Mormon Religion

[twopekinguys]

A lot of that has to do with the attitude of the sinner. At least one of these young men was very repentant. Hardy certainly is not. He is gleeful about it and has no intention of repenting.

I don’t know if gleeful is the right word. He has said he went inactive in 2002, but I don’t know that gleeful would be an accurate description.

As for inconsistency, I think it more consistent than the idea of that nine year old’s mother being excommunicated because she made an emergency decision to save her daughter’s life, while the man who raped her was NOT excommunicated.

I have asked you more than once for your reference on this. Again, the articles I have seen don’t mention that her life was in danger. They did mention pain, but not life threatening. Also, the articles haven’t shown the rapist to be Catholic. If you can’t or won’t provide the reference for the statement you are making, then back away from it. After all, you demand no less from any other poster on here

I find it incredibly inconsistent that you are insisting that these three young men, who repented and were FORGIVEN by the people whose shrine they desecrated, be given harsher punishment than we give Hardy, who, quite frankly, committed exactly the same sin–and who is not only unrepentent, but is gleefully continuing to commit the same sin over and over again.

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have never called for any type of punishment for these men. I am merely pointing out inconsistencies. BIG difference.

Because Hardy doesn’t care. He’s not one whit repentant. He’s PROUD of what he did.

Can you provide a quote for where he says he’s “Proud” of this? The way I see it, if he was “proud” of it, and didnt’ care, why would he go to the disciplinary hearing? Doesn’t sound like someone who is “proud” or “gleeful” now does it?

Don’t go there. Historically the consequences of CAtholic priests who desecrated the worship places and shrines of others were not…negative. Even now, the punishment for such actions is discipline and their removal from office. You know, like having your mission dishonorably terminated? By the way, there is NO mention in canon law about a penalty for vandalizing someone else’s place of worship.

See, that’s why you’re not a canon lawyer. If a priest commits a crime while in uniform (so to speak), depending on the crime, and its severity, he can, and some have been, laicized (?sp). Which is not simply being removed from office. It also means he cannot confect the sacraments, wear the collar, etc.

He IS Catholic…and that is specifically addressed by the Cardinal in charge, who, wh asked about the matter responded–not with 'he’s not Catholic so we can’t excommunicate him" (though that didn’t stop the Pope who excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, come to think of it…) but rather “Abortion is far more serious a sin than rape.”
Again, please provide a reference for this. It sounds like you are reading between the lines on this. You made the assertion, you need to back it up.
dianaiad;6190761:

And how is it that someone can go for TWO YEARS without noticing that one’s saint was beheaded? I mean…really?

Thats not the issue. The issue is, they did it, they admitted to it, and apologized.

No, sir, that’s you. You keep steering the argument into irrelevent minutia, and you are the topic changer.

LOL, I’m not the one who brought up the 9 year old girl who was ex-d. I’m not the one who has been all over the place with whether someone got ex-d or not. See previous posts with your various assumptions. But good try though.

In fact, the inconsistent answers you have given regarding the ex-ings have been just as inconsitent as the ex-ings themselves.

 

[dianaiad]

But you are. Whether you have it or not is not the issue. In one of your previous comments you said “ex-ing is ex-ing”. That is your view as a mormon. It is not or view as Catholics. So yes, you are putting your spin on it because to you all ex-ing is the same.

Again, you are not a canon lawyer. You’ve only been exposed to canon law for a week +/-

That does not mean that I am wrong about this issue. Why don’t we contact someone who IS more familiar with canon law than any of us, and see if I am wrong?

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t know if gleeful is the right word. He has said he went inactive in 2002, but I don’t know that gleeful would be an accurate description.

He is continuing to design and produce those calendars and other products (like that black apron with ‘white bias trim,’ and rather nasty/sneaky anti-Mormon signs. That looks pretty ‘gleeful’ to me. He is making a lot of hay out of this.

I have asked you more than once for your reference on this. Again, the articles I have seen don’t mention that her life was in danger. They did mention pain, but not life threatening. Also, the articles haven’t shown the rapist to be Catholic. If you can’t or won’t provide the reference for the statement you are making, then back away from it. After all, you demand no less from any other poster on here

The fact that he was Catholic is proven by the defense given by the Cardinal when he was asked about the situation. In EVERY instance where this is brought up, he has defended his decision by saying that “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.”

It would make NO sense to use that defense if the man were not Catholic. In fact, it would have been very much to his advantage to point out that this man is something else–but he can’t, because he’s not ‘something else.’

Please don’t put words in my mouth. I have never called for any type of punishment for these men. I am merely pointing out inconsistencies. BIG difference.

Can you provide a quote for where he says he’s “Proud” of this? The way I see it, if he was “proud” of it, and didnt’ care, why would he go to the disciplinary hearing? Doesn’t sound like someone who is “proud” or “gleeful” now does it?

He had been inactive for years. He went to the disciplinary hearing because a: it was great publicity and b: it was great for business. Being excommunicated really did wonders for his bottom line–and he knew that it would. That IS being ‘proud’ and ‘gleeful…’ and we had to excommunicate him. If we had not, it would be condoning the calendar, and that calendar is soft porn, expoiting those missionaries BECAUSE they were missionaries.

It is rather like the difference between snacking on cheese and crackers—and snacking on cheese and the consecrated Host. The symbology is pretty blatant there; the calendar is proclaiming 'see? these mormon missionaries are just as worldly, willing to break their covenants and screw around as you are! More so, because look…their using their status as former missionaries to get you to look at them!"

See, that’s why you’re not a canon lawyer. If a priest commits a crime while in uniform (so to speak), depending on the crime, and its severity, he can, and some have been, laicized (?sp). Which is not simply being removed from office. It also means he cannot confect the sacraments, wear the collar, etc.
dianaiad;6190761:

He IS Catholic…and that is specifically addressed by the Cardinal in charge, who, wh asked about the matter responded–not with 'he’s not Catholic so we can’t excommunicate him" (though that didn’t stop the Pope who excommunicated Queen Elizabeth I, come to think of it…) but rather “Abortion is far more serious a sin than rape.”
Again, please provide a reference for this. It sounds like you are reading between the lines on this. You made the assertion, you need to back it up.

That’s not ‘reading between the lines.’ that’s obvious deduction from obvious clues. this particular Cardinal is under a great deal of fire over this, and so is the church. Considering how much of it could be deflected if he COULD say 'we can’t excommunicate a Protestant…" which would absolutely settle the matter, he HAS to say that raping a six year old is a less egregious sin than abortion–and that’s why.

LOL, I’m not the one who brought up the 9 year old girl who was ex-d. I’m not the one who has been all over the place with whether someone got ex-d or not. See previous posts with your various assumptions. But good try though.

In fact, the inconsistent answers you have given regarding the ex-ings have been just as inconsitent as the ex-ings themselves.

 

[Stephen168]

You are still not seeing the inconsistency. On one had you have a beefcake calendar producer, up front, out in the open, helping people with the proceeds(whether you believe it or not) Get’s the big EX, and then you have 3 guys that intentionally desecrate a Shrine, and they get “disciplined” or “disfellowshipped”. BIG inconsistency.
dianaiad;6190761:

As for inconsistency, I think it more consistent than the idea of that nine year old’s mother being excommunicated because she made an emergency decision to save her daughter’s life, while the man who raped her was NOT excommunicated.

So the Mormon Church is not being inconsistent because……………

As for inconsistency, I think it more consistent than the idea of that nine year old’s mother being excommunicated because she made an emergency decision to save her daughter’s life, while the man who raped her was NOT excommunicated.

I find it incredibly inconsistent that you are insisting that these three young men, who repented and were FORGIVEN by the people whose shrine they desecrated, be given harsher punishment than we give Hardy, who, quite frankly, committed exactly the same sin–and who is not only unrepentent, but is gleefully continuing to commit the same sin over and over again.

Only Mormon missionaries can be forgiven?

A lot of that has to do with the attitude of the sinner. At least one of these young men was very repentant. Hardy certainly is not. He is gleeful about it and has no intention of repenting.

Yes, she is not thinking like a Catholic; judging a person’s heart or mind seems to be more acceptable to Mormons. Sometimes we are not sure if someone has murdered or not, but abortion is murder every time.

 

[Stephen168]

Are you accusing me of claiming that y’all worship statues, Stephen?

No, I’m accusing you of Affected Ignorance but I could only guess at the cause.

 

[twopekinguys]

He is continuing to design and produce those calendars and other products (like that black apron with ‘white bias trim,’ and rather nasty/sneaky anti-Mormon signs. That looks pretty ‘gleeful’ to me. He is making a lot of hay out of this.

Again, not gleeful. I haven’t seen anything where he’s jumping up and down for joy yelling YIPPEE!! Have you?

The fact that he was Catholic is proven by the defense given by the Cardinal when he was asked about the situation. In EVERY instance where this is brought up, he has defended his decision by saying that “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.”

It would make NO sense to use that defense if the man were not Catholic. In fact, it would have been very much to his advantage to point out that this man is something else–but he can’t, because he’s not ‘something else.’

Again, you are taking an assumption and trying to turn it into a fact. The fact is that you don’t know that he is Catholic now do you?

I have asked you more than once for your reference on this, and you have clearly not produced it. Either produce the proof that you are using, or admit you are making an assumption. It is as simple as that.

Also, your quote, “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.”, where did that come from? What is your source?

Just because you use quotation marks does not make it legitimate .

He had been inactive for years. He went to the disciplinary hearing because a: it was great publicity and b: it was great for business. Being excommunicated really did wonders for his bottom line–and he knew that it would. That IS being ‘proud’ and ‘gleeful…’ and we had to excommunicate him. If we had not, it would be condoning the calendar, and that calendar is soft porn, expoiting those missionaries BECAUSE they were missionaries.

It is rather like the difference between snacking on cheese and crackers—and snacking on cheese and the consecrated Host. The symbology is pretty blatant there; the calendar is proclaiming 'see? these mormon missionaries are just as worldly, willing to break their covenants and screw around as you are! More so, because look…their using their status as former missionaries to get you to look at them!"

Actually, it sounds like the higher ups were more mad that he thought of something they didn’t, and he is making money that they couldn’t.

That is where the inconsistency comes in. If they were truly concerned about souls, then the discipline would have been consistent.

Soft porn?! I would suggest you never, ever, never under any circumstances whatsoever go to the beach.

See, that’s why you’re not a canon lawyer. If a priest commits a crime while in uniform (so to speak), depending on the crime, and its severity, he can, and some have been, laicized (?sp). Which is not simply being removed from office. It also means he cannot confect the sacraments, wear the collar, etc.
dianaiad;6194192:

That’s not ‘reading between the lines.’ that’s obvious deduction from obvious clues. this particular Cardinal is under a great deal of fire over this, and so is the church. Considering how much of it could be deflected if he COULD say 'we can’t excommunicate a Protestant…" which would absolutely settle the matter, he HAS to say that raping a six year old is a less egregious sin than abortion–and that’s why.

Yes, you are reading between the lines, whether you want to realize it or not. I have repeatedly asked you for your reference showing the rapist is a Catholic. You can’t, or won’t do it for whatever reason.

Either provide the reference showing the man to be a Catholic, or admit that you can’t. It as simple as that.

You made the assertion, Back it up!! It really isn’t that difficult of a concept is it?

 

[Eupraxia]

All I know about Mormonism is that it is a CULT

I grew up in a Mormon family, but I would never say it is a cult. It is not Christian and their teaching is very strange, but it is not a cult.

 

[dianaiad]

So the Mormon Church is not being inconsistent because……………
Only Mormon missionaries can be forgiven?

Where did that come from?

 

[dianaiad]

Again, not gleeful. I haven’t seen anything where he’s jumping up and down for joy yelling YIPPEE!! Have you?

Again, you are taking an assumption and trying to turn it into a fact. The fact is that you don’t know that he is Catholic now do you?

Yes I do…and so do you, since I gave you the references that specifically talked about ‘retaining’ the rapist in the church because his sin wasn’t as heinous as abortion. One cannot retain someone who was never there.

…and all this sturm und drung over whether the rapist is Catholic (in the face of proof that he was and is) is a poor attempt to deflect the conversation from the meat…in fact, it is a CLASSIC strawman…even a red herring.

The rapist is Catholic. Get over it. If it makes you feel any better, Ted Bundy and Gary Bishop were Mormons. Of course, we excommunicated them before they went on their killing sprees, but still…

I have asked you more than once for your reference on this, and you have clearly not produced it. Either produce the proof that you are using, or admit you are making an assumption. It is as simple as that.

Also, your quote, “He committed an extremely serious crime. But that crime, according to canon law, is not punished with automatic excommunication.”, where did that come from? What is your source?

Are you serious? That quote was from the source? Did you not notice the links? I suggest that you go back and actually read the post, and CLICK ON THE LINKS.

Just a hint, of course.

Just because you use quotation marks does not make it legitimate .

Actually, it sounds like the higher ups were more mad that he thought of something they didn’t, and he is making money that they couldn’t.

That is where the inconsistency comes in. If they were truly concerned about souls, then the discipline would have been consistent.

Soft porn?! I would suggest you never, ever, never under any circumstances whatsoever go to the beach.

See, that’s why you’re not a canon lawyer. If a priest commits a crime while in uniform (so to speak), depending on the crime, and its severity, he can, and some have been, laicized (?sp). Which is not simply being removed from office. It also means he cannot confect the sacraments, wear the collar, etc.

Yes, you are reading between the lines, whether you want to realize it or not. I have repeatedly asked you for your reference showing the rapist is a Catholic. You can’t, or won’t do it for whatever reason.

Either provide the reference showing the man to be a Catholic, or admit that you can’t. It as simple as that.

You made the assertion, Back it up!! It really isn’t that difficult of a concept is it?

 

[Stephen168]

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’ that simply engaging in it cuts one off from the church in a far more permanent and grievous way than other, less serious, sins. Commiting a mortal sin is supposed to be sufficient that the sinner should not take communion before going to confession–but these sins that result in latae sententaie excommunication are a step beyond that.

Do you have a reference for this?

 

[jake23]

If you are interested in the Mormon cult please watch the DVD’s “the book of mormon vs. the bible” and the book of mormon vs. dna" these give some good insight on the false prophet and his teachings.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yes I do…and so do you, since I gave you the references that specifically talked about ‘retaining’ the rapist in the church because his sin wasn’t as heinous as abortion. One cannot retain someone who was never there.

…and all this sturm und drung over whether the rapist is Catholic (in the face of proof that he was and is) is a poor attempt to deflect the conversation from the meat…in fact, it is a CLASSIC strawman…even a red herring.

The rapist is Catholic. Get over it. If it makes you feel any better, Ted Bundy and Gary Bishop were Mormons. Of course, we excommunicated them before they went on their killing sprees, but still…

Are you serious? That quote was from the source? Did you not notice the links? I suggest that you go back and actually read the post, and CLICK ON THE LINKS.

Just a hint, of course.

Just because you use quotation marks does not make it legitimate .

Actually, it sounds like the higher ups were more mad that he thought of something they didn’t, and he is making money that they couldn’t.

That is where the inconsistency comes in. If they were truly concerned about souls, then the discipline would have been consistent.

Soft porn?! I would suggest you never, ever, never under any circumstances whatsoever go to the beach.

You’re telling me I am deflecting the conversation?

You’re the one that jumped from a mormon and a beefcake calendar to a 9 year old getting ex’d, and you’re trying to make it look like I diverted the conversation. That is just too hysterical for words.

 

[twopekinguys]

It is my understanding that some sins are so egregious…so far beyond the normal ‘mortal sin,’ that simply engaging in it cuts one off from the church in a far more permanent and grievous way than other, less serious, sins. Commiting a mortal sin is supposed to be sufficient that the sinner should not take communion before going to confession–but these sins that result in latae sententaie excommunication are a step beyond that.

Again, Wrong.

This clearly shows that you don’t understand. Whether it is your refusal to understand, or the fact that you just aren’t getting it, I am not sure. Notice the bolded parts below.

Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired

Now, with latae sententiae, you see that it happens at the moment the offense takes place. (It doesn’t have to be witnessed, or written about in the press) That goes back to what I said earlier, that the church trusts that the person would know better than to approach Holy Communion, just like the Church trusts that non-Catholics would not approach the sacraments. We don’t quiz people, we trust and forgive them.

 

[dianaiad]

Do you have a reference for this?

It is obvious in the mere fact that some sins instantly remove you from membership–latae sententiae excommunication IS instant–whereas others do not. If these sins are not worse than the standard mortal sin, then why the instant severence?

The opinion of the church seems to be rather clear, here.

 

[dianaiad]

Again, Wrong.

This clearly shows that you don’t understand. Whether it is your refusal to understand, or the fact that you just aren’t getting it, I am not sure. Notice the bolded parts below.

Excommunication can be either ferendae sententiae (declared as the sentence of an ecclesiastical court) or, far more commonly, latae sententiae (automatic, incurred at the moment the offensive act takes place). The excommunicant is still considered Christian and a Catholic as the character imparted by baptism is indelible. Their communion with the Church, however, is considered gravely impaired

Now, with latae sententiae, you see that it happens at the moment the offense takes place. (It doesn’t have to be witnessed, or written about in the press) That goes back to what I said earlier, that the church trusts that the person would know better than to approach Holy Communion, just like the Church trusts that non-Catholics would not approach the sacraments. We don’t quiz people, we trust and forgive them.

Now where in any of what you just said disagrees with what I said about latae sententiae excommunication?

I say…it is instant, and it doesn’t matter whether the church officially recognizes it or not because GOD does, and that it is up to the sinner to do what is required to reconcile himselve.

You say I don’t understand anything about it because in reality it is instant, and it is up to the sinner to reconcile himself.

???

 

[Stephen168]

It is obvious in the mere fact that some sins instantly remove you from membership–latae sententiae excommunication IS instant–whereas others do not. If these sins are not worse than the standard mortal sin, then why the instant severence?

The opinion of the church seems to be rather clear, here.

So you have no reference. It is the assumption of an anti-catholic bigot. As I thought.

 

[Stephen168]

Where did that come from?

I’m not sure which ’that’ you are referring to because I made three observations in my post:
a. You are an anti-catholic bigot
b. You are a hypocrite (which also supports ‘a’)
c. Your example of judgment which supports my original theory that judging a person heart and mind is a natural part of Mormonism.

Again, I’m not sure which ‘that’ you mean but I see the answer would be the same: that came from you.

 

[twopekinguys]

Now where in any of what you just said disagrees with what I said about latae sententiae excommunication?

I say…it is instant, and it doesn’t matter whether the church officially recognizes it or not because GOD does, and that it is up to the sinner to do what is required to reconcile himselve.

You say I don’t understand anything about it because in reality it is instant, and it is up to the sinner to reconcile himself.

???

But you keep trying to lump the two together, when they are different.

One of your comments was “excommunication is excommunication”. Which it isn’t.

This was about your comment about some sins being more egrigous than others etc. (which is what I quoted)

But then again, I believe we were originally talking about Mr. Hardy, and the inconsistencies there, and not the Catholic Church.

 

[twopekinguys]

It is obvious in the mere fact that some sins instantly remove you from membership–latae sententiae excommunication IS instant–whereas others do not. If these sins are not worse than the standard mortal sin, then why the instant severence?

The opinion of the church seems to be rather clear, here.

But a person is not removed from the membership of Christ’s body. (the Church) That is your interpretation which is totally incorrect.

There are two types of sin. Venial, and Mortal.

A venial sin can be something as a small white lie to keep from hurting someone, whereas a mortal sin, can be something like murder.

Either one can cause a latae sententiae excommunication, and either one can be resolved.

 

[dianaiad]

So you have no reference. It is the assumption of an anti-catholic bigot. As I thought.

Stephen, my reference is the code of canon law.

If some sins were not worse than others, there would not BE an added level of discipline to take care of them.