FLDS as true LDS

[majick275]

First, the mad board does not have rabid anticatholics as this board has rabid antimormons. But I do defend the catholic church if the need arises on that board. And the Mad people know my catholicism. No problem over there.

guess that’s a matter of definition as i saw others over there hammering away at catholics even demanding that the catholics be sued over the missionary desecration issue in colorado. you get a lot misrepresentation there that meets the exact criteria that you have listed here as requiring your intervention. you stayed firmly in the LDs camp on MADB

 

[majick275]

You are correct. No evidence of abuse has been found. And the girl who reported the abuse has not been found. Some say it was a hoax call. Only time will tell.

no abuse has been found? CPS reported teen girls with multiple children. this is in addition to their prophet already being convicted of abuse. look at the results of that trial. this was systemic. what about jeffs moving children away form their parents when he started the texas ranch? he assigned people there based on loyalty.

 

[majick275]

There are only a few antimormon catholics posting on this thread. I can count them on one hand. They just don’t get it. Be that as it may, on a different thread I mentioned that the catholic church was in crisis in America and I got an ear full. However, NPR just said the same thing. If it wasn’t for the hispanics, the catholic church would be on the decline in the USA.

In my opinion, Catholic Answers needs to see that threat and not the so called mormon threat.

and NPR is reliable? there are many active non-hispanic catholics in america and BTW… what’s wrong with hispanics? thank god for the good people of ALL races who support the faith. I respect and admire what the mexicans and central and south americans and vietnamese and other ethnic groups have brought to the church in america. hooray for God’s people! (not just the “white and delightsome”) apply your same NPR analysis to the LDs church worldwide see what you get.

 

[majick275]

I will give you a couple of tips on how to shake them off your back:

1. Don’t let them focus on you, but away from you to the subject you are dealing with. If they insist on focusing on you, just ignore them. Don’t reply to them. No matter how much they try, just turn a deaf ear. Eventually they will get the message, and stop trying. That means that you should not try to focus the attention on yourself either. Don’t say, “I am here to defend Mormonism against unfair attacks by Catholics”. That is focusing on yourself. If you find an unfair criticism, deal with the criticism; but don’t say that this is what you are her to do.
2. Never “complain” about anti-Mormonism on the board—just deal with the anti-Mormonism. For example, if you think that somebody is making mountain out of the molehill of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, while conveniently overlooking the Catholic Church’s own chequered history, just remind them of that. But don’t say, “There is too much anti-Mormonism here”. If you say that, then they will say, “Anti-Mormonism? What anti-Mormonism!” And they will sidetrack you into a lengthy discussion of what is anti-Mormonism.

If you follow these tips, you will find that you will get on top of them pretty quickly.

zerinus

LOL!!! the blind leading the blind. sokay Z, you haven’t been to the temple yet so you don’t have the “meat” yet. we’ll see down the road.

 

[dosdog]

no abuse has been found? CPS reported teen girls with multiple children. this is in addition to their prophet already being convicted of abuse. look at the results of that trial. this was systemic. what about jeffs moving children away form their parents when he started the texas ranch? he assigned people there based on loyalty.

Just do no not drink the Kool- Aide - your guts may spill out and cause you to have visions of Jim Jones. PS teen girls and whiped dog females are not the most reliable sorce of info

 

[MelanieAnne]

Lotsa folks verbally beat up Catholics, it’s a sport. Bill Marr is recently on record as saying something that, if had been directed towards any other group, would have got him fired. But since it was directed towards the Catholic church, it’s OK.

One thing about the topic this particular thread, which should be underscored, is that what happened to those children, and we don’t know the totality of it yet, was a matter of FLDS church policy. This wasn’t an aberration within their faith. This wasn’t the ethical or moral failure of one sinful church member, this was the official practice of this church.

Throughout history, the weakest and least powerful have been exploited by evil people, and children have often been victims of abuse and exploitation. But seldom, when a church is involved, is it anything other than CONTRARY to church teachings. This time, the exploitation of the children was ACCORDING to the teaching of this cult.

Sick and twisted. An entire church that supposedly dedicates itself to God and sacrifices children on the altar of their supposedly holy temple. Mind boggling.

 

[majick275]

If there are no “rabid anti-Catholicism” there, then he has nothing to “defend,” does he.

zerinus

i still say that calling the creeds an abomination in the sight of god is pretty anticatholic. there are threads over there defending Mconkie’s position on the catholic church as well. what was posted about the missionaries desecrating the catholic church was about as rabidly anticatholic as you can get.

 

[dosdog]

i still say that calling the creeds an abominationQUOTE]

Zi s an amobinination - iI would never support abortion .;…unless Z was involved

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes, I was christened into the catholic faith and I did make my holy communion and confirmation. So I am catholic.

So, did you miss post 134?

 

[zaffiroborant]

I’m sure the priests don’t know that you are receiving communion in a Catholic church, and taking sacrament at a mormon sacrament meeting.

If the priest does know this, and isn’t stopping you from receiving at a Catholic church, then that priest needs his faculties pulled.

Why me is an “internet Catholic”. He only knows as much as he can find on the internet. aka troll.

Above is post 134

I think he’s a Mormon with an “internet/Bing Crosby Catholic” facade.

 

[twopekinguys]

Above is post 134

I think he’s a Mormon with an “internet/Bing Crosby Catholic” facade.

I agree, but isn’t funny how he convieniently ignores/misses posts.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Ignoring/missing posts is part of the “program”. It’s even been posted.

And perhaps a little bit of LDS philosophy may have some bearing too. My LDS friends tell me that “contention is of the devil”. So if an LDS person concludes that someone is bringing contention into a situation (such as presenting an opposing viewpoint, or HEAVEN FORBID some opposing FACTS!!) they may perceive something similar to “contention is of the devil” and avoid/ignore/overlook it as they might avoid poison.

Handy, huh? No scholarship or critical thinking needed. Everything that happened between about the year 100 and the day that Joseph Smith supposedly had his first encounter with Jesus and Heavenly Father can just be ignored as “apostasy” (“Heavenly Father” = God for those of us who are not Mormon, but in Mormon theology God/Heavenly Father has a separate physical existence from Jesus Christ.) And then you get to ignore anything that is “contentious”. Makes it pretty easy.

 

[zaffiroborant]

i still say that calling the creeds an abomination in the sight of god is pretty anticatholic. there are threads over there defending Mconkie’s position on the catholic church as well. what was posted about the missionaries desecrating the catholic church was about as rabidly anticatholic as you can get.

I agree and again I didn’t see him jumping to defend the Catholic church anywhere. All I see is upholding and defending the LDS faith.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I agree and again I didn’t see him jumping to defend the Catholic church anywhere. All I see is upholding and defending the LDS faith.

It’s because he’s a Mormon.

It’s pretty basic. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you’re a duck. He walks and talks like a Mormon. He’s a Mormon. He may have been Catholic as a child. No longer. It’s not like you can be both.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Above is post 134

I think he’s a Mormon with an “internet/Bing Crosby Catholic” facade.

I agree, but isn’t funny how he convieniently ignores/misses posts.

Well there is no guide to being a Mormon/imaginary Catholic so it’s best to just ignore those posts when you’re not sure what Father O’Malley would say.

 

[LittleDeb]

It’s pretty basic. If you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, you’re a duck. He walks and talks like a Mormon. He’s a Mormon. He may have been Catholic as a child. No longer. It’s not like you can be both.

You know, there is something even deeper here that is helpful to me. Watching the defense of the FLDS behaviors has given me new insight in understanding the mind of an an average LDS. Your words, “It’s not like you can be both,” are very telling of their deeper problem.

I have seen it referred to as ‘compartmentalizing’ and ‘double-think.’ On some level all (devout) LDS know that polygamy is a very real part of their current doctrine not just their past doctrine, as some claim. So when the FLDS are on trial the LDS struggle with their own thoughts and feelings about polygamy.

They try so hard to say, ‘That’s not us,’ and yet at the same time they have to admit to themselves that 100 years ago they would have been those very people being investigated by the government. I’ve watched them make mental loop-de-loops to try to come to grips with this very divisive doctrine. Just because their prophet changed the teaching, the immorality of it still won’t go away. Either their ancestors were right to practice it and the current LDS should be defending the FLDS right to practice it now, or it is wrong throughout all time.

Even if the current LDS don’t practice polygamy* in this life*, they certainly believe that it has been moral to practice and will be practiced in the next. Watching certain posters claim to have a foot in each world (Mormon, Catholic) is nearly the same as watching them try to have a foot in FLDS and LDS. Either polygamy is moral or it is immoral regardless of the times.

 

[MelanieAnne]

You know, there is something even deeper here that is helpful to me. Watching the defense of the FLDS behaviors has given me new insight in understanding the mind of an an average LDS. Your words, “It’s not like you can be both,” are very telling of their deeper problem.

I have seen it referred to as ‘compartmentalizing’ and ‘double-think.’ On some level all (devout) LDS know that polygamy is a very real part of their current doctrine not just their past doctrine, as some claim. So when the FLDS are on trial the LDS struggle with their own thoughts and feelings about polygamy.

They try so hard to say, ‘That’s not us,’ and yet at the same time they have to admit to themselves that 100 years ago they would have been those very people being investigated by the government. I’ve watched them make mental loop-de-loops to try to come to grips with this very divisive doctrine. Just because their prophet changed the teaching, the immorality of it still won’t go away. Either their ancestors were right to practice it and the current LDS should be defending the FLDS right to practice it now, or it is wrong throughout all time.

Even if the current LDS don’t practice polygamy* in this life*, they certainly believe that it has been moral to practice and will be practiced in the next. Watching certain posters claim to have a foot in each world (Mormon, Catholic) is nearly the same as watching them try to have a foot in FLDS and LDS. Either polygamy is moral or it is immoral regardless of the times.

Deb, I had a conversation with a very dear friend who is a very devout (i.e., Relief Society President, Temple Recommend, etc.) Mormon today. You’re right. There are all sorts of devices used to push it aside, put it on the “back burner”. They just DON’T want to deal with it.

What she told me today ~ “well, you know not everyone practiced polygamy back then”. OK maybe not, and maybe it wasn’t always, or even ever, practiced as it is alleged to have been practiced at this FLDS place in Texas. But it’s still a cloud that hangs over the entire faith. And you’re right, it’s either moral or immoral, but it can’t be moral sometimes and immoral other times.

And that’s what I told her. There is NO ESCAPE from the fact that polygamy is part of the Celestial Kingdom experience, even if it is not practiced here on earth today & it’s not Biblical, in fact it is profoundly ANTI-Biblical, so no matter what, it’s going to make at least SOME other people think less of Mormons, no matter what kind of Mormons they are ~ LDS or FLDS.

She had no answer. I guess I can’t be a Mormon because I can’t compartmentalize like that.

 

[why_me]

You know, there is something even deeper here that is helpful to me. Watching the defense of the FLDS behaviors has given me new insight in understanding the mind of an an average LDS. Your words, “It’s not like you can be both,” are very telling of their deeper problem.

I have seen it referred to as ‘compartmentalizing’ and ‘double-think.’ On some level all (devout) LDS know that polygamy is a very real part of their current doctrine not just their past doctrine, as some claim. So when the FLDS are on trial the LDS struggle with their own thoughts and feelings about polygamy.

This is not exactly true. If the FDLS had a different name for their church therre would be very little problem within the mormon communitty. The problem comes with name identification. There is no comparison between the two churches. They are quite different. The otherr problem is when the lds church is guilty by assiociation. This is not right either. Most mormons have nothing against the polygamy principle as practiced by the early mormons. In fact, many are proud of their church history. Very few mormons are struggling with their feelings about polygamy.

 

[why_me]

I will give you a couple of tips on how to shake them off your back:

1. Don’t let them focus on you, but away from you to the subject you are dealing with. If they insist on focusing on you, just ignore them. Don’t reply to them. No matter how much they try, just turn a deaf ear. Eventually they will get the message, and stop trying. That means that you should not try to focus the attention on yourself either. Don’t say, “I am here to defend Mormonism against unfair attacks by Catholics”. That is focusing on yourself. If you find an unfair criticism, deal with the criticism; but don’t say that this is what you are her to do.
2. Never “complain” about anti-Mormonism on the board—just deal with the anti-Mormonism. For example, if you think that somebody is making mountain out of the molehill of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, while conveniently overlooking the Catholic Church’s own chequered history, just remind them of that. But don’t say, “There is too much anti-Mormonism here”. If you say that, then they will say, “Anti-Mormonism? What anti-Mormonism!” And they will sidetrack you into a lengthy discussion of what is anti-Mormonism.

If you follow these tips, you will find that you will get on top of them pretty quickly.

zerinus

Thanks for the great advice. These guys on the board do seem to make it a personal thing. I will try to ignore the more personal posts directed at me.

I kinda feel sorry for these guys on this section of the forum. I remember that I posted an email by a priest to me and I did receive some personal threads. Strange but NPR and the BBC not to mention the French news station in English, agreed with what I said on that thread when the pope is now visiting the US.

 

[pnewton]

You know, there is something even deeper here that is helpful to me. Watching the defense of the FLDS behaviors has given me new insight in understanding the mind of an an average LDS. Your words, “It’s not like you can be both,” are very telling of their deeper problem.

Either polygamy is moral or it is immoral regardless of the times.

I think there are two issues at work. Remember that it is not polygamy at issue with the raid in Texas. It is child abuse. If the wives in question were 21 amd not 12, then nothing would be happen. If these old coots were marrying multiple wives of their own age and not the children of women their own age, again, nothing would have been happening. It is the cycle of having children then swapping with your friends as wives/sex partners that is being addressed legally.