Mormons; why don't you have crosses in your churches?

[Publisher]

Well let us say an attack on Apostolic Christianity by conflating the methods of Apostolic Christianity with the behavior of an individual member.

I made no attack. It is against my deeply held beliefs to attack and against the disipline of Friends to do so.

 

[dianaiad]

Poor Diana, always so persecuted. :crying:

Ah, but am I wrong? Hypochondriacs can actually get sick. Just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean someone really isn’t after you…

You’ve done your fair share of Catholic bashing.

Where? Where have I ever ONCE 'bashed" Catholics? Where have I ever attacked Catholics for believing what they do, or done anything but DEFEND your beliefs against unfair attacks by others? Disagreeing with your doctrines is not ATTACKING them, and as to that, all I have ever done is mention that I disagreed with them. I haven’t gone after them the way you have gone after mine.

the most I have ever been guilty of is a tu quoque argument–when a Catholic starts criticizing my faith for perceived faults (like ‘racism,’ for instance) then I will point out a few uncomfortable historical facts–but that’s it. Even then, it is a pointing out that people are all human and prone to do nasty things to each other, not that Catholics are especially prone to them.

Though, when it comes to anti-Catholicism, you haven’t reached zerinus’ level. ParkerD is in constant proselyte mode and is fond of calling into question people’s level of faith and sincerity. I think we should just all call him “Elder”.

I’m quite certain that he is one, Rebecca.

Neither you or I own or run this forum, so neither you or I get to choose who stays and who goes.

No. We don’t. But I can note the very obvious double standard, and you can defend it.

 

[dianaiad]

I enjoyed reading about all of your seminary experiences, Rebecca. I attended seminary during “release time” in grades 9-12 in SLC. I never got the Second Coming predictions like you did (instead, I got that from my mom’s crazy Idaho family, along with beliefs that Saddam Hussein was the antichrist and Proctor and Gamble is part of the Illuminati, see the moon and 13 stars on the label? - so don’t buy their products!!!).

Oh, man, I got so P’O’d at my own Idaho family for that one. It came straight from the crazy Christian fundamentalists. I got it a LOT more down this way from the store front churches than I did from the Mormons!

People can be truly idiots. I attribute it to Supermarket Tabloid religion. People do love to scare themselves silly.

My two favorite seminary memories are first, the day the teacher got out a set of 10-12 photos showing a man in various stages of personal grooming and hygeine. He set them out on the metal chalk tray on the chalkboard in sequence and they showed the inevitable progression from perfect LDS missionary style grooming and suit to a sneering con in prison garb. The message? “Don’t let your hair touch your ears and keep your tie tight or you’ll become an axe murderer!” So funny. Even better was the week our teacher waged a personal campaign against rock music. We got to hear Queen juxtaposed against I Am a Child of God (“Now kids, try to stay calm and feel the spirit with Queen; now try it with I Am a Child of God”); he played Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven backwards and told us the warped sounds were saying “Here’s to my sweet Satan!”. And did you know that AC/DC stands for Anti Christ/Devil’s Children and KISS stands for Knights in Satan’s Service? Oh - and Rush stands for Rulers Under Satan’s Hand. LOL! Those were good times. I wonder what happened to good old Brother Monson? The anti rock music campaign was region wide I think. That same year (if memory serves) a traveling group of students from Rick’s College brought the same show to our stake. I remember hearing an identical mantra during the fireside held at the stake center, along with sound samples, dance demonstrations (slam dancing vs. swing dancing) and more music played backwards. Amazingly, parents and teens were all separated, with grown ups sitting on one side of the chapel and kids on the other. I wonder what the Lord thought about the hosts playing samples of Black Sabbath, Led Zeppelin, and the Sex Pistols in the chapel? So funny. Ah, Utah and Idaho - how do I miss thee!!!

NewSeeker

Hmnnn…what makes me think that you…perhaps…don’t?

 

[dianaiad]

i really wonder at this mindset coming from a people whose scriptures call us an ABOMINATION and (since we profess the creeds every sunday) CORRUPT…the BoM specifically condemns infant baptism as being of the devil…i could go on and on with BY and Mconkie but there is plenty just in canonized LDS scripture

Are you a creed? That’s pretty ambitious of you, sir.

 

[RebeccaJ]

So funny. Ah, Utah and Idaho - how do I miss thee!!!

NewSeeker

Pretty funny.

I don’t hear this sort of stuff anymore, unless I peruse the MADB forums. And then, all I have to do is surf on out.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah, but am I wrong? Hypochondriacs can actually get sick. Just because you are paranoid it doesn’t mean someone really isn’t after you…

Guess what Diana: not everything is about you.

Where? Where have I ever ONCE 'bashed" Catholics? Where have I ever attacked Catholics for believing what they do, or done anything but DEFEND your beliefs against unfair attacks by others? Disagreeing with your doctrines is not ATTACKING them, and as to that, all I have ever done is mention that I disagreed with them. I haven’t gone after them the way you have gone after mine.

If you say so. lol.

the most I have ever been guilty of is a tu quoque argument–when a Catholic starts criticizing my faith for perceived faults (like ‘racism,’ for instance) then I will point out a few uncomfortable historical facts–but that’s it. Even then, it is a pointing out that people are all human and prone to do nasty things to each other, not that Catholics are especially prone to them.

Historical facts, done up mormon-style…out of context, and in the case of your racial “facts”, with a complete lack of understanding and/or acknowledement that the catholic church is more than the Roman/Latin rite.

I’m quite certain that he is one, Rebecca.

Yes, I know. I think I am going to call him Elder. It fits. He needs a missionary name tag to put up as his avatar.

No. We don’t. But I can note the very obvious double standard, and you can defend it.

Being a school teacher, I would think you would know better than to make such a he-said-she-said claim as this.

 

[Worthy5]

I made no attack. It is against my deeply held beliefs to attack and against the disipline of Friends to do so.

Peace

 

[ParkerD]

I’m quite certain that he is one.

Dianaiad,
Thanks for your courageous approach on this forum. Since I do hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, I am still an “elder” but have served in callings that mean that I was ordained a “high priest” and I attend the high priests’ group rather than the elders’ quorum, but being called an elder is just fine with me. My wife and I will serve a couple mission someday, many years from now. She’d like it if we were called to go to Africa or perhaps Brazil.

I happened onto this forum by a chance “google” search when I read erroneous information about Mormon beliefs. I dislike inaccurate portrayals of Mormon beliefs by uninformed people, so it has been a breath of fresh air to read your comments in explaining and providing historical context for many items. Thank you.

 

[dianaiad]

Guess what Diana: not everything is about you.

It is when the accusation is about me, dear.

If you say so. lol.

Actually, I do say so. All you have to do to disprove it is come up with something from me that is me bashing Catholics or Catholicism (apart from the ‘tu quoque’ stuff.)

Historical facts, done up mormon-style…out of context, and in the case of your racial “facts”, with a complete lack of understanding and/or acknowledement that the catholic church is more than the Roman/Latin rite.

That makes no sense, Rebecca. Historical facts are facts. Not ‘mormon style,’; but taken from CATHOLIC sources, from sites that are pro-Catholic. THEY are concerned about these things. The thing is, Rebecca, if I mention that there are only three Popes that Catholics consider may have been ‘black,’ and that they themselves admit that identifying them as such is problematic because the only reason for so identifying them is their nation of origin—and there were as many Romans and Arabs in those nations as there were people of negroid descent. It’s like today saying that an African has to be black–when a far amount of them are very blond, and Dutch.

That’s not ‘Mormon-style,’ that’s Catholic style. As in…this is what the Catholics said. Had they come out and claimed that these three men were of black African descent, I would have taken their word for that–but they didn’t.

Yes, I know. I think I am going to call him Elder. It fits. He needs a missionary name tag to put up as his avatar.

You may, of course, call him whatever you want. Calling him “Elder” is not by any means an insult. You know that, right?

Being a school teacher, I would think you would know better than to make such a he-said-she-said claim as this.

Oh, dear.

Rebecca, when you are talking about a forum in which the whole THING is about 'he said, she said" then that’s what one analyzes. What he said, what she said—what he gets away with saying to her, what she gets slammed for saying to him.

All THAT said, I will admit that the moderators haven’t ever called me on anything. So far, that is. Perhaps that is because they are supremely patient, kind and wise—or perhaps it’s because I’ve never quite crossed the line AND they are supremely patient, kind and wise.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Diana, all conversations with you are pointless. Have a good day.

 

[dianaiad]

Dianaiad,
Thanks for your courageous approach on this forum. Since I do hold the Melchizedek Priesthood, I am still an “elder” but have served in callings that mean that I was ordained a “high priest” and I attend the high priests’ group rather than the elders’ quorum, but being called an elder is just fine with me. My wife and I will serve a couple mission someday, many years from now. She’d like it if we were called to go to Africa or perhaps Brazil.

I happened onto this forum by a chance “google” search when I read erroneous information about Mormon beliefs. I dislike inaccurate portrayals of Mormon beliefs by uninformed people, so it has been a breath of fresh air to read your comments in explaining and providing historical context for many items. Thank you.

Thank you, Parker…

I figure that if the apostles don’t object to being called “Elder,” then you wouldn’t, either.

As to how you found this forum…that is sort of how I found it. Someone sent me an e-mail using a post in this forum as ‘proof’ of something we believed, and it drove me nuts. So…I did a search and found this forum.

The thing about the CAF non-Catholic religions subforum is that it is one of the most polite debate forums I’ve come across—which is a very sad comment on everybody else, isn’t it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

However, it is very true that the popes condemned slavery in no uncertain terms…and one of them made owning slaves grounds for communication. However, NOBODY LISTENED to them, and y’know what? The conquistadors who invaded the Americas practiced very real slavery by the millions, with the church’s full support. There were remarkable stories of Catholic protection of the natives in spite of this (the Jesuit Republic of Paraguay) but the fact remains (speaking of Jesuits) that in Maryland during the eighteenth and nineteenth century, Jesuits owned slaves. One Dominican father, Bartolome de Las Casas (1474-1566) faught very hard against enslaving Indians–proposing that they solve the problem by importing African slaves, instead.

…and the fact is, the Catholic church never excommunicated a single American slaveholder. Not one. Southern slave owners were in full fellowship–allowed to take communion–throughout the Civil War. The attitude of the church, as evidenced by Cardinal Hyacinthe Gerdil, was this: “Slavery is not to be understood as conferring on one man the same power over another that men have over cattle…For slavery does not abolish the natural equality of men…[and is] subject to the condition that the master shall take due care of his slave and treat him humanely.”

Pope John Paul issued an apology for the church support of slavery in 1993 (note; that’s FIFTEEN YEARS after that 1978 June morning)

It is true that Popes have been preaching against slavery since 1435, but it took Catholics over five hundred years to actually pay attention, including the priests and Cardinals. It is also true that Brigham Young and the early Mormons were bigots, even as all the people around them (slave owners mostly) were…and that bigotry may well have tainted the Mormons for a hundred and fifty years. However, when another prophet asked for guidance from God, received it and proclaimed it one sunny summer morning, we all listened, found joy in the listening, and everything changed in an instant.

Which group is most worthy of criticism? Both? Neither?

One final note, regarding ‘disdain,’ Rebecca. I did not bring this issue of Catholic racism up, nor would I ever have done so; I understand the history and struggle of racial equality and how hard many Catholics have fought for it. There are many, many Catholic heroes in the history of blacks in America, and I honor all of those individuals.

However, you have attacked MY people over this issue, and are claiming that our refusal to allow blacks to hold the priesthood proves that we are not ‘true.’ The problem with that, of course, is the mote and beam thing. Or ‘he who is without sin,’ and all that. If you will condemn the Mormons for racism, then you must leave the Catholic church for the same reason.

Diana, to circle back around to this. I think you might find St. Peter Claver, of interest.

In regards to African American Catholics, the fact is that US slaves took on the religion of their masters. In the South, that was mainly Baptist, except for Maryland and Louisiana where there were more Catholics (and Catholic slave owners).

The first African American priest was ordained in 1854. This is of course, is the US only. Other nations have had African priests and bishops for thousands of years (see the Coptic church in particular).

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. By far the Bishop of Rome has come from, surprise, Italy. Does this make the Roman Catholic Church against anyone who is not Italian? Of course not. It is only a fact of how the church is organized (sees) and the natural occurrence of priests and bishops coming from their own country. Through all the ages of Roman Bishops, there are also Asian, African, Indian, northern European, etc. Bishops. Further, at the schism of East and West, the Asian and African churches were split off from the West, and so, there became an even less likelihood of a Bishop in Rome coming from Asia or Africa. In fact, Pope John Paul II was the first non-Italian Pope since Pope Alexander VI, who was from Spain and the Pope from 1492-1503.

This is what I mean by out of context. If all you look at is race, you are not looking at the whole of history. In fact, you are creating an artificial delineation that did not exist. Ever.

You really have no point about “no black Popes”. It is the same as lamenting the fact that there are “no black Vikings”.

 

[dianaiad]

You really have no point about “no black Popes”. It is the same as lamenting the fact that there are “no black Vikings”.

First, I’m the one who told you the story of the first black priest in America, Rebecca; Father Tolton was ordained in 1886, not 1854. 1854 is when Father Tolton was born.–and he had to go to Rome to study.

The Catholics have been in the Americas for over five hundred years, and blacks have been here almost as long. Why did it take you so long to have a black priest here?

Only took us a 150 years. Actually, come to think of it, Joseph Smith ordained a black priest–Walker Lewis. It was Brigham Young who requested that he not use it.

That said, I have to tell you that your comment about ‘no black popes’ being the same as lamenting the fact that there are 'no black Vikings" is one of the most racist statements I have seen lately. It has to be a mistake.

I’m trying to figure out how that statement could possibly be a typo, and can’t–but it has to be. Would you care to explain it? Do you have a clue what you just said, with that?

 

[RebeccaJ]

First, I’m the one who told you the story of the first black priest in America, Rebecca; Father Tolton was ordained in 1886, not 1854. 1854 is when Father Tolton was born.–and he had to go to Rome to study.

The Catholics have been in the Americas for over five hundred years, and blacks have been here almost as long. Why did it take you so long to have a black priest here?

Only took us a 150 years. Actually, come to think of it, Joseph Smith ordained a black priest–Walker Lewis. It was Brigham Young who requested that he not use it.

That said, I have to tell you that your comment about ‘no black popes’ being the same as lamenting the fact that there are 'no black Vikings" is one of the most racist statements I have seen lately. It has to be a mistake.

I’m trying to figure out how that statement could possibly be a typo, and can’t–but it has to be. Would you care to explain it? Do you have a clue what you just said, with that?

I give up Diana. There was anything but racism in any of my remarks. What I am telling you, is that the Catholic church does not see race.

• The Bishop of Rome has largely been ITALIAN not African
• The Vikings were largley NORWEGIAN not African

Do you see the comparison? It isn’t about declaring, we shall never have a black pope. Any more than, we shall never have a black Viking. BOTH are ludicrous statements. It is what it is because the people in the area were not African.

I swear, sometimes you try to make it as hard as possible.

 

[Stephen168]

It is also true that Brigham Young and the early Mormons were bigots, even as all the people around them (slave owners mostly) were…and that bigotry may well have tainted the Mormons for a hundred and fifty years. However, when another prophet asked for guidance from God, received it and proclaimed it one sunny summer morning, we all listened, found joy in the listening, and everything changed in an instant.
RebeccaJ;5456643:

So, the prophet who ended this bigotry was guided by God, and the one who instituted was not guided by God (as he claimed and those who followed him believed)?

Rebecca, I noticed she dropped this subject like a hot potato. Mormon prophets don’t prophesize. They’re a bunch of racists that believe it is OK to kill unborn babies.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca, I noticed she dropped this subject like a hot potato. Mormon prophets don’t prophesize. They’re a bunch of racists that believe it is OK to kill unborn babies.

Yes, Diana is supremely adept at avoidance and deflection.

 

[mjf001]

I give up Diana. There was anything but racism in any of my remarks. What I am telling you, is that the Catholic church does not see race.

• The Bishop of Rome has largely been ITALIAN not African
• The Vikings were largley NORWEGIAN not African

Do you see the comparison? It isn’t about declaring, we shall never have a black pope. Any more than, we shall never have a black Viking. BOTH are ludicrous statements. It is what it is because the people in the area were not African.

I swear, sometimes you try to make it as hard as possible.

Excuse me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall during EWTN’s coverage of the last papal election that at least one of the Cardinals considered strong candidates for the papacy was African. If I’m remembering correctly, doesn’t that mean that a black pope was at least considered? Not because he was black, but because he was the best candidate. And I think it rich that Catholics are being labeled as racist for something it took the LDS almost a full century to do.

 

[Convert66]

I wonder if, in say, a hundred years or so, there won’t be religious arguments between various protestant sects; Catholics, and even atheists over so few excommunications of abortion supporters/providers in 2009. How many sex-slave traders were being excommunicated by any faith in 2009?

I can see it now.

(The Year: 2109: “Those Papist Polluters . . .” LDS vs. Roman Catholic in . . .“Continuation of a moot point.”)

“How many carbon footprints does it take to get someone excommunicated???”

 

[RebeccaJ]

Excuse me if I’m wrong, but I seem to recall during EWTN’s coverage of the last papal election that at least one of the Cardinals considered strong candidates for the papacy was African. If I’m remembering correctly, doesn’t that mean that a black pope was at least considered? Not because he was black, but because he was the best candidate. And I think it rich that Catholics are being labeled as racist for something it took the LDS almost a full century to do.

Yes, Diana is only seeing what she wants to see. It is no different than the pointing to the Protestant Reformation and saying see, see, the Catholic Church needed to be reformed. While all the while, ignoring what is going on IN the Church. No Mormon I have ever met knows one thing about St. Francis of Assissi.

Here, it is the same. A billion Catholics can follow church teaching, but we’ll only bring up the 2 million who do not.

Meanwhile, there is no anti-Catholicism in this method.

 

[dianaiad]

I give up Diana. There was anything but racism in any of my remarks. What I am telling you, is that the Catholic church does not see race.

• The Bishop of Rome has largely been ITALIAN not African
• The Vikings were largley NORWEGIAN not African

Do you see the comparison? It isn’t about declaring, we shall never have a black pope. Any more than, we shall never have a black Viking. BOTH are ludicrous statements. It is what it is because the people in the area were not African.

I swear, sometimes you try to make it as hard as possible.

Rebecca, the Catholic church has been a ‘world wide church’ for a very long time. If only Italians have been Popes all that time, that’s not only racism against blacks, that’s racism against everybody. There have been Cardinals from all areas of the world; there have had to be. Yet all the popes have been ITALIAN???

Well, I suppose that one reason is that most of the Cardinals have been Italian, but that just moves the question down a level…or up one. Why is that so? Again, the church has been pretty much in charge of religion all over Europe and England for 1500 years, and yet…only Italians made Cardinal?

Now the thing is, it is understandable that if all the Cardinals are Italian, it makes sense that the Pope would be. So the problem is more endemic; only Italians were considered to be worthy of being made Cardinal? In all the world?

Now John Paul fixed that. He made a very conscious choice to bring Cardinals in from all over the world, so that there are (or were at the time) only 23 of the 137 Cardinals. Cardinals from Latin America (where more than half of the world’s Catholics live) finally have some representation; they make up a whopping 38% of the electors.

Now you guys have made some wonderful progress. You should be honored for that. What you can NOT do is criticize ANY OTHER FAITH for racism. (Well, Ok, perhaps the Civil War Baptists or the KKK) You don’t have the high ground.

Your point about Popes being mostly Italian doesn’t make any sense; it’s apples and oranges. Vikings are mostly blond because of a physical restriction to culture and place. The Holy See, however, is in charge of the religion of the world, isn’t it? The choice of Pope isn’t supposed to be one of genetics or place of birth. it is SUPPOSED to be one of worthiness, and deliberate choice. He COULD have been from anywhere, and he is SUPPOSED to represent the entire church,. To be comfortable with the idea that ‘of course’ most of the popes have been Italian when the vast majority of Catholics have not now, nor ever really have been, Italian—you don’t honestly see the problem with that?