FR. Most of it was tolerated because you all were hiding behind some weak excuse of it being relevant to the current presidential campaign. The Romney campaign is over yet the anti-Mormon stuff continues unabated. I stopped supporting Free Republic financially for this reason and have scaled back my participation. Why? Because why would I financially support and form strong association with a group where I now experience constant attacks on my deeply held religious beliefs and where behavior is allowed that divides the forum participants and detracts and distracts from the forum's stated goals?

Think about it. If you were a member of the local Republican Party and you worked for years supporting candidates, working the polls, etc. and then one day a bunch of people came into the party meetings and events and started loudly and hatefully attacking your faith - and the local party leaders allowed that behavior to continue - how would your feelings about and association with the local party change?

I've been able to work for 2 decades as a conservative Republican with people of many religious faiths. In order to forward our common conservative goals, we focused on our common ground and did not attack each others' religions. We got a lot of good work done that way. How would that have worked out if there were constant religious battles going on between us, dividing us?

Maybe you should find an online religious forum whose stated goals are to discuss various religious beliefs instead of working, intentionally or unintentionally, to push LDS FReepers (some of the strongest conservatives you'll ever meet) out of Free Republic. Or, at the very least, keep your divisive and hateful anti-Mormon bash fests to the Religion forum here so the LDS FReepers don't have to have it constantly thrown in our faces.

Oh, and this goes for all the anti-Catholic attacks that I see on Free Republic all the time now. I'm sure that Catholics here pretty much feel the same way about this. This kind of stuff has to stop. We just went through a second major election in which Republicans and conservatives, for the most part, lost. Free Republic has been largely ineffective since 2004. Is it the fault of all the religious division here? No, not completely. But I can't help to see that it is a contributing factor. FR's hits are down, site rankings down, etc. We just aren't what we used to be or what we could be. It is things like the constant attacks on fellow FReepers religions and such that serves to disunite us and drag the forum down into ineffectiveness and irrelevance. It is one thing to go after a religious organization because it is championing liberal candidates and causes. It is entirely another to constantly use a conservative forum to attack a religious organization and its members who are one of the strongest forces for conservative causes right now. I hope you understand the negative effect this has - and if you don't, I hope that management here does and makes some much needed changes.

Amen, brother.

“I’ve been here on FR and a supporter for over 10 years. We used to all work together for our common cause. Then Mitt Romney entered the race and the anti-Mormons, like you, took advantage of that to dump a bunch of divisive anti-Mormon stuff all over FR. Most of it was tolerated because you all were hiding behind some weak excuse of it being relevant to the current presidential campaign. The Romney campaign is over yet the anti-Mormon stuff continues unabated.”

I NEVER thought I would see this on FR. The prejudice is just beyond words and NOT very Christian-like. People better figure out who the enemy is, and it AIN’T the Mormons!

I NEVER thought I would see this on FR. The prejudice is just beyond words and NOT very Christian-like. People better figure out who the enemy is, and it AIN’T the Mormons!

It ain't the Catholics either.

Do you think we do this time-consuming task for the FUN of it? The mere fact that we are HERE shows that we 'care'. I feel what you want is us to be NICE to you. Sorry, but REBUKING is SUPPOSED to hurt your preconceived ideas and get your attention! [Elsie]

Elsie, good point.

Jesus was toughest upon the religious legalists of his day, the Pharisees -- those who turned faith & faithful living into a series of ritual points of obedience checklisted to be observed outwardly. (Jesus also didn't appreciate the misrepresentation they were to the world, saying at one point that they would travel the world to make a convert twice the son of hell)

The "new checklist" is the temple recommend (tithing, temple endowments, word of wisdom obedience, temple work, temple sealings, etc.) And it doesn't stop there.

Single? (The Mormon god regards you as second or third tier...and for a while in the 19th century, single-wife LDS leaders were frowned upon)
Not a Mormon church member? Then you haven't performed the work of confirmation, nor the ensuing work of ordination (Melchizedek/Aaronic priesthoods)

And, despite Reno's claim @#416 in this thread, it doesn't stop there. [Reno claimed: "Your statement that “all we can do” is 100% obedience to the law, unfortunately shows your complete ignorance of our beliefs & doctrine on the matter. There is only One that has ever been perfect or ever will be during our mortal sojourn here on earth. “all that we can” in these tabernacles of clay is far short of 100%.]

Well, Reno, you keep pouring forth the putdowns...the latest being Now I understand why the whole faith vs. works issue raised in post 551 was so difficult for you. I take it reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.

Based upon the following quotes of an LDS "prophet," I take it, Reno, that church history isn't your strong suit. I leave it up to others to determine who is right. It's not Reno vs. me as he claims -- it's actually in this case Reno vs. Joseph Fielding Smith:

Therefore the words of James are true. Unless a man can abide strictly in complete accord, he cannot ENTER there, and in the words of James, he is guilty of all. In other words if there is ONE DIVINE LAW THAT HE DOES NOT KEEP HE IS BARRED FROM PARTICIPATING IN THE KINGDOM... (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 3, p. 26)

And: So in the celestial kingdom, we must be worthy IN EVERY POINT, or we fail to receive the blessing. The kingdom of God must exist in absolute unity. EVERY LAW MUST BE OBEYED, and no member of the Church can have a place there unless he is in FULL accord. (Answers to Gospel Questions, vol. 3, p. 27)

So, whose word do we take as a spokesperson for Mormonism? Its 10th "prophet" or a FREEPER whose not likely to be an LDS general authority?

Reno There is only One that has ever been perfect or ever will be during our mortal sojourn here on earth. “all that we can” in these tabernacles of clay is far short of 100%....

...Or Joseph Fielding Smith: Unless a man can abide strictly in complete accord, he cannot ENTER there...one divine law that he does not keep, he is barred from participating in the kingdom...Every law must be obeyed...

I hope that management here does and makes some much needed changes.

CRUCIFY THEM! CRUCIFY THEM!

You and your fellow mormons have been calling for censorship and/or banning for years for anyone who disputes your mormon message.

You are trying to impose here at FR, the same ban against speaking against your church that is imposed by your leaders on your church members.

Try stopping the mormon proselytizing and propagandizing on FR and see if you get replies to threads that are NOT posted, or threads that are posted in answer to that propagandizing.

Free speech to you and yours is NOT a two-way speech, and you are trying to make it so on FR.

Too bad we don't have a printing press for you to burn down.

You are right, the enemy is not the Mormons, indeed despite the fact I have numerous issues with their dogma, I welcome them to the table of conservative POLITICAL ideas. I detest the treatment they have received due to prop 8. I do enjoy DOGMATIC and PHILOSPHICAL bouts when the topic pertains to that.

No the enemy here is modernism and liberalism.

So now we turn to Romney...

Let's put this in modern terms, a swat team arrives at your house and a fully armed police officer asks you to come with him, the Governor wants to see you. you to believe there is no implied threat? you go ahead and think that.

Thank you for this hyperbol DU, it demonstrates clearly the issue here. You claimed that your source (CE Online) supported you in this outlandish claim. Simple, unbiased reading of the article you cited clearly indicated that the opposite occured. Some could consider such a misrepresentation as being intellectually dishonest. If you are refering to another source describing the event, please use that citation. As I said in the previous post, there is no evidence of threat or coersion from the article, infact the article indicates just the opposite.

Also note that the state church of Rome was a paid position, so the Roman catholic church received monies from the people of Rome. That is the bribe.

Is that the best you can come up with! And tell me DU, when did the Catholic church start taking money from the roman treasury? Citation please.

Are you saying that the date is without argument?

Do you have proof that the Edict of Milan was written some other year than 313 – please present it, I’m sure lots of historians would like to see that evidence.

….. the memory of coliseums still in living memory, and with the war and dissenters being put to death, there's not much change in how a bishop being "served" with his invitation will feel.

Do you have a citation that indicates that he continued the persecution over that 12 year period….. Once again, it was legal throughout the Roman empire – you hyperbolic assertions not withstanding.

You might want to read a few papers on this, try Hellenistic influence on Christianity:,

This is the work of a single individual that focuses primarily upon the time of Greek conquest of Israel prior to the arrival of Christ, commonly referred to as the intertestamental period. Old stuff.

Hellenistic philosophy and Christianity . . . . . . but denying Hellenist influence will just make you look silly.

Now, now DU, where did I deny that there was greek influence using your broad brush – after all, the NT was written in greek (DUh). What I did deny was that greek philosophy was the source for our Trinitarian doctrine. That is significantly different than what you are accusing me of. Now while we are looking at other sources of information, the readers should look at:
Mormonism, Platonism and the Hellenization of the Early Church
Was Early Christianity Corrupted by 'Hellenism'?

Stop right there, Platonism is not Arianism, anyone who is willing to spend a just a few seconds will know that.

Never said they were the same DU, can’t you read. What I did say was that Arianism drew upon a key component of platonic thought at the time

You need to read up on Arianism. your description of it here is unrecognizable.

Well, from your citation from Wiki – a non authorative source, even they say …the nature of Arian teachings is difficult to define precisely today. Had you bothered to read my statement I made this parallel which I will expand a little on-
1. The Arian conception of Christ as neither truly God nor truly man but an ontological in-between. He was a creature, not the creator in that he had a beginning.
2. Platonism, in its various forms, postulated the existence of such a mediator because it could not accept a direct contact or union between the Transcendent Divine Reality and Creation.

This ‘mediator’ is the parallel to the semi-god defined by the Arians. Perhaps you need to read something other than Wiki.

Without listing exact scriptures here I'll point out that Jesus always speaks of God the Father in the third person, prays to him and at his baptism all three are present in different places, and when Stephen is stoned he sees Jesus standing on the right hand of God the Father.

Always DUh. Jibaholic, please note here that DU grossly misstates Trinitarian doctrine. Were he to accurately frame the doctrine, these so called “proofs” against the Trinity actually support the doctine. Further more, the statement that Jesus always referred to the Father in the third person is incorrect too. And it is recorded that Stephen only saw Jesus bodily, with the ‘glory of God’ and not God with a body.

Then there is the little matter of Hippolytus who's work "A refutation of all heresies" was the voice of the church in correcting many of the heresies of his day. I have a whole section on him in my page, and in his book "Against one Noetus", his arguments against Noetus would obliterate the Trinity too, here is a snippet from my page that was taken from here

I always love it when you throw a name out and expect on that basis it supports your claim, after failing to read the whole article. You’ve tried this one before and got shot down in flames. Once again, in your glee, you chose this moment to display ignorance of the terms involved. Noetus developed the heritical teachings of modalistic monarchianism or patripassianism. That has completely nothing in common with the understanding of the Trinity. (but it does have a direct counterpart in mormonism)

At the end of my section on Hippolytus I conclude with this: So between the time that Hippolytus died in 236 and the Council at Nicea in 325 AD the view of the church swung from three entities acting as one God to one God made up of three manifestations. This is really not a HUGE change when you think about it, but it has many important ramifications.

Hippolytus was Trinitarian, contrary to your illegitimate ramblings on “Against Noetus”. Infact he makes a clearly Trinitarian statements here in Against Noetus

A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine. (8)
And “For us, then, it is sufficient simply to know that there was nothing contemporaneous with God. Beside Him there was nothing; but He, while existing alone, yet existed in plurality.” (10).

Its amazing what you will find DU when you actually READ the articles you cite.

Having quoted this to you before and having referred you to may page many times I am finding it hard to believe you are ignorant of my true position.

Mind reading are we DU???? I’ve seen your lame polemic plenty of times, you cut and past from it time and again when you get someone new regurgitate it to, so why bore my self with more pseudo-scholarship on the subject on your part since you cannot even seem to understand the difference between Trinitarianism and modalism (among other things). And Arius was recalled from exile and the day before he was to be "brought back into full fellowship"…

My citation was referring to actions prior to nicea DUh, not afterwards.

IMHO the first council of Nicea was the culmination of many small heresies being allowed into the church, resulting in the council where they were compiled and codified as a big heresy. To say it was not a change, is just denial of reality.

Nicaea was a culmination of many things, I’ll agree that far. However, it was in response to the heresy of Arianism that forced the matter.

Hippolytus, the theologian of his day disagrees with you.

ROTFLAICGU – DU channeling Hippolytus - see Hippolytus’ Trinitarian quotes cited above

Is it your contention that Arianism won? If so why does "Orthodox Christianity" use the Nicene Creed?

Can’t you read. History shows that Constantine shortly after Nicea became an arian and that with his sponsorship, arianism flurished for a time before the teachings based upon Nicea eventually prevaled.

Your version of history is supported by no documentation, no link, nothing but your opinion. I quote from the "Catholic Enclyclopedia Online".

DU, I’ve been working with CE online finding this information. Others I have cited. You, however, have been making statement that were totally unsupported by CE online as if they were supported – see start of this post.

I quote from Wikipedia

Right, well respected source of ‘information’.

My page, has a section on the Trinity

Citing yourself and your lame interpretations – LOL that is sweet.

LOL! I linked to the Source! on the Catholic Encyclopedia Online. Where it says: "The year 325 is accepted without hesitation as that of the First Council of Nicaea."

Very good DU, now read it again – that was when the council met. Infact, CE online states that Soon after the Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of Arianism. . Thus the statement of faith develop there was not universally forced upon the churchs at that time, but served as a format. The “nicean “creed that is used today resulted from the First Council of Constantinople (381), which modified it further. Not adequately reading your source again DU. Here, let me help -

As approved in amplified form at the Council of Constantinople (381), it is the profession of the Christian Faith common to the Catholic Church, to all the Eastern Churches separated from Rome, and to most of the Protestant denominations.
Soon after the Council of Nicaea new formulas of faith were composed, most of them variations of the Nicene Symbol, to meet new phases of Arianism. There were at least four before the Council of Sardica in 341, and in that council a new form was presented and inserted in the Acts, though not accepted by the council.

I don't care how many times it was reformatted after that, and I don't think I am exactly displaying "Bile" here. I am presenting a logical, sourced, well reasoned opinion that disagrees with yours.

LOL, your eruptive response to my earlier post is indicative of the scorn you hold, no matter how many reformats DU. If by reasoned, you mean grossly misreprented, then keep it up. LOL

Let's actually look at the Nicean creed as adopted by the bishops in the meeting being presided over by Constantine:

I thought Constantine forced it upon them, now you tell me the bishops developed it independantly? Constantine later rejected the decision. Regarding the text of that version, which churchs use it as is? See above history on the development of the creed. Perhaps you need to expand your studies to here and here

… go look up homoousion, a Greek word because to better represented what they were trying to say than any other language (see the Greek Hellenistic influence I was talking about)

ROTFLAICGU, stop it DU. Pssst a little hint – they were writing in Greek, and language develops its meanings from the culture it developed within. Since pre-Christian greek though influenced the initial development of the words and their meanings, the bishops had those definitions to work with. But what is even more juicy is that once again you just throw a link out there thinking it supports your cause, but in facts undercuts it even more. It goes to show that homoousion (and latin equivalents) were in use describing the Trinity 50 to over 100 years before, as you alledge, Nicea where it was invented by Constantine. Lurkers please take time to read and follow the links further. Key to are Tertullian’s and Dionysius of Alexandria letters.

To borrow a bit from your phraseology: So jibaholic, Godzilla and any other lurker present, it is clear that the My post has been misrepresented by Godzilla. Now, I won't attribute base motives to Godzilla, I truly believe he didn't understand what I was saying, didn't follow the links, and didn't mean to call me a liar. I truly believe he thinks history is as he represents it here and he's just ill informed, and has not taken the time to study before posting, counting on what he has been "taught" to carry him through.

Since DU is being true to form. I more than understand what he is saying. I further know that he loves to throw a lot of citations around in an attempt to support his arguments, but if one takes the time to read the links, those references do not support his arguments, but actually undercuts them. I’ve pointed this out on numerous occasions in this post. Misrepresenting what an article actually says as well as misrepresenting what the doctrine of the trinity actual entails to produce a strawman. Lurkers, please avail your self of the CE online links and it will become readily apparent that what is really being presented there is NOT what DU is presenting here. I have pointed this gross descrepency time and again, for only by misrepresenting the material can he find support for his view of mormonism.

Too bad we don't have a printing press for you to burn down.

Nauvoo Expositor, the sequel