News Article: Mormon aversion to the cross due to the anti-Catholicism of their leaders

[why_me]

I gotcha.

Now, I’m going out on a limb here, but I think the reason the 10 year time frame is relevant is because dianaiad is trying to respond to what she believes are attempts of critics of the church to justify the murder of Joseph Smith by claiming that the Mormons instigated the violence and eventual murder because of their violence and murder towards non-Mormons, to include the events of 1838. Like I said, I haven’t been intensely following this flow of discussion, so, I could be wrong.

It is definately no secret that the Danites were up to no good.

Thanks again, for your response.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

The mormons were at a breaking point in 1838, It was the year of the bank crisis and many members were apostazing and attacking the church because they lost money in the kirkland safety society. Thus, sidney gave his salt sermon against the dissenters and the danites were oganized unofficially. But it was the fourth of july speech against mob violence by the nonmormons that got the ball rolling for the Mormon War. The danites enforced orthodoxy. They were a unofficial secret militant organization. Were they up to no good. Perhaps. They were mormon zealots.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I think I was refering to less about doctrines than about attitudes. Mormons seem “pro-natalist” in a way that other Christians usually wouldn’t be (except Fundamentalist Protestants, like the Quiverfulls), especially the orthodox tradition that has a history of having people be monks, nuns, oblates, celibates, and so forth- all respected vocations for a Christian life. The reasoning I have heard about Mormons is becaues they believed when you die, you will become a god or something like that and you’ll need a family in “heaven” or you’ll be some kind of spiritual cosmic loser. This goes against things Jesus said, and in the orthodox tradition they usually believed marriage as a legality ends at death. In short, God doesn’t ultimately care if you are married or not, even though marriage can be a sacrament itself, it is not required to be in God’s grace and married and unmarried people are essentially equal.

When I said I didn’t know for sure what Mormons believed, I was being honest. All I have heard is third person mostly, from studying Mormonism that way. Mormon leaders in the past have said many things that are blatantly heretical. Perhaps the church doesn’t do that anymore, and I welcome the oppurtunity to hear your side.

It does sound to me that Mormons don’t believe in the Trinity in the conventional sense, nor do the believe that God is absolute. Trinity in the orthodox understanding is “three hypostases (realities) in one ousia (essence)”, or “three persons in one substance”.

The orthodox Christian concept of theosis is totally different than the Mormon concepts of divinization I have heard of. Theosis involves change in persons so that they share in God’s Energies, but it is impossible for any created thing to become God in Essence.

Why not? I assumed frankly it was becaues Mormons focus on “working out your own salvation” to a point they seem to downplay grace, the fact that God has already reached out to humanity (and the whole of the creation) in the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The Cross is a reminder of how costly grace is, it is a symbol of love. The concept of love, forgiveness, and grace just seems to be downplayed in Mormonism.

I think the Mormons don’t use the cross is because of tradition. They never have used it. Their temples have a huge angel with a trumpet on top. That is their symbol. Probably there was some anti-Christian sentiment in the past, (with good reason, as you can see by these forums!) which made them to downplay the cross. This doesn’t mean they don’t believe that Jesus died on the cross in atonement for mankind.

 

[why_me]

And here is something about the danites:

en.fairmormon.org/Danites

byustudies.byu.edu/SHOP/PDFSRC/14.4Gentry.pdf#https://byustudies.byu.edu/SHOP/PDFSRC/14.4Gentry.pdf# With this link you will need to scroll down a little.

 

[ParkerD]

So evidently Zaffiro thinks that in answer to the question, “what would Jesus do?” it is to threaten the victim of the second most heinous violent crime that if she even thinks that she may not be able to deal with nine months of constant reminder of the tragedy against her through no fault of her own, she is guiltier than the criminal.

Then “your Lord” is not “my Lord.” “My Lord” extends mercy, looks at circumstances and motives and the consequences of sinful behaviors by others as they impact a victim, and is loving not harsh in all the words spoken.

“My Lord” offers the unconditional love necessary to help a victim in the healing process for things done to them, by allowing a thought process of “what shall I do?” without saying “you have no choice what to do–you must live with the long-term consequences of the crime against you,” even if in a court of law the judge could say that whoever was telling you that could have a slander charge brought against them.

I do have an aversion to that harsh of a use of force (and it is force). I am grateful that He who died on Calvary atoned even for the kind of harsh judgment employed by such a person in trying to offer respect for life by ridiculing the victim if she hesitates to feel adequately supported by family and community such that she can be sustained both in her huge anguish from the crime, her huge fears and mistrust and confusion about God’s love and protection, and in her own personal trial of faith that by carrying the baby to adoption, she will have been supremely heroic and be sustained by God’s love even though it would be impossible to expect that she would feel it during the time of making such a decision.

 

[cothrige]

I understand and agree with your point. My question is with those who would call even YOUR attitude ‘pro-abortion.’

I believe my position is identical to that of the Catholic Church. If not I will gladly revise my understanding. I am anti-abortion in every case, understanding an abortion to be a willful termination of the life of a foetus or infant in the womb. I believe the Church understands that in some cases, when the embryo/foetus cannot possibly survive and the mother definitely will die that surgical procedures which will save her can be used, even though the foetus will also die in the process. Clearly the surgery is to save her, not kill the child, and all reasonable care would obviously have to be taken to save the baby, and so this isn’t what we would consider obtaining an abortion. Again, if I am wrong I will certainly amend that position.

Abortion should only be allowed when the reason to do it is to save the life of the mother when otherwise both mother and child would die. In that case, the reason for the abortion is NOT to ‘kill the child,’ the child is already doomed. The purpose is not to kill the child, but to save the mother.

Here I think we are on common ground, though generally Catholics just don’t call this an abortion, because it didn’t intend the death of the child. In the case of, say, ectopic pregnancy when the child really is doomed and the mother would be too, then you remove the fallopian tube, or other such tissue, and the embryo along with it. There would certainly be little choice other than this. The Church has never suggested that letting two die instead of one is acceptable. At least not to my knowledge.

Please understand that when we say abortion we are not necessarily being medically accurate. Removing the foetus/embryo will save the mother’s life, but killing it won’t. Yes, in some cases it definitively will die, but that won’t save the mother. Abortion, as per moral terms, is the killing of the child, not the saving of the mother. Therefore, we will say that abortion is unacceptable, even to save the life of the mother. But, we do not mean abortion necessarily as is defined in Taber’s, but abortion as a moral decision. I believe this understanding involves what is called “double effect,” though I may be confusing something else I read somewhere.

As to rape and incest, as I have mentioned before, those cases are taken individually and pretty much require the same level of danger to mom.

Here you speak of danger, and so I might assume that there is no difference here than for an ectopic pregnancy. But, if it is treated differently, and removal of the foetus is allowed or permitted in the case of incest or rape when death of the mother is not imminent, and no other options are available, I would think we would be in disagreement. I am aware of no teaching in the Church which allows the sins of a father to be visited upon the child. If a man is guilty of rape his child is not to suffer the death penalty. Surely this is a gigantic burden for a woman, but the Church has never said that we are guaranteed to live lives free of burdens, either great or small. Many suffer horribly for other people’s sins, but I just don’t think, morally speaking, killing an innocent baby is ever an option so that one can avoid such a cross. But, as I said, I may be completely wrong regarding the LDS position on that topic. I suppose I may even be wrong about the Church’s view of this. If so, I hope some good fellow Catholic will quickly set me straight.

 

[zaffiroborant]

So evidently Zaffiro thinks that in answer to the question, “what would Jesus do?” it is to threaten the victim of the second most heinous violent crime that if she even thinks that she may not be able to deal with nine months of constant reminder of the tragedy against her through no fault of her own, she is guiltier than the criminal.

I’m not threatening anyone in any way, I’m just saying abortion is murder, Diane feels that ending an ectopic pregnancy should be called an abortion and I think abortion should be called murder.

Then “your Lord” is not “my Lord.” “My Lord” extends mercy, looks at circumstances and motives and the consequences of sinful behaviors by others as they impact a victim, and is loving not harsh in all the words spoken.

I may believe abortion is the sin of murder but that in no way means I believe the Lord doesn’t extend mercy, though I do believe one must repent, not say well it was this other guys sin not mine.

“My Lord” offers the unconditional love necessary to help a victim in the healing process for things done to them, by allowing a thought process of “what shall I do?” without saying “you have no choice what to do–you must live with the long-term consequences of the crime against you,” even if in a court of law the judge could say that whoever was telling you that could have a slander charge brought against them.

I’m not following you here with this statement.

I do have an aversion to that harsh of a use of force (and it is force). I am grateful that He who died on Calvary atoned even for the kind of harsh judgment employed by such a person in trying to offer respect for life by ridiculing the victim if she hesitates to feel adequately supported by family and community such that she can be sustained both in her huge anguish from the crime, her huge fears and mistrust and confusion about God’s love and protection, and in her own personal trial of faith that by carrying the baby to adoption, she will have been supremely heroic and be sustained by God’s love even though it would be impossible to expect that she would feel it during the time of making such a decision.

And killing the baby isn’t harsh use of force?

 

[cothrige]

So evidently Zaffiro thinks that in answer to the question, “what would Jesus do?” it is to threaten the victim of the second most heinous violent crime that if she even thinks that she may not be able to deal with nine months of constant reminder of the tragedy against her through no fault of her own, she is guiltier than the criminal.

Parker,

Are you saying that the LDS Church allows in some way for the intentional abortion if the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape? How exactly would you understand that in terms of a Christian morality?

As I see it there are three people involved. The baby, who is completely innocent. The woman, who I am assuming is innocent, unless she is perhaps a willing party to incest. And the rapist, who is guilty of a grave sin. I agree that the woman is going to suffer for nine months, but is that the baby’s fault? How does the child get the death sentence? How is death of an innocent child considered an act of mercy?

Many people suffer horribly from other people’s sins. Some people are maimed, blind, paralyzed, or even vegetative after attacks from violent offenders. Should we really classify bearing a child, which is the woman’s own btw, as a worse burden than being a vegetable, or dead, or blind, or paralyzed? God’s mercy is there for all of us, including the rapist should he seek it, but the child should certainly be first in line. She is weakest and most vulnerable, and if killed while still in the womb will have the most severe penalty of all applied to her for no reason at all other than having the wrong father. I am sorry, but I really do not understand how one could justify that kind of action within a Christian morality.

 

[Finrock]

A general question to anyone who wants to answer!

I know threads get off track sometimes, but how did we get from the topic “Mormon aversion to the cross” to “abortion”?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Finrock]

Parker,

Are you saying that the LDS Church allows in some way for the intentional abortion if the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape? How exactly would you understand that in terms of a Christian morality?

As I see it there are three people involved. The baby, who is completely innocent. The woman, who I am assuming is innocent, unless she is perhaps a willing party to incest. And the rapist, who is guilty of a grave sin. I agree that the woman is going to suffer for nine months, but is that the baby’s fault? How does the child get the death sentence? How is death of an innocent child considered an act of mercy?

Many people suffer horribly from other people’s sins. Some people are maimed, blind, paralyzed, or even vegetative after attacks from violent offenders. Should we really classify bearing a child, which is the woman’s own btw, as a worse burden than being a vegetable, or dead, or blind, or paralyzed? God’s mercy is there for all of us, including the rapist should he seek it, but the child should certainly be first in line. She is weakest and most vulnerable, and if killed while still in the womb will have the most severe penalty of all applied to her for no reason at all other than having the wrong father. I am sorry, but I really do not understand how one could justify that kind of action within a Christian morality.

Hi cothrige! Nice to meet you. I don’t think we’ve ever interacted. How are you today?

Even though this topic is very important, for various reasons I don’t really want to get involved in this conversation. However, I think it might be useful to the conversation to understand that from a Mormon’s perspective, “all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven”, which is the highest kingdom of glory that a person can receive (D&C 137:10). Now, to clarify, this doesn’t mean it is OK to kill children, it just means that we can know that if a child does die or is killed in infancy, they are OK and will have Eternal Life.

Maybe this perspective is helpful. I hope it is. In any case, I will exit this debate at this time. I do, however, appreciate your passionate stance on this very important issue.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Jerusha]

how did we get from the topic “Mormon aversion to the cross” to “abortion”?

Kind Regards,
Finrock

Perhaps it has something to do with forgetting the cross, and making others suffer to make oneself more comfortable?

 

[cothrige]

Hi cothrige! Nice to meet you. I don’t think we’ve ever interacted. How are you today?

Absolutely great, and you? Nice to meet you, btw.

Even though this topic is very important, for various reasons I don’t really want to get involved in this conversation. However, I think it might be useful to the conversation to understand that from a Mormon’s perspective, “all children who die before they arrive at the years of accountability are saved in the celestial kingdom of heaven”, which is the highest kingdom of glory that a person can receive (D&C 137:10). Now, to clarify, this doesn’t mean it is OK to kill children, it just means that we can know that if a child does die or is killed in infancy, they are OK and will have Eternal Life.

Many thanks for the information. I didn’t know this. I am not sure how it may impact my view of the abortion issue, assuming I am understanding it correctly in the first place, but I am certainly glad to learn more in the way of specifics.

 

[ParkerD]

Readers,
It seems like this thread has had several off-shoot conversations, and the one that Zaffiro brought up is distasteful to me but I wanted to convey that Christ does not use force to bring people to submission to His will. That is counter to His purposes for extending to us His compassionate mercy as we participate in the tough circumstances of this life. (Not my circumstances–I haven’t had tough circumstances, but some do.) Use of words of intimidation to force a certain right decision is still force.

To stay on topic, maybe one of the reasons some LDS think it is not helpful to use the cross as a symbol is if the person so doing thinks, “I can speak ill of anyone and do anything I want to do, because I am wearing this cross which shows what I really am inside even if my actions don’t convey what the cross conveys.” I would hope that the cross conveys compassion and love for all humankind, and the allowance for each person to act within their lawful constitutional rights without being intimidated or maligned before even being allowed to make a choice that would be very difficult to make in the case of a rape victim. That’s all. Peace to each of you.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Readers,
It seems like this thread has had several off-shoot conversations, and the one that Zaffiro brought up is distasteful to me but I wanted to convey that Christ does not use force to bring people to submission to His will. That is counter to His purposes for extending to us His compassionate mercy as we participate in the tough circumstances of this life. (Not my circumstances–I haven’t had tough circumstances, but some do.) Use of words of intimidation to force a certain right decision is still force.

To stay on topic, maybe one of the reasons some LDS think it is not helpful to use the cross as a symbol is if the person so doing thinks, “I can speak ill of anyone and do anything I want to do, because I am wearing this cross which shows what I really am inside even if my actions don’t convey what the cross conveys.” I would hope that the cross conveys compassion and love for all humankind, and the allowance for each person to act within their lawful constitutional rights without being intimidated or maligned before even being allowed to make a choice that would be very difficult to make in the case of a rape victim. That’s all. Peace to each of you.

Amen, Parker. There’s some very un-Christian-like Catholics here!:sad_yes:

 

[zaffiroborant]

Readers,
It seems like this thread has had several off-shoot conversations, and the one that Zaffiro brought up is distasteful to me but I wanted to convey that Christ does not use force to bring people to submission to His will. That is counter to His purposes for extending to us His compassionate mercy as we participate in the tough circumstances of this life. (Not my circumstances–I haven’t had tough circumstances, but some do.) Use of words of intimidation to force a certain right decision is still force.

To stay on topic, maybe one of the reasons some LDS think it is not helpful to use the cross as a symbol is if the person so doing thinks, “I can speak ill of anyone and do anything I want to do, because I am wearing this cross which shows what I really am inside even if my actions don’t convey what the cross conveys.” I would hope that the cross conveys compassion and love for all humankind, and the allowance for each person to act within their lawful constitutional rights without being intimidated or maligned before even being allowed to make a choice that would be very difficult to make in the case of a rape victim. That’s all. Peace to each of you.

Why is calling abortion a sin, “force” or “intimidation” would you also shy away from calling adultery a sin?

 

[Jerusha]

Zaffiro, may I rephrase?

Was it your intent to ask if Mormon “polygamy” was actually adultery with a prettier name?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Readers,
To stay on topic, maybe one of the reasons some LDS think it is not helpful to use the cross as a symbol is if the person so doing thinks, “I can speak ill of anyone and do anything I want to do, because I am wearing this cross which shows what I really am inside even if my actions don’t convey what the cross conveys.” I would hope that the cross conveys compassion and love for all humankind, and the allowance for each person to act within their lawful constitutional rights without being intimidated or maligned before even being allowed to make a choice that would be very difficult to make in the case of a rape victim. That’s all. Peace to each of you.

I know that for me, as a Catholic, the crucifix reminds me of what Jesus Christ endured for us, all of us. It humbles me. I intend on buying one soon and wearing it. Not to show the world how pious or righteous I am, but as a reminder of all that it entails.

To me, and this is just MY perception, protestants and mormons who only have a plain cross are trying to shove underneath the rug the cruelty that Jesus Christ endured for us. It just always seemed like they don’t want to be reminded of it.

Of course the crucifix is awful. Of course it is not easy to look at. I don’t think it’s intended to be pleasing to the eye. Why should God please us? We should be pleasing Him.

 

[mark_a]

It sounds bogus to me. I don’t recall anything from my reading of LDS hstory that leads to that conclusion. Mormons do not have an “aversion” towards the cross. They just don’t use it. I am sure the “thesis” is something that can be easily disproved by LDS scholars.

zerinus

Or maybe it’s a way to differentiate themselves from all the other also-rans.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zaffiro, may I rephrase?

Was it your intent to ask if Mormon “polygamy” was actually adultery with a prettier name?

No I was thinking more along the lines of an emotionally or mentally abused spouse who may commit adultery, more to my point might be that woman who burned her husband in bed after years of abuse.

I don’t need to ask if Mormon “polygamy” was actually adultery, but I believe it had an even prettier name.

 

[Jerusha]

As in rape? There is evidence that if a woman refused JS or his friends, they would spread gossip to besmirch her name, as in the story of Susanna and the Elders. Strange, that is in the Book of Daniel. Strange that the Protestants excluded such a plain truth from the Bible.

 

[PaulDupre]

Those of us who face this issue with our eyes wide open don’t deceive ourselves;a medical procedure that must be done to save the life of the mother that would not have been necessary if the mother were not pregnant is an abortion.

No fair, you just changed the scenario. You never said that the operation was “only necessary because the mother was pregnant”. You said the operation was necessary because of the injuries sustained in the car accident.

Typical deceptive Mormon tactic. The one thing you can depend on from Mormons - they lie.