Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[mfbukowski]

Qué mierda de una vasija.

That is swearing. That’s what Diana is asserting was said. But no, what was said was:

La Iglesia es una cargo del excremento.

Which is in fact, not swearing.

No, swearing is using the name of God in vain. You are apparantly don’t/didn’t see it. For whatever reason

 

[RebeccaJ]

No, swearing is using the name of God in vain. You are apparantly don’t/didn’t see it. For whatever reason

¡Oiga!

Diana was talking about feces, for whatever reason.

Not God.

 

[dianaiad]

Your bias against non-Mormons is showing.

The Trib is inaccurate because you don’t like what it reports?

Actually, I said that the Trib was ACCURATE. At the very end of the article, it had to admit that the meetings were legal.

Rebecca, have you ever researched the beginnings of the Salt Lake Tribune, who began it, why, and its history?

You should, It will be instructive. You can absolutely depend that if there is a way to dig at the church, the SLT will find it.

Read it again. There were illegal meetings, the DABC admitted it. To AVOID the legalities, they met secretly still, just made sure only one person was there.

I am certain mormons understand the difference between the letter and spirit of the law. What do you think the spirit of the law is, regarding closed door meetings? Clandestine hammer out legislation with one mormon, who takes it to all the other mormons, is still the mormon church dictating state law. No matter how you spin it.

I think we will have to disagree here, Rebecca.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You should, It will be instructive. You can absolutely depend that if there is a way to dig at the church, the SLT will find it.

yes, do you know who controls it now?

I think we will have to disagree here, Rebecca.

okee dokee

 

[dianaiad]

¡Oiga!

Diana was talking about feces, for whatever reason.

Not God.

You are correct.

And you know the reason. I’m not the one who posted the insulting cartoon. That would be Paul. I’m not the one who called a religion other than my own a load of manure…that, again, would be Paul.

I guess that courtesy is served as long as the insult is in a different language.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are correct.

And you know the reason. I’m not the one who posted the insulting cartoon. That would be Paul. I’m not the one who called a religion other than my own a load of manure…that, again, would be Paul.

I guess that courtesy is served as long as the insult is in a different language.

Ah well, when Mormons stop calling us abominable and corrupt, I suppose we won’t see your teachings as a load of manure any longer.

 

[dianaiad]

yes, do you know who controls it now?

okee dokee

Actually, yes. I do.

It is owned by the “MediaNews Group, Inc.” which is owned and controlled by the CEO of that company, William Dean Singleton, who is also the chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press…

MediaNews Group owns over 50 daily papers, of which the SLT is only one.

Before Singleton purchased it, it was owned by Thomas Kearnes, (Catholic) and his family; they were very clear about their antipathy toward the church. he purchased it from the group that founded the paper for the express purpose of opposing the church. The obituary it ran of Brigham Young was one of the most incredible attack pieces ever written.

The current editor is Nancy Conway, former editor of the Oakland Tribune.

Please note; none of these people are Mormons.

And the Salt Lake Tribune has been very proud of their anti-Mormon history. Remember, THIS is the paper with the reporters that sold information about Elizabeth Smart to the super market tabloids, and which played that entire situation as a ‘cult’ matter that was just to be expected from a bunch of Mormons.

you are quite right. I don’t like the Salt Lake Tribune.

 

[dianaiad]

Ah well, when Mormons stop calling us abominable and corrupt, I suppose we won’t see your teachings as a load of manure any longer.

Would you care to find something a little newer than a hundred and fifty years old…and just perhaps quoting it correctly?

Just a thought.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, yes. I do.

It is owned by the “MediaNews Group, Inc.” which is owned and controlled by the CEO of that company, William Dean Singleton, who is also the chairman of the board of directors of the Associated Press…

MediaNews Group owns over 50 daily papers, of which the SLT is only one.

Yes, so do you believe all of these papers are anti-Mormon?

Before Singleton purchased it, it was owned by Thomas Kearnes, (Catholic) and his family; they were very clear about their antipathy toward the church. he purchased it from the group that founded the paper for the express purpose of opposing the church. The obituary it ran of Brigham Young was one of the most incredible attack pieces ever written.

You have your history mixed up. Young died before Kearns and his partner David Keith purchased it. When Kearns purchased it, he made the effort to remove the anti-mormon tone of the paper. He was a UT senator and on good terms with the LDS church. I suggest before you go smearing people’s names you know what you are talking about.

Singleton purchased it from AT&T, not Kearns.

The current editor is Nancy Conway, former editor of the Oakland Tribune.

Please note; none of these people are Mormons.

Do you only trust news sources that have Mormons in the ownership or leadership?

And the Salt Lake Tribune has been very proud of their anti-Mormon history.

You think so?

Remember, THIS is the paper with the reporters that sold information about Elizabeth Smart to the super market tabloids,

Both of the reporters involved in this were fired, and the editor of the paper resigned. Is this the reward for supporting the paper’s express purpose of anti-mormonism?

and which played that entire situation as a ‘cult’ matter that was just to be expected from a bunch of Mormons.

That was the tabloid, not the Tribune.

you are quite right. I don’t like the Salt Lake Tribune.

As I said, biased against non-Mormons.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Would you care to find something a little newer than a hundred and fifty years old…and just perhaps quoting it correctly?

Just a thought.

Hi, it’s in your scriptures, therefore according to you, it is doctrine. I wouldn’t blame you for choosing to not believe it.

how about 1989

 

[allhers]

Actually, we do not encourage abortion if it is a matter of 'the baby will not live very long." We do not oppose it if it is a matter of 'the baby will not live, period." If the baby has no brain, for instance…

Remember, we believe that infants who die at or shortly after birth are pretty much guaranteed all that heaven provides; the Celestial Kingdom.

Personally, I wouldn’t abort if I were raped, but that is a personal decision that I am long past having to consider. Rape victims are not encouraged to abort, but they are not blamed if they do, either; the resulting loss of life is on the head of the rapist. As for incest? Case by case. Most incest is the result of rape, y’know.

As for the other one…that the mother will die?

I’m sorry, but as far as I am aware the Catholics approve of that one, too. If the mother WILL die (as in an ectopic pregnancy or if the child must be delivered too early for the sake of the mother’s life) then the Catholic church has no problem with the idea. In those cases it isn’t a matter of trading one life for the other; it is a case of losing one–or losing both.

To be honest with you, I’m a little on the ‘don’t abort for anything but that the mother will die in five minutes if you don’t and the child isn’t going to survive either way’ side of the issue. The church as a whole is a little more understanding, but not by much.

I noticed that no one answered to this post and I wanted to clear this up! Under NO circumstances does the Catholic Church approve of abortion, ever!! May I ask what would be the sense in murdering a baby that isn’t going to live anyway?

Why should a baby that is the result of a rape be murdered?

An etopic pregnancy does not end in abortion, the diseased tube is cut out, naturally the baby dies, if it isn’t already dead. If the diseased tube is not cut out the mother and baby will both die. It isn’t an abortion, it is a true medical necessity, probably the only one.

In the case of a child that would have to be delivered early, all that can be done, is required to be done, to save both lives. Never is an abortion permitted, not even in this case.

I’m sorry but your last example makes no sense… You said:
“if the mother is going to die in five minutes if you don’t and the child isn’t going to survive either way”
… then may I ask…whats the point? If the child isn’t going to survive either way, why murder the child that is going to die naturally?

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Ah well, when Mormons stop calling us abominable and corrupt, I suppose we won’t see your teachings as a load of manure any longer.

**Hi Rececca,

Sorry dear, you have to speak for yourself. I will always see their cult’s teachings as a load of manure! :yup: “Look, that’s what comes under the theological classification of happy horse manure! Got it, that’s what that is. That’s bologna, absolute bologna!” ~ Fr John Corapi :clapping:

And I say that with all the Christian love that is contained in my heart for non-followers of Christ!

God Bless**

 

[RebeccaJ]

**Hi Rececca,

Sorry dear, you have to speak for yourself. I will always see their cult’s teachings as a load of manure! :yup: “Look, that’s what comes under the theological classification of happy horse manure! Got it, that’s what that is. That’s bologna, absolute bologna!” ~ Fr John Corapi :clapping:

And I say that with all the Christian love that is contained in my heart for non-followers of Christ!

God Bless**

The Mormon belief of all of Christianity as abominable and corrupt is the foundation of the entire religion. Without it, they would have no need to believe in a “restoration”. It is more like the wagon that holds the manure.

 

[mfbukowski]

¡Oiga!

Diana was talking about feces, for whatever reason.

Not God.

You are blind. Look at that cartoon and see if you can find the word “God” in spanish anywhere in the cartoon, and then explain to me why that is not swearing.

 

[mfbukowski]

Hi, it’s in your scriptures, therefore according to you, it is doctrine. I wouldn’t blame you for choosing to not believe it.

how about 1989

First this article does NOT mention the word “Catholic” anywhere, and you seem to be intentionally distorting.

The article is in fact an attempt to minimize and explain earlier uses of the word “abomination”. From the article you linked to:

Elder John A. Widtsoe made the following observation regarding the abominations spoken of in the First Vision:

“Jesus said to Joseph that all the churches were wrong, and that their creeds were an abomination in his sight, that those professors were all corrupt. This statement has given a great deal of offense. It should not amaze us, however, if we consider that Joseph went in search of truth. There was doubt in his mind. All untruth is an abomination. Clear the world of untruth, and the world will be a better place. The ministers were not necessarily corrupt personally; but since they preached untruth and professed untruth, they were corrupt teachers. There is a fine distinction between a man who is misled and one who deliberately teaches untruth. The statement made by the Savior should not be misunderstood. Truth is the only holy thing; and if it is violated or changed, those who teach it become corrupt and abominable.” (“Joseph Smith—The Significance of the First Vision,” The Annual Joseph Smith Memorial Sermons, volume 1, Logan, Utah: Institute of Religion, 1966, page 28; italics added.)

The scriptures appropriately counsel us to give no heed to “fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.” (Titus 1:14.)

Latter-day Saints do not intend to give offense by speaking of the false creeds and beliefs of others as abominations. But we must be unyielding in tenaciously holding to the truth. There is but “one Lord, one faith, one baptism.” (Eph. 4:5; italics added.) (underlinging added- mb)

So I suppose Paul’s intent was also to not give offense and and just tell us there should be one faith and one baptism, by calling our church a crock, by name , directly? Yeah Rebecca, your comment makes a whole lot of sense!

And clearly Paul’s cartoon is perfectly in line with the OP, right? Any board with decent moderators would close this thread down just for that.

Oh well, we are close to a thousand posts anyway, so it won’t be long.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are blind. Look at that cartoon and see if you can find the word “God” in spanish anywhere in the cartoon, and then explain to me why that is not swearing.

bukowski, I just really don’t care.

 

[RebeccaJ]

First this article does NOT mention the word “Catholic” anywhere, and you seem to be intentionally distorting.

All churches = all churches. Last I checked, I belong to the Catholic Church.

The article is in fact an attempt to minimize and explain earlier uses of the word “abomination”. From the article you linked to:

Earlier uses? It’s in your scriptures, still used today. No amount of fluff is going make me go, “Gee, thanks for calling my beliefs and abomination and the creeds I profess as corrupt.”

So I suppose Paul’s intent was also to not give offense and and just tell us there should be one faith and one baptism, by calling our church a crock, by name , directly? Yeah Rebecca, your comment makes a whole lot of sense!

Well, as I said, when you stop teaching ****, we’ll stop calling it what it is.

And clearly Paul’s cartoon is perfectly in line with the OP, right? Any board with decent moderators would close this thread down just for that.

Oh well, we are close to a thousand posts anyway, so it won’t be long.

whiny whiny…insult Catholics all you like but you want a thread shutdown for a cartoon that offends your sensibilities. That is a big WHATEVER.

 

[mfbukowski]

bukowski, I just really don’t care.

You argue for 3 posts and then I show you you’re wrong and suddenly you don’t care. Typical.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You argue for 3 posts and then I show you you’re wrong and suddenly you don’t care. Typical.

bukowski, I am not arguing. Pointing out facts. You have a fixation going that I don’t care about and are beating it to death.

Fine, the cartoon says GOD. Get over it now.

 

[dianaiad]

Yes, so do you believe all of these papers are anti-Mormon?

No, why would you ask that? The Salt Lake Tribune, however, is. This is historically proven fact. The Trib is proud of it, admits it, brags about it.

However, in the same spirit as the question you just asked, do you believe that the Mormons control all those other papers? It was pretty obvious that you were about to claim that the Mormons controled the Trib.

You have your history mixed up. Young died before Kearns and his partner David Keith purchased it. When Kearns purchased it, he made the effort to remove the anti-mormon tone of the paper. He was a UT senator and on good terms with the LDS church. I suggest before you go smearing people’s names you know what you are talking about.

I didn’t have my history mixed up. The obituary was written. I can quote it for you. Kearnes bought it…and he did NOT attempt to ‘remove the anti-mormon tone’ of the paper. Not even close.

Singleton purchased it from AT&T, not Kearns.

Do you only trust news sources that have Mormons in the ownership or leadership?

I trust news sources that are not so obviously biased either way. When a source proves its bias as completely as the Trib has, then trusting it is a rather stupid thing to do, don’t you think?

You think so?

Both of the reporters involved in this were fired, and the editor of the paper resigned. Is this the reward for supporting the paper’s express purpose of anti-mormonism?

That was the tabloid, not the Tribune.

As I said, biased against non-Mormons.

Non-Mormons don’t bother me. ANTI-Mormons bother me. You, however, wouldn’t give a Mormon the benefit of the doubt if one told you that the Great Salt Lake was briny.