Mormon - Beliefs - A civil Discussion Please

[RebeccaJ]

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.

I have not seen this. They have an alright “Faith” section that publishes lots Mormons stuff. I haven’t seen that they slam what they publish. The people in the comments section…that’s a different story.

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.

Nah, they own and control the Deseret News, which, if you want to talk about biased. There you go.

I didn’t have my history mixed up. The obituary was written.

It wasn’t written while Kearns owned it. That was my point.

]quote] 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.

Kearns was very much against the political structure in UT, and criticized it. He was not against Mormonism.

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?

If it is truly biased. Yes, it was, I don’t see that it is now. I just see that Mormons don’t like to hear the truth. They want to hear nothing but nice, nice, nice about anything that says Mormon, at all times. No matter how bad it is.

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.

My experience is that Mormons lie. Would be pretty stupid to trust people that consistently have lied to me, don’t you think?

 

[dianaiad]

,snip to here>

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?

The point is that the mother need not die.

There are very, very few situations in which this might be true, that a mother’s life would be in that immediate a danger if she continued the pregnancy…but evidently there are one or two.

If the mother is going to die, the child will die with her. If the only way to save the mother’s life is to deliver the child far too early for it to have any chance of survival (that is ‘abortion’ whether you like the term or not…any other term is weaseling) then I understand that the Catholic church will not oppose the procedure required to save Mom’s life.

If I am wrong about this, then I am wrong. It was simply my impression.

For me, such a situation would be a tragedy; nobody should have to deal with it–and it would have NOTHING to do with ‘choice’ or ‘right to life’ or anything political.

 

[dianaiad]

**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**

Please spare me from that sort of ‘love.’

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Y’know, the moderators may not close this thread down.

I, however, have had enough of it.

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Please spare me from that sort of ‘love.’

**
Hi Diana,

Sorry dear, I can’t do that since you are a non-follower of Christ! I must pray for you and show my love just as Jesus told us we had to do! That is the one way you will be able to tell we are Christians. By the truths that we proclaim and by our "real " love for all God’s children even the foolish ones following false prophets and cults!

God Bless**

 

[allhers]

The point is that the mother need not die.

There are very, very few situations in which this might be true, that a mother’s life would be in that immediate a danger if she continued the pregnancy…but evidently there are one or two.

If the mother is going to die, the child will die with her. If the only way to save the mother’s life is to deliver the child far too early for it to have any chance of survival (that is ‘abortion’ whether you like the term or not…any other term is weaseling) then I understand that the Catholic church will not oppose the procedure required to save Mom’s life.

If I am wrong about this, then I am wrong. It was simply my impression.

For me, such a situation would be a tragedy; nobody should have to deal with it–and it would have NOTHING to do with ‘choice’ or ‘right to life’ or anything political.

I believe that IF it came to that, then delivering the child would NOT be an abortion, the child could continue to live, especially how far advanced in this day and age that we are in regards to this.

Abortion however, is the direct and intentional murdering of the child and that is NOT ever possible with the Catholic Church. To say that delivering a child is abortion is just plain wrong.

We even have a Saint who had cancer and choose life for her child above her own life just for this very reason. Instead of letting the Doctors deliver her child early to have more advanced treatment for her cancer, or instead of aborting her child, she gave her child the gift of LIFE.

Now, in this day and age we are far more advanced than they were then, that was back in the 50’s and the woman, being a Doctor herself, knew what all was involved. She allowed just so much treatment so that the child could come full term and be alright.

If you’d like to read more about her, her name is Saint Gianna Beretta Molla, click here:

saintgianna.org/main.htm

 

[RebeccaJ]

If you’d like to read more about her, her name is Saint Gianna Beretta Molla, click here:

saintgianna.org/main.htm

As Jesus said, there is no greater love than this.

 

[LAMBOFGODGIRLY]

I believe that IF it came to that, then delivering the child would NOT be an abortion, the child could continue to live, especially how far advanced in this day and age that we are in regards to this.

Abortion however, is the direct and intentional murdering of the child and that is NOT ever possible with the Catholic Church. To say that delivering a child is abortion is just plain wrong.

We even have a Saint who had cancer and choose life for her child above her own life just for this very reason. Instead of letting the Doctors deliver her child early to have more advanced treatment for her cancer, or instead of aborting her child, she gave her child the gift of LIFE.

Now, in this day and age we are far more advanced than they were then, that was back in the 50’s and the woman, being a Doctor herself, knew what all was involved. She allowed just so much treatment so that the child could come full term and be alright.

If you’d like to read more about her, her name is Saint Gianna Beretta Molla, click here:

saintgianna.org/main.htm

I totally agree! I have been looking and looking ever since Diana mentioned that Catholics were also aloud to have abortion under certain circumstances, but I have not been able to find that at all!! All I have seen is “under no circumstance is abortion acceptable!”

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Saying the word ‘God’ is not in itself; swearing. It is not swearing when it is a prayerful response after realizing you have been tricked into turning your back on the Blessed Trinity and his Church.

 

[mfbukowski]

As Jesus said, there is no greater love than this.

BTW do you work for the Trib?

 

[RebeccaJ]

BTW do you work for the Trib?

no, I work for a non-profit org

 

[jblake]

dianaiad;:

None of them are theocracies, Including Utah.

Do you even know the difference between a theocracy and a theodemocracy?

jonathon

 

[MelanieAnne]

Random observations on the variety of topics discussed in this thread recently ~

Technically, there is only one Christian Church ~ the Church originally founded by Jesus Christ and currently known as the Catholic Church. All others are not “churches” but instead they are “sects” ~ notwithstanding any name they may choose to give themselves. All validly baptized Christians are members of this Church although they may not currently be in communion with our Holy Father.

No one that is objective can make a case that some newspapers and the government itself in the State of Utah all have a strong pro-Mormon bias.

Meetings to discuss government policy, first, should never be secret, and second, should never include persons outside the government. Even a child can figure out that such a scenario is rife with the potential for corruption.

The current culture glorifies perfection and respect for life continues to recede. But there is a way to respect life, even in the context of a pregnancy where it is known that the child will not survive, or will not survive long. And that is to have a priest as well as those family members that can be gathered at the time of the delivery, baptize and confirm the baby at birth, and let the family meet the baby and love the baby for as long as they have time to do so. There are beautiful and respectful ways to deal with this sort of circumstance. Murdering the baby doesn’t have to even be a wisp of a thought.

 

[JLFuller]

It appears this thread has degenerated into a hate fest too. Satan has to be in the height of his glory about it.

 

[twopekinguys]

The current culture glorifies perfection and respect for life continues to recede. But there is a way to respect life, even in the context of a pregnancy where it is known that the child will not survive, or will not survive long. And that is to have a priest as well as those family members that can be gathered at the time of the delivery, baptize and confirm the baby at birth, and let the family meet the baby and love the baby for as long as they have time to do so. There are beautiful and respectful ways to deal with this sort of circumstance. Murdering the baby doesn’t have to even be a wisp of a thought.

Recently, in our area, there was a young couple expecting their first child. During the pregnancy, they found out that the baby was anacephalic (sp). A hereditary defect resulting in the partial to complete absence of a brain and spinal cord. It is fatal.

They found this out relatively early during the pregnancy, and chose to carry the baby to full term if possible. Indeed the baby did go full term, and was delivered, only to survive for a short while outside of the womb. The baby died in the arms of his parents surrounded by other loving members of the family.

How many people would have aborted this baby? How wonderful those parents chose to bring the child into the world and love him for as long as they could, and then give him back to the Lord.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Correction

No one that is objective can make a case that some newspapers and the government itself in the State of Utah all have a strong pro-Mormon bias.

The above item should have read “No one that is objective can fail to make a case that some newspapers and the government itself in the State of Utah all have a strong pro-Mormon bias.”

Corrections highlighted. I am sorry for the confusion, it was inadvertent.

There are plenty of non-Mormon, non-Catholic people in Utah that will attest to the clear pro-Mormon bias evidenced in many areas of life in the state of Utah.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It appears this thread has degenerated into a hate fest too. Satan has to be in the height of his glory about it.

Hate is where you find it JL. Speak for yourself.

Objective truth does not equal hate. Some people view all disagreement with their personal opinions as some sort of personal attack. That is misguided, not to mention rather arrogant.

 

[Tetiaroa]

But if the Mormon Church currently has living “prophets, seers and revelators” every bit as divinely inspired as Joseph Smith, then why can’t those seers put the BOM into modern English without error, as they believe Joseph Smith did in faux King James English? It would still be heaven-sent. In fact, the LDS still have Joseph’s seer stone locked in a vault in Salt Lake City. No reason they can’t still use it, right?

In the Book of Mormon, 2 Nephi 22:2 “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid; for the Lord JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also has become my salvation.”

This is a direct copy from the King James Version of Isaiah 12:2 “Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation”.

We know that the King James version was translated from the Greek Textus Receptus and which contains errors. These errors were also translated into the King James Version. One of these errors is “Jehovah”. Since the error “Jehovah” appears in 2 Nephi 22:2, this shows a man-made copy of the verses from the King James Version rather than a mere translation from the stone or angel. Remember, during the translation of the Book of Mormon, the word would not disappear until it was translated correctly but the name “Jehovah” was never used. Nephi plates were written 1000’s of years before Joseph Smith and how could the name “Jehovah” which was a 12th century error be correct?