As an anti-mormon you continue to be obsessed with all things LDS. I am continually surprised that this website which is conservative and freedom loving continues to promote thru loose moderation attacks on any religion. All conservatives should seek to unite against the dark oppression that exists and seek a more Christ-like dialogue between each other. I’m sure my comment will spark mass postings (usually canned and rebroadcasted) from the normal dozen or so anti-mormon folks. You know who you are.
Would you like cheese with your whine.
Well, you didn't address this to me, but let me ask you: By your open critique of somebody's religious expression on this thread, are you yourself then thereby engaging in an "attack" upon a religion?
And if you are, then why are you violating your own personal standard?
If you don't think you're attacking somebody's religious expression, it sure sounds like a disagreement -- a critique -- and so please explain the "degree" of difference you see between a so-called "attack" and critique? (One man's critique is another man's "attack", eh?)
Well, you obviously haven't examined all of your worldview assumptions fully.
#1 -- you seem to assume there's only one (primary?) type of "dark oppression" -- perhaps socio-political -- and you seem to dismiss there might be such a thing as religious oppression. (Since Jesus referenced some Pharisaical Jews in John 8 as being sons of the devil, Jesus' comment alone reveals your shortsightedness)
#2 re: a more Christ-like dialogue between each other" -- are you aware that Christ referenced Pharisaical Jews as "brood of vipers" -- as "whitewashed sepulcres" (graveyards) -- as people who would proselyte in order to make their converts "twice the son of hell?" (Does that disturb your "wholesome" image of the Son of God as being only some meely-mouthed pushover?) Jesus was most "intolerant" with the religious legalists of his day -- and therefore, being "Christ like" will at times mean putting our foot down with contemporary religious legalists.
#3 -- you also assume that there aren't occasions where we don't seek even your version of what a "more Christ-like dialogue" would look like. I engage in that frequently -- because I think we also need to approach individual people whereever they are at -- and Christ had some of those kind of discussions as well.
So, these "civil" discussions have taken place in a lot of distinct settings. That includes numerous civil discussions with Lds here. It's included numerous civil discussions with Lds missionaries and Lds relatives.
I guess what I don't get is that you think you somehow know or have reviewed all or most...
...inter-religious transaction among certain FReepers,
...inter-religious relationship among certain FReepers,
...inter-religious FR thread,
...inter-religious online discussions beyond FR...
...and can therefore assume conclusions well beyond any mortal assessment.
Well, aside from my third point in post #14 -- which shows that Lds have refused to unite with us since the 1830s [not very "inspiring" to coalesce on some of the deeper things when they think you're "apostates," creedally abominable -- 100% so, etc.]...yet I still think we can work with Lds on a number of things together...Prop 8, Boy Scouts, food pantries, protecting the pre-born, and the like.
Beyond that, your comment also assumes one other thing I didn't address in my last post among all your other assumptions -- that you assume you can set the cultural agenda for all Christians -- because aren't Christians the foremost "base" among conservatives? (Rather arrogant to project that agenda, isn't it?)
Don't we take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or Huddles Masses?
Here's Jesus:
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the 'dark (political) oppression'?" (No)
Does Jesus say "fear the 'enemies of our freedom loving republic' within our borders?" (No)
Instead, does He say to exercise fear of the One who has authority to cast somebody into hell? (Yes)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
As for "uniting" I could probably guess that the folks who the apostle Paul warned the church @ Ephesus about had the bulk in common with the sheep there. Both groups were "religious." So, did Paul play the "allies"-game-don't-divide-us-you're playing? (No)
As Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, Huddled Masses: If you did something tearfully night and day for three years, do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
I'll take Paul's and Jesus' already-revealed priorities to your guesswork based upon bashing those willing to contend for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3)
Oh, there are quite a few more than a dozen or so on the Inman ping list...and a whole bunch more FReepers that post on these threads that AREN'T on the ping list....if you're gonna preach, get your facts straight...k?
Pinging the mighty Inmans.
anti [DU]
I think a clarification is in order -- and I don't know if I speak on behalf of all of the "Flying Inmans" -- but it certainly applies to me.
Just because Jesus at times "put his foot down" and practiced tough love with the Pharisees, doesn't mean he was "against" (anti) the individual Pharisee as a person. Jesus could both simultaneously love the Pharisee while taking issue with their religious and social beliefs and traditions.
An atheist or Muslim could be against me as a Christian based upon my beliefs, but I wouldn't assume he is automatically "against" or "anti" every Christian person. (Many may have Christians, for example, within their own extended families).
Likewise, I have Mormons within my own extended family...and just because some FReepers lack "appreciation" for the Mormon belief system, doesn't equate to being against the individual Mormon person.
Obviously God loves every Mormon. Mormons are our neighbors. We are called to love them. God holds every Mormon to be of tremendous value and worth, and I recognize that value & worth.
The apostle Paul could be for the Jewish circumcizer -- going into Jewish synagogues repeatedly in the era of Acts to attempt to win them over with debate and dialogue, often rigorous exchanges taking place -- and still speak forcefully against circumcision being demanded of new Christian converts by those same exact circumcizers.
I think labels like "anti" allow others to just be dismissive of us without having to either deal with the issues we raise or treat us as neighbors with whom we can interact both 1-on-1 and as groups.
well, what youll find here is a large group of spiritually minded folk, from theologians, pastors (I am former), and lay beleivers.....all of whom investigate their Scriptures, noting quite passionately when doctrine diverges from a Scriptural basis. We see this quite often in mormon doctrine....hence the passionate discourse instead of soft platitudes and kumbayahs. The moderation here is actually quite fair and draws complaints from both sides, meaning its balanced
[As an anti-mormon you continue to be obsessed with all things LDS. I am continually surprised that this website which is conservative and freedom loving continues to promote thru loose moderation attacks on any religion.]
Except my opposition is as much political as it is also religious, having come from experience here in Nevada. Besides Harry Reid I also follow corrupt Mormons like Lance Malone and Dario Herrera. That certainly doesn’t mean other religions have no corrupt politicians, only that in this petri dish some of the signs point in well defined directions. Romney and Gibbons and Hatch are similar.