Posted on 06/30/2008 1:02:53 PM PDT by sevenbak
The recent attacks from a number of sources on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormons) reek of the same prejudice that, in the past, we have often seen used against Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and many others. This kind of behavior needs to be identified and condemned for what it is: religious intolerance and blatant bigotry.
These attacks on the Mormon Church have come in three forms: preaching, publications, and video presentations. Honoring the freedom to speak and preach from the heart, the National Conference takes issue with using the pulpit, any pulpit, to promote misleading, distorted, false and/or bigoted views of any religious body. An example of such a distortion is the growing use and presentation of two videos: "The Godmakers" and "The Godmakers II". These videos, developed by an anti-Mormon group intent upon vilification and hatemongering, are designed to misstate, malign, and encourage the hatred of a well established group of Christian believers and they ought to be repudiated by all people of good will...
...As people of good will, we in the National Conference of Christians and Jews join with our national leaders in the condemnation of any attempt to use one's first amendment religious freedom as a smoke-screen behind which one might hide while engaged in actions which must rightly be named as religious bigotry.
(Excerpt) Read more at adherents.com ...
You don’t have an apology yet. Not only did you not clarify that you were alluding to someone other than Graham and Falwell, but you actually made a ridiculous attempt to justify your prior smear. Oddly enough, you then climb further out on your limb by bringing up Joseph Smith. You wanted evidence of non-behavior by “Billy and Jerry” after making your spurious accusation, yet you cast aside all the documentation compiled over the years — including innumerable statements out of their own mouths — regarding that sort of behavior on the part of Smith and Brigham Young.
You mentioned a double standard?
The typical protestant mainstreamer who joins in lynch mobs.
Originally founded as the Virginia Region of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, the Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities has concluded our association with NCCJ and has joined with many of our fellow offices across the country to become the cornerstone of a new movement fighting prejudice in all its forms.
So, how about it OMm (and Sevenbak)?
...In the spirit of the Virginia Conference of Community and Justice (the organization that authored the article), how about the LDS church drop the doctrines that divide them from other faith groups (which only prejudice and discriminate against the adherents of other faith groups, or non-faith groups) and allow peoples of all faith (or no faith) to worship in your temple, without prejudice. Also, in the spirit of cooperation, justice and community, let salvation be determined by each people's own belief and not just by the exclusive LDS faith?
And in the name of getting along...can't you all just drop Joseph Smith's first vision, which discriminates against the Historic Christian faith and its professors, especially Presbyterians?
These simple steps would go a long way in healing the rift that exists between the LDS and the "typical protestant mainstreamer". Do you really disrespect them that much and have such a strong desire to discriminate against them that you insist that your faith is the only true faith? Do you not know that your prejudice will make it impossible to create a good community for all faiths (or non-faiths)?
Can you free yourself of the dogmatism that separates you from the community at large?
We are not in contemplation, as far as I know, of dropping historical fact from our worship.
Um...I believe that you are going to have a hard time selling that one.
Unlike some people, I’m not selling anything. Have you actually looked at the post to which I originally replied?
Okay...So you want the LDS church to remain exclusionary and considered the one true faith. You do realize that the organization that authored the article would not be pleased with the prejudice and discrimination that originates from your dogma and exclusion...don't you?
If the LDS church, and its adherents, are unwilling to approve of the goals and mission of the article's authors, and refuse to implement their inclusiveness, it seems hypocritical to cite an article from the group relative to the exclusiveness of the Christians and Jews...doesn't it?
Why don’t you come on down and visit one of our chapels this Sunday and see for yourself. You are more than welcome.
It was your post in which you referenced "Billy" and "Jerry" and then responded that you were not referring to Falwell and Graham.
By your post, you are trying to sell that...and you are going to have a hard time doing it.
If you really want to discuss the issue that william clark brought up related to sex and power, then we would have to look at the documented statements from Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other LDS leaders on the subject...would you like to do that?
And then, we could compare the LDS statements and actions on the subject with those of Falwell and Graham on the subject(remember - I, and others, have brought it up to you previously...Billy wouldn't even be alone with another woman in an elevator, cab, or so forth)...would you like to do that?
pby, I have no interest whatsoever in being the object of your lamestream lynch mob. Have fun with whatever you do.
Great...another change of subject attempt.
Thank you for the invite...but no thanks (but on second thought, may I attend a temple rites ceremony, a sealing ceremony, and/ or a baptism for the dead?)
I accept, by faith, the exclusionary nature of the historic Christian faith (as it is based on the Bible) and would not use a universalist group's article of opinion as an apologetic for my faith. (To me, it would make my faith and belief system appear weak and defenseless.)
I don't need a group of universalist new ager's opinions to beat my discussion participant's head about...Apparently, some do, though.
Sure, anybody can go to the Temple if they do what they are supposed to do. It will take a bit over a year.
I'll take that as a "no"...you don't want to discuss the historical documentation related to the issue of sex and power as it pertains to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders. I understand. It certianly ain't pretty!
I also understand why you would not want to do a comparitive analysis of statements and actions of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young and other LDS leaders, on the issue of sex and power, with the statements and actions of "Billy" and "Jerry" on the subject.
By the way, the seemingly ridiculous cries of "lynchmob" everytime the "going gets tough" for you, and your attempts to support your position, is kind of, in my opinion, lame. Can you change to some other non-response?
Are you going to take your ball and go home now?
No, I don’t think I will. Which brand of mainstreamer are you?
So...what am I "supposed to do"? What will take a year?
Is it exclusionary towards Mormons, or is going into the temple allowed by Baptists, Hindus, Catholics, Athiests, Pagans, and etc., too?
At any time, all of these groups of people are welcome in any, and all, rooms of my church.
Don't think they got that from the “Temple’
Does that mean that you do not want to discuss the historic documentation related to sex and power as it pertains to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders?
Or is the "no" in response to performing a comparitive analysis between Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other LDS leaders with "Billy" and "Jerry" on the subject of sex and power as it pertains to these individuals' and their related statements and actions?
Or...does it answer the question related to your ball and going home?
Which brand of mainstreamer are you?
Please define "mainstreamer", as I am not sure how to respond as I am not familiar with the term, and then I will provide a response.
Interesting...
Seems if you want no part in this so called “lynch mob”, you would take no part in it as well...
But of course that is logical...
So...you aren't buying that "Billy" and "Jerry" were just names originated in OMm's imagination?
I am shocked! (I told you that you would have a tough time getting people to buy it, OMm.)
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.