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

[RebeccaJ]

Perhaps I should use this as an illustration of the apostasy, then? Because if it was 'never found in the church actually started by Christ," Catholics certainly found it in their own practices and traditions.

Mirror. Mirror.

 

[mjf001]

Perhaps I should use this as an illustration of the apostasy, then? Because if it was 'never found in the church actually started by Christ," Catholics certainly found it in their own practices and traditions.

I can’t believe we’re still having this “I know we did, but so did you,” conversation.

You know what? It doesn’t really matter what we say because it seems you’re just going to believe whatever you want. I guess it’s the green jello, tinted glasses.

 

[Chris-WA]

Will some one please answer the OP!

There are only two groups I’m aware of that are afraid of crucifixes–vampires and Mormons! (That’s a joke.)

But seriously, my experience with Mormons is that they find a crucifix revolting, and they would rather look away. If a LDS was to wear a cross or crucifix to church (they would never of course) I’m sure they would hear about it from somebody. This is very sad because they and others are truly missing the point of the symbol. The cross and the resurrection are two sides of the same coin. One cannot happen without the other; they cannot be separated. The crucifix is a clear image of the price Christ paid for our resurrection (not a bad thing to be constantly reminded of either). It shows that Christ, who became one of us through the incarnation, was willing to suffer the most humiliating death for our sake. So whereas some Mormons (and others) only see Christ’s execution in the symbol, I see the greatest symbol of love the world has ever known, which is the intent of the symbol by the way (no greater love than laying down one’s life for a friend).

So it bothers me to hear what Mormons have to say about the cross, because they have been trained to see it the wrong way. Mormons also tend to more heavily weigh Christ’s suffering in the Garden of Gethsemane than his actual crucifixion and death on the cross. I’m not sure why they like to make that distinction, but my guess is that this teaching and the lack of crosses is a rejection of orthodox Christianity (especially Catholicism) in order to separate themselves from us.

 

[Stephen168]

Mormon Prophets:

Blacks are inferior, no they are not.
Adam is God, No he’s not
The Atonement was not enough for some sin, yes it was
All innocent human life should not be killed, yes some can.

Mormon logic:

Only because of sexism- most truck drivers are men, and most nurses are women.

Mormon prophets do not prophesize. In Mormonism, dogma is whatever way the wind blows.

 

[Stephen168]

The early Mormons believed in the inferiority of blacks because it was INDOCTRINATED by their prophets who supposedly received truths from God. The Catholic Church never held such doctrine.

That is correct

 

[Janet1983]

Mormon prophets do not prophesize. In Mormonism, dogma is whatever way the wind blows.

And whatever they think is right for the situation… and then they say God changed His mind…

 

[Stephen168]

Tell me. Do you really think that criticizing Mormonism because of our past history with people of color is a wise thing for you to do?

Yes, it shows that Mormonism is a man made religion run by men who do not know the truth.

Don’t you think, rather, that we should simply continue to improve our own relationships between the races, which has gained so much ground over the last fifty years?

Yes, you should. 1978 was a good start.

 

[zaffiroborant]

I suppose you could also ask why Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul or the apostles didn’t use the cross as a symbol of religion. This symbol evolved to become part of Christianity during the dark ages. As Mormons, we believe that after Christ and the apostles were killed, that many doctrines and ordinances were changed. Jewish and Pagan influences, along with the Roman government made an entirely different religion under Emporer Constantine to keep Rome united. Finally around 1500 AD, other Christian Churches broke away from Catholicism, but most adopted the same basic doctrines and teachings – including the use of the cross.

Where did you learn that bit about the cross, HS seminary?

 

[Janet1983]

Where did you learn that bit about the cross, HS seminary?

Probably… If the cross wasn’t that important, why would Peter (according to Origen) have chosen to be crucified upside down as he didn’t see himself worthy to die on the upright cross as out Lord did?
The cross is more than just a plain means of execution. Since early Christianity the cross is a symbol for our salvation. (Meaning salvation, not just Mormon salvation which equals resurrection.)
The cross was used, though rarely and the Christian fish was very popular… However, the cross symbol was already associated with Christians in the second century… (see Wikipedia and their ton of sources…)

 

[Answersplease]

Funny. It took us almost a 'full century…" and you are crowing about something it took you guys FIFTEEN HUNDRED YEARS to do?

TU QUOQUE argument.

DIVERSION.

UNABLE to defend FALSE Mormon religion on its own MERITS.

I knew you would’nt stop.

 

[Answersplease]

Father Tolton, from what I read of HIM, should be nominated for sainthood.

IF he has any MIRACLES attributed to him, then he should be nominated for sainthood.

You know next to mothing about the Catholic Church.

And yet time after time, you “try” to tell Catholics what they believe or should believe.

 

[Answersplease]

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:

Why don’t you just tear down the entire Catholic Church while your at it.

How about saying Catholics should’nt say anything about homosexuality because of the priest scandal?

How about saying Catholics should never talk about any sin because of all the sinners the Church has in it?

How about saying Catholics should never have any social opinions because the Church failed to act in a more forceful manner concerning social problems?

A house divided cannot stand.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I cannot believe this thread has 266 posts so far? Why don’t Mormon churches have crosses? Will a Mormon answer this already and let’s move on?

 

[Answersplease]

What in the world has St. Francis to do with anything?

You are just trying to make it seem like Rebecca was bringing up nonsense.
You know what Rebecca was talking about, as the next qoute underneath shows.

I’m not talking about people who disobey the rules here,

sweetie.

Your condescending attitude shows, talking down to Rebecca.

Rebecca, you have now met a Mormon who knows quite a bit about St. Francis and the Franciscans; always have…

Sure, try to shut Rebecca down so she won’t debate anymore, by making it seem that your information about her subject is greater than hers.
Just more of your condescending attitude.
Instead of saying you are superior, PROVE you are superior.

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?

Your ignorance (maybe you’re not ignorant and are spreading false propaganda on purpose) about the Catholic Church is astounding, especially when you come to a Catholic forum and tell Catholics what their Church does and believes.

Catholics can excommunicate THEMSELVES without any act by their Church’s leadership.

It is called automatic latae sententiae excommunication.

catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0004chap.asp

Heresy does carry a penalty of automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication (can. 1041, 2º)

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9511qq.asp

Q: Are Catholics who get abortions excommunicated? Do they have to go to confession to the bishop in order to receive forgiveness? There is disagreement at my parish as to the answers to these questions.

A: Despite the common misinformation prevalent today, the penalty for having an abortion is still excommunication. Canon law states, “A person who procures an abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication” (CIC 1398). This penalty extends to all who help in the procurement of the abortion, not only the woman in whose womb the baby is murdered.

The Catholic Church does’nt hand out formal excommunications “willy nilly” to every sinner that comes along because they want to give that sinner every opportunity to repent and excomunication is a barrier to confession as the following quote shows, even though many Catholics effectively excommunicate themselves they might still be able to get remmittance through confession. But some excommunications can ONLY be lifted by a Bishop or Pope.

catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9606ltrs.asp
This is indeed grave, because once a person is excommunicated, he is cut off from the sacraments, including the sacrament of reconciliation. So even were he to repent of the crime, he could not even in principle approach the sacrament of penance, unless the excommunication is first lifted.

catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea4.asp
Excommunication is a word that is often bandied about by Catholics, non-Catholics, and the media. However, when properly understood within the context of canon law, it is a penalty that the Church only applies in the rarest of cases, as a last resort, and for the purpose of helping to bring about the offender’s repentance.

catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9511qq.asp
Since the promulgation of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983, the penalty for abortion is no longer reserved to the bishop, and any priest able to hear confession can absolve a penitent from the grave sin of abortion. Previously only the bishop could absolve one from such as sin.

 

[Answersplease]

Father Tolton, from what I read of HIM, should be nominated for sainthood.

IF he has any MIRACLES attributed to him, then he should be nominated for sainthood.

You know next to mothing about the Catholic Church.

And yet time after time, you “try” to tell Catholics what they believe or should believe.

Correction of typo, I meant to say:

You know next to nothing about the Catholic Church.

 

[Answersplease]

I see.

You can’t get anywhere on the topic under consideration, so you change tack and attack on another one.

But y’know what? I have addressed the topic of abortion with you, gone over it completely, and I’m not going there again.

Just…go back and see what we have said about it earlier.

Do I need to go over all your posts and point out your favorite DIVERSIONARY tactic
of using the TU QUOQUE argument?

 

[kikkichan]

chris2009,

Guess again, your facts need some review:

What does Jesus mean here?
If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 16:24-5)

Paul’s talking about Christ crucified, on a cross:
*23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.*1 Corinthians 1:23

From newadvent.org/cathen/04529a.htm
The Cross to which Christ had been nailed, and on which He had died, became for Christians, quite naturally and logically, the object of a special respect and worship. St. Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 1:17: “For Christ sent me not to baptize; but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void”; in Galatians 2:19: “With Christ I am nailed to the cross”; in Ephesians 2:16: Christ . . . . “might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross”; in Philippians 3:18: “For many walk . . . enemies of the cross of Christ”; in Colossians 2:14: "Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross"; and in Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world”.

I suppose you could also ask why Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul or the apostles didn’t use the cross as a symbol of religion. This symbol evolved to become part of Christianity during the dark ages. As Mormons, we believe that after Christ and the apostles were killed, that many doctrines and ordinances were changed. Jewish and Pagan influences, along with the Roman government made an entirely different religion under Emporer Constantine to keep Rome united. Finally around 1500 AD, other Christian Churches broke away from Catholicism, but most adopted the same basic doctrines and teachings – including the use of the cross.

–kc

 

[Answersplease]

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.

You are hanging your self with this one, bub.

Tradition is so important to you…and Tradition is the combined actions, teachings and results of your beliefs. If Dogma doesn’t mention a theological problem with skin color, your tradition certainly does—because all we have to do is look at your history.

No difference between races?
OK, then why weren’t there any black Cardinals until recently, and why can’t you point definitively to a black Pope?
Why, when more than one Pope condemned slavery, did Catholics support it, and even OWN SLAVES, for more than five hundred years after it was first condemned? Why are the heroes in the Catholic church, who fought against slavery and taught among them, so few and far between that most of those who actually did it are elevated to sainthood?
Why is it that the first ‘black’ priest in America never admitted that he was black (and why should he? He was, in reality, at least 89% IRISH, and ‘passed’ (I hate that word) all his life. Why are y’all so proud of his African heritage, as if that 10 to 15 percent of negroid blood trumps and completely subsumes his Celtic heritage?

Why do you think he had to hide his heritage all his life?

Why would the first black priest who always admitted BEING black (he was, after all, born a slave himself) be unable to attend seminary in the USA, have been so utterly opposed by the priests and nuns who knew and raised him, so that he had to go to Rome?

Why was there never, ever, been an excommunication because of owning slaves? Not even one?

Why am I harping on this? Because y’all keep calling us ‘racist’…because our official stance for a hundred and fifty years was that negro people of African descent couldn’t hold the priesthood. Then one morning, after a great deal of prayer and supplication, that was reversed and every worthy male member could hold the priesthood…and nobody, I mean, nobody, can point to Mormons and identify one single racist policy or action since that time, no matter how you look at it.

So I’ll ask you this question. What is more worthy of criticism: a policy that is the result of an official statement followed reluctantly…the reversal of which was received with joy and instant acceptance by the vast majority of believers,

…or a people whose very top leaders gave lip service to equality, but who never enforced it, nor expected their people to follow it, and whose very priesthood opposed it and engaged in bigotry, discrimination and slave ownership?

The Mormons were ‘officially’ racist, and followed that policy even when it was uncomfortable. When the policy changed, very, very few people greeted it with anything but instant acceptance and joy.

The Catholics were officially not racist—but they were institutionally so, as is obvious by the number of blacks who have NOT been priests or Cardinals or popes, by support of slavery, by segregation in schools–(Bishop Healy would never have been allowed to attend Georgetown University had it been known that he was in any way a descendant of slaves) …and by the sheer scope of the way everybody ignored papal declarations of equality.

this is very much a ‘by their fruits,’ thing.

Is Catholicism racist NOW?

Why, no. I’m sure there are racist Catholics, just as I’m quite certain that there are racist Mormons. However, the church as a whole is not NOW ignoring such things as 'slavery is not a good idea" and “everybody with a true calling is welcome in the priesthood, no matter what his skin color is.”

But that has been rather recent…and it took you a lot longer than it took us.

So I suggest that you can the 'Mormons are racist" remarks, because the mud puddle is a lot deeper on your end.

Let us just rejoice in the progress both our peoples have made, and stop attacking each other. Or rather, you stop attacking me, because I only RETURN fire.

“SACRED TRADITION” is part of the “DEPOSIT OF FAITH” witch in CONTAINED
in Catholic “DOGMA”.

All Catholics are REQUIRED to believe Catholic DOGMA.

Denying Catholic DOGMA is HERESY and incurs an automatic latae sententiae excommunication

ANY historical actions or practices made by SINNERS is NOT Catholic DOGMA.

You know NOTHING about what Catholics are REQUIRED to believe in order to be CATHOLICS.

You just DIVERTED the subject away and DISTORTED the facts AGAIN.

Why don’t you ANSWER the CHALLENGE and show me the Catholic DOGMA
that shows any RACISM.

Your Mormon teachings CLEARLY show RACISM.

Did you “goof” again?

 

[RebeccaJ]

You are just trying to make it seem like Rebecca was bringing up nonsense.
You know what Rebecca was talking about, as the next qoute underneath shows.

Your condescending attitude shows, talking down to Rebecca.

Sure, try to shut Rebecca down so she won’t debate anymore, by making it seem that your information about her subject is greater than hers.
Just more of your condescending attitude.
Instead of saying you are superior, PROVE you are superior.

Thanks for sticking up for me, but no need to worry about me. Pretty much, her response re: St. Francis just shows that what I said is correct. “I know St Francis”, yet, nothing said that shows she had any idea what I was even talking about. That, with her comments about St. Peter Claver, and wow, the work to be done to get through is not something I am inclined to do. Especially with someone who obviously has no interest in understanding.

So don’t be too hard on Diana, she’s winging it. ‘A’ for effort.

I thought perhaps an encounter with someone holy would help. Nope. I have no plans of perfection to give, other than the Truth of Jesus Crucified. Letting it go seems like the better idea at this point. Kicking the dust off my shoes…g’nite.

† St Francis and Peter Claver, pray for us. †

 

[ParkerD]

chris2009,

Guess again, your facts need some review:

What does Jesus mean here?
If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. (Matt. 16:24-5)

Paul’s talking about Christ crucified, on a cross:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.1 Corinthians 1:23

From newadvent.org/cathen/04529a.htm
The Cross to which Christ had been nailed, and on which He had died, became for Christians, quite naturally and logically, the object of a special respect and worship. St. Paul says, in 1 Corinthians 1:17: “For Christ sent me not to baptize; but to preach the gospel: not in wisdom of speech, lest the cross of Christ should be made void”; in Galatians 2:19: “With Christ I am nailed to the cross”; in Ephesians 2:16: Christ . . . . “might reconcile both to God in one body by the cross”; in Philippians 3:18: “For many walk . . . enemies of the cross of Christ”; in Colossians 2:14: "Blotting out the handwriting of the decree that was against us, which was contrary to us. And he hath taken the same out of the way, fastening it to the cross"; and in Galatians 6:14: “But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ; by whom the world is crucified to me, and I to the world”.

–kc

Kikkichan,
Are you saying that you believe all of the verses you cited and quoted are talking about putting a symbol of Christ’s crucifixion on your outward apparel in some way, to be “seen of men”? Do you really think you understand the connotations of all of those verses and the verses surrounding them that provide more context to the teaching that is being given?