Stephen168
New member
In 1875, he became the first American Black Bishop. His brother has a Coast Guard Cutter named after him.
- Status
Stephen168
New member
She has done a great job of showing us that anti-Catholicism is alive and well in Mormonism.
M
mjf001
Guest
Good point.
Stephen168
New member
On the issue of race, so have you guys. Considering racism was a Doctrine of Mormonism until 1978 when you removed a barrier to the priesthood based solely on a man’s skin color. You should be proud. But now the non-racist Prophets have given the thumbs up to killing unborn babies. I think Mormonism is not destined to see all of humanity as equal. Which is why I know is it not a religion from God. The Catholic Church has the high moral ground.
K
kikkichan
Guest
Stephen168,dianaiad:
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.
I don’t think she ‘dropped’ this subject. For one, this was one point among about 12 points from rebecca’s post, and don’t I think I’ve seen anybody typically respond to *all *points in a post. Also, I think she did agree that BY’s actions clearly tainted the faithful. And I think she lamented that fact.
The second comment about a bunch of racists that believe it is OK to kill unborn babies shows how distant one can be from helping to solve either of those problems.
and besides, LDS is far more of an ally than not with respect to decreasing abortions, and anyone with interest in that goal should consider the effect of intentional inflammatory comments.
-kc
+±+
Stephen168
New member
I didn’t see 12 points. I saw one starting with post #123: Mormons had a Doctrine of racism taught by their ‘prophet’ until 1978 when suddenly there was a new Doctrine; with a subtext of how could a prophet of God take that position and then change it. This position was defended and discussed in #127, #135, #153 thru #158 when it came to a fine point and “dropped.” Which I believe is typical when it becomes clear what the real issue is: their prophets are not prophets. It is a religion invented and run by regular guys that reflect the issues of their day.
The current issue of our day is abortion and the Mormons have adopted the same irrational view which is part of our current American politics. Their prophets are not prophets, just regular guys that reflect the issues of our day.
A
Answersplease
Guest
You are wrong about what the Catholic Chruch teaches as DOCTRINE and DOGMA.
The Catholic Church makes a distinction between “Sacred Tradition” and “tradition”.
I challenge you to cite any Catholic DOCTRINE or DOGMA that says white skin is better than black skin.
The Book of Mormon specifically states that black or dark non-white skin is a CURSE from your Mormon god.
As for the rest of you diversionary (away from the true subject) diatribe:
TU QUOQUE argument.
A
Answersplease
Guest
The Catholics do have at least three Popes that were ARAB or BLACK.
Where are the Arabs or Blacks in the line of your Mormon presidents
or as a member of your Quorum of the Twelve?
A
Answersplease
Guest
Having racist sinners in the Catholic Church’s history is one thing,
violent (2 Nephi 5:25) racism SPONSORED by your Book of Mormon and your Mormon god is a totally different thing.
Are you going to blame the following verses on Brigham Young and the early Mormon “bigots” too?
Can you say Brigham Young’s “bigotry may well have tainted” the Book of Mormon?
“White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome?”
mrm.org/white-and-delightsome
A
Answersplease
Guest
That just shows that you can’t defend your Mormon position, so you have to DIVERT the argument away from the original subject, a TU QUOQUE argument is designed to be a DIVERSION.
You are basically admitting that your Mormon religion is built on “sand” and can’t be defended based on its own MERITS, probably because it is FALSE.
I challenge you to STOP the TU QUOQUE arguments and try to defend your false Mormon religion on its own merits.
You probably won’t.
Your saying you point out all the bad things sinners in the Catholic Church have done but you’re not really trying to make the Catholic Church look bad, no not really.
Nice. Thats like saying you only cut to make them bleed about a gallon of blood, not to bleed them out completely, when in reality a gallon is enough to kill them. The damage has already been done when you deceptively made it seem like “the uncomfortable historical facts” were a part of “Sacred Tradition” and not just non-doctrinal historical “tradition”.
I can tell why you are trying to “couch” your Catholic bashing (pointing out sins and implying it is “Sacred Tradition” when is is only non-doctrinal historical “tradition”) with a few “kind” words after your bashing,
you are trying “have your cake and eat it too”, you want to be able to bash Catholicism but at the same time you don’t want to look like you are anti-Catholic.
You don’t fool me.
A
Answersplease
Guest
D
dianaiad
Guest
OK, who was this?
Oh. I found him…James Augustine Healy. Thank you, your hint allowed me to find him.
There is some difficulty, however, in your portrayal of him. Yes, he was of African descent, and the child of a slave and a Roman Catholic slave owner. However, his mother was Creole…that is, SHE was only 1/4 black, and HE was 1/8 black…and every single one of the Healy children was accepted in society (including James) as “black Irish–” a heritage that he embraced completely, since his father (and his mother, mostly) was of Irish ancestry. His father was rather proud of all of his children, and sent his illegitimate kids north to school under the very strict instructions to NOT TELL.
They didn’t. Only their descendants, finally, did.
As far as I was able to research, James never once admitted that he had black ancestry during his own life. All of his siblings married ‘white’ people. He requested a celtic cross for his grave. Now this is NOT an indictment of Father Healy. He lived an life of service and did great things during it. However, to claim that he was the ‘first black Catholic priest’ in America I think is a little …off. He himself would not have characterized himself as that, but as Irish. Certainly nobody around him but his parents knew that there was any part of him, no matter how small, that was of African descent, and the church (or anybody who accepted him during his life) cannot be credited for accepting a ‘black’ priest, when he presented himself, thought of himself as, and looked, IRISH.
Father Healy…
http://www.portlanddiocese.net/content_photos/TheBishop/healy.jpg
Father Tolton, on the other hand…well, there was no getting around his ancestry. http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2007/01/05/tolton-m.jpg
Or the difficulty he had attending school or getting ordained in America. No easy road to Holy Cross for him; no presidency of the school, and no Bishopric.
From what I have read of both men, both men were survivors; Bishop Healy did what he had to do, and there is no fault to him for never mentioning that his mother was part African. He had a long, exemplary life. Father Tolton, from what I read of HIM, should be nominated for sainthood.
Stephen168
New member
Young said:
T
theistgal
Guest
You are right; and those who criticize the LDS for racism should read Justice Clarence Thomas’ (a lifelong Catholic) autobiography, “My Grandfather’s Son”, in which he states:
C
cthulhubryan
Guest
There is a word here that carries more weight that the words theology, racism, opportunity or equality. That word, which some consider to be a dirty word, is logistics.
Before JPII a vast majority, but not all, cardinals and popes had been Italian. To deem this racism is to judge the final result without considering the process. In a world where traveling great distances, especially over seas or mountains, was difficult then the result is less non-Italians in Rome. The cardinals elect the Pope, to elect someone they must have an idea that the person exists. If, in 1921, a Cardinal (we’ll call him Jose Ruiz, as this is a fictitious example) was an excellent Cardinal. Perhaps the best Cardinal EVER.
He is the Cardinal of Argentina and does tremendous things. Well, that is great but in an era of virtually no worldwide travel from Argentina and the only reliable radio networks belong to the Germans who are not interested in the activities of Catholic Cardinals how are the cardinals in Rome to know about Cardinal Ruiz?
The end result is that Cardinal Ruiz is not even considered. By your original premise this would amount to racism. Instead the fact is that it was due to logistics. Had Rome heard of him? Could he even get to Rome in a timely manner that would allow him to be considered? There are rules about the timing of the conclave that might preclude South American and some African prelates simply due to timing.
Now, in this modern era there is no excuse for such things, but even into the 1970’s frequent international air travel was not a reality for much of the world.
The ends of course do not justify the means, but the ends also do not define the means either.
Z
zaffiroborant
Guest
In 1886 what city in the world could an African American have gone to to be ordained in the LDS church?
4
4Squarebaby
Guest
Be fair that should be 1977.
D
dianaiad
Guest
where did I drop the subject?
D
dianaiad
Guest
Funny. It took us almost a 'full century…" and you are crowing about something it took you guys FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS to do?
D
dianaiad
Guest
What in the world has St. Francis to do with anything? Yes, I know a bit about the man, young Bernardone, now patron saint of animals…who began as the poorest of monks, and ended up, reluctantly, the founder of an order whose operations were pretty much wrested from him during his later years, when he was disappointed with the way things were going…and when he was so very ill.
Rebecca, you have now met a Mormon who knows quite a bit about St. Francis and the Franciscans; always have…and I admire them greatly. They started humbly, survived incredible dissension and controversy, and do great work.
And what in the WORLD are you talking about…'bringing up the two million who do not"?
I’m not talking about people who disobey the rules here, sweetie. I mention that the rules are there—but they weren’t enforced. If they weren’t enforced, it was because the folks at the top weren’t enforcing them, and that means that the problem was endemic.
Again, if no slave holder in America (or anywhere else) was excommunicated for owning slaves (and they weren’t) and priests themselves owned slaves, then it is not THEIR fault they were not excommunicated, was it?
You just recently made fun of me for referring to the Extermination Order by Boggs as somehow not really being persecution because after the Mormons as a whole left, no Mormons were actually murdered as a result. Therefore, the point seemed to be, the order meant nothing; nobody was hurt, no harm, no foul. Right?
Yet here you are, proclaiming that a Pope declaring that slave ownership was grounds for excommunication as if it were some wonderful proof that there was no racism in the church----but nobody actually carried out any excommunications for that reason. Therefore the declarations were useless, weren’t they? In this case, “no enforcement, no benefit,” as opposed to “no harm, no foul?”
Double standards again.
- Status