Mormon missionaries vandalize and desecrate Catholic Shrine

[Memaw]

Good point, one I hadn’t thought of:thumbsup:

You would defend your mother I’m sure, if someone was insulting her and spreading lies about her. or anyone else you love. And I am sure your mother would go on being herself even if you didn’t defend her. Well more so for Christ’s TRUE Church. We who love and know it to be the ONE, TRUE Church, will defend HER with our life if necessary.

 

[Jerusha]

People, were Catholics and we forgive. lets not get into bashing others. Pray for them. FORGIVE! I cant belive what im hearing from some of you people. What really should be on our minds is Osama Bin Laden and him saying Catholics and our Good Pope are against Muslims. That is what worries me. But if the Muslims want a war were the last people on Earth you want to mess with

Although radical Islam is a point of concern, radical Mormonism is a threat from within that has been ignored for far too many years. Probably because it is so typically a product of white America that it could not be recognized as a threat by white Americans. Check back on Zerinus’s past posts of you want to see a prime example.

 

[xulu]

Although radical Islam is a point of concern, radical Mormonism is a threat from within that has been ignored for far too many years. Probably because it is so typically a product of white America that it could not be recognized as a threat by white Americans. Check back on Zerinus’s past posts of you want to see a prime example.

Sometimes it is hard to see things from within.
When I saw the bilge he was spouting I about had an aneurysm.

 

[why_me]

Although radical Islam is a point of concern, radical Mormonism is a threat from within that has been ignored for far too many years. Probably because it is so typically a product of white America that it could not be recognized as a threat by white Americans. Check back on Zerinus’s past posts of you want to see a prime example.

Radical Mormonism? What is that? Mormonism is not a product of white america since it deals with a multi-cultural society as found in the book of mormon. The whites at the time of Joseph Smith were not known for their tolerance of difference. The book of mormon is about difference. Also, white america would have created a book that claimed victory for their own race and culture. The book of mormon does the opposite. The book of mormon was a threat to white america for sure.

 

[why_me]

You would defend your mother I’m sure, if someone was insulting her and spreading lies about her. or anyone else you love. .

It depends on the mother. There are very wicked mothers out there that do not need defending.

 

[Jerusha]

Radical Mormonism? What is that? Mormonism is not a product of white america since it deals with a multi-cultural society as found in the book of mormon. The whites at the time of Joseph Smith were not known for their tolerance of difference. The book of mormon is about difference. Also, white america would have created a book that claimed victory for their own race and culture. The book of mormon does the opposite. The book of mormon was a threat to white america for sure.

WhyMe, you are so funny at times!!

 

[RebeccaJ]

Radical Mormonism? What is that? Mormonism is not a product of white america since it deals with a multi-cultural society as found in the book of mormon. The whites at the time of Joseph Smith were not known for their tolerance of difference. The book of mormon is about difference. Also, white america would have created a book that claimed victory for their own race and culture. The book of mormon does the opposite. The book of mormon was a threat to white america for sure.

The BoM explains to a 19th century America how the remnant of societies that were obviously cultured and civilized existed among what they perceived was an uncultured and uncivilized brown race. ie, the BoM explains how the ancient cultures and civilizations were created by an ancient white race who is now extinct. The brown people in the BoM are the bad guys, the white people are the good guys, and unlike a bad Hollywood western, the bad guys won.

 

[PaulDupre]

Radical Mormonism? What is that? Mormonism is not a product of white america since it deals with a multi-cultural society as found in the book of mormon. The whites at the time of Joseph Smith were not known for their tolerance of difference. The book of mormon is about difference. Also, white america would have created a book that claimed victory for their own race and culture. The book of mormon does the opposite. The book of mormon was a threat to white america for sure.

What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

The Book of Mormon (and mormonism in general) equates righteousness with whiteness and wickedness with dark skin. Those 19th century white-and-delightsome folks sure would have been threatened by that notion - NOT.

Paul

 

[twopekinguys]

The BoM explains to a 19th century America how the remnant of societies that were obviously cultured and civilized existed among what they perceived was an uncultured and uncivilized brown race. ie, the BoM explains how the ancient cultures and civilizations were created by an ancient white race who is now extinct. The brown people in the BoM are the bad guys, the white people are the good guys, and unlike a bad Hollywood western, the bad guys won.

Agreed. But wasn’t that before one of the many revisions of the BoM? They tend to change the book, remove/add at will, but yet take no official stance in the matter.

 

[Jerusha]

Agreed. But wasn’t that before one of the many revisions of the BoM? They tend to change the book, remove/add at will, but yet take no official stance in the matter.

No, that is still the general story-line.

 

[why_me]

Agreed. But wasn’t that before one of the many revisions of the BoM? They tend to change the book, remove/add at will, but yet take no official stance in the matter.

I think that you may have gotten it wrong:

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

Critics of the Church have charged that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because thousands of changes have been made in it over the years, as if the Church were trying to cover up blunders in Joseph Smith’s work. Certainly there have been many minor changes in the text of the Book of Mormon, as there have been in the text of the King James Version of the Bible (and other translations as well) over the years. These changes have been minor, usually trivial, primarily dealing with punctuation, correction of typographical errors, and modification of awkward grammar for clarity. I have examined the allegedly most “serious” changes pointed to by critics and have not seen anything representing a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon. I’ll discuss major examples below.

 

[majick275]

The BoM carries the theory of Gods “covenant race” to extremes. in fact there was a popular mormon book some years ago titled “gods covenant race”.

Jesus explains the difference between gods people and a race when he tells the pharisees that being descendants of abraham will get them nothing. that god can make anyone heirs to abraham and that doing the works of abraham would make them such. the BoM and JS later with the whole sealing doctrine went the other direction with a necessity for direct lineage in the covenant. this was epsecially apparent with the ban on blacks holding the priesthood and is still apparent in patriarchal blessings and genealogy/sealings today.

the BoM’s blatantly racist teachings on skin color have certainly appealed to many white people over the years. couple that with it’s labeling america the promised land and it’s no wonder that still today the mormon religion is primarily white and american in it’s leadership, culture and customs.

 

[twopekinguys]

I think that you may have gotten it wrong:

jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_changes.shtml

Critics of the Church have charged that the Book of Mormon is a fraud because thousands of changes have been made in it over the years, as if the Church were trying to cover up blunders in Joseph Smith’s work. Certainly there have been many minor changes in the text of the Book of Mormon, as there have been in the text of the King James Version of the Bible (and other translations as well) over the years. These changes have been minor, usually trivial, primarily dealing with punctuation, correction of typographical errors, and modification of awkward grammar for clarity. I have examined the allegedly most “serious” changes pointed to by critics and have not seen anything representing a real change in doctrine or anything that would cast doubt on the origins of the Book of Mormon. I’ll discuss major examples below.

I’m sorry, but if Mr. Lindsay isn’t one of the LDS prophets, or coucil or someone in authority, it doesn’t really carry much weight. I would like to see a reference where one of the actual church leaders said…This is wrong, and this is why. Say for denying Blacks the priesthood.

Generalities just don’t work for me.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Agreed. But wasn’t that before one of the many revisions of the BoM? They tend to change the book, remove/add at will, but yet take no official stance in the matter.

They changed one passage, where it describes the brown people will turn white, once they become righteous enough. It used to say “white and delightsome”. Now it says “pure” and something. Been a while since I read it.

Also, the Mormon church has put a more modern PC spin on the whole thing saying, the white/righteous vs brown/evil is metaphorical, and never was anything about brown=evil and white=righteous.

However, I was raised as a Mormon and taught the first racist version. With the mormon prophet at the time saying that you could see the skin of Native Americans who were Mormons actually getting lighter…an indication of their new righteousness. This was in the 1970’s.

Around the 1980’s, the Mormon church started teaching the less-racist version and denying that their first racist teachings were ever “doctrine”.

Whatever. You shouldn’t teach people in your religious education courses what isn’t doctrine, that’s all I can say.

Today, people say I am antimormon for telling it like it is. It was the Mormon church that taught me these things. I don’t make them up.

 

[twopekinguys]

They changed one passage, where it describes the brown people will turn white, once they become righteous enough. It used to say “white and delightsome”. Now it says “pure” and something. Been a while since I read it.

Also, the Mormon church has put a more modern PC spin on the whole thing saying, the white/righteous vs brown/evil is metaphorical, and never was anything about brown=evil and white=righteous.

However, I was raised as a Mormon and taught the first racist version. With the mormon prophet at the time saying that you could see the skin of Native Americans who were Mormons actually getting lighter…an indication of their new righteousness. This was in the 1970’s.

Around the 1980’s, the Mormon church started teaching the less-racist version and denying that their first racist teachings were ever “doctrine”.

Whatever. You shouldn’t teach people in your religious education courses what isn’t doctrine, that’s all I can say.

Today, people say I am antimormon for telling it like it is. It was the Mormon church that taught me these things. I don’t make them up.

Wow, I didn’t realize those changes were made so recently.

It is my understanding that at one time, blacks were not allowed to receive a “priesthood”. If so, can blacks receive it now? How did the church leadership handle the switch in this teaching?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wow, I didn’t realize those changes were made so recently.

It is my understanding that at one time, blacks were not allowed to receive a “priesthood”. If so, can blacks receive it now? How did the church leadership handle the switch in this teaching?

I was also a teen when that occurred. And the general membership of the Mormon church were very excited and very happy that this change was made. I was actually off with a youth church group, away from tv and radio, and when we got back it was all anyone was talking about. It was a very welcomed changed. I think people should understand this.

Prior to this time, I was taught that the curse of Cain is black skin. And that God had declared that this was a permanent curse, never to be lifted. Because of Cain’s first murder his male descendants could never have the priesthood.

How to justify the change? Simple. The prophet at the time said he received a revelation from God that all worthy male members should have the priesthood. That’s it. God said so. No other reason needed.

I will add, the Mormon church itself, those in authority, have never stated the ban was wrong. Only that God had decided it was time for a change.

Also, a lot of the elation at the ban being lifted was based on the idea of “spreading the gospel”. Everyone was abuzz about how now, Mormonism in its entirety could be taught to black people…which would be cause for more black people to join Mormonism.

The changes re: Native Americans and the BoM, nothing official was ever released about it. Like most of the changes the Mormon church make, they just make them, and people are left to wonder why. Thus, you get mormon apologists, like Lindsay…people like him are doing nothing but guessing at the “whys”.

 

[twopekinguys]

Thank you.

That was probably the most straight forward answer I received.

So is it safe to assume that when the LDS has doctrinal changes, the prohpet says there was a revelation from God?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you.

That was probably the most straight forward answer I received.

So is it safe to assume that when the LDS has doctrinal changes, the prohpet says there was a revelation from God?

Yes.

Only the kicker is, what mormons believe to be revelation today, can be construed as opinion tomorrow. That’s how many of the inconsistencies and less savory statements are swept under the rug by mormon apologists.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes.

Only the kicker is, what mormons believe to be revelation today, can be construed as opinion tomorrow. That’s how many of the inconsistencies and less savory statements are swept under the rug by mormon apologists.

Sounds like they need a scorecard to keep it all straight. LOL, just kidding, that wasn’t very nice.

Thanks for all the great info. I think what you have shared just means we have to pray all the more for conversions.

 

[Memaw]

What kind of fantasy world are you living in?

The Book of Mormon (and mormonism in general) equates righteousness with whiteness and wickedness with dark skin. Those 19th century white-and-delightsome folks sure would have been threatened by that notion - NOT.

Paul

until not to many years ago, they wouldn’t even let blacks in the Morman church and if my memory doesn’t fail me, they still can only go so far up in it.