C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
I don’t think they are trying to be “Holier than Thou”, I think they are trying to defend their beliefs in an honest polite way, even though they are being rudely attacked. I’m amazed by their patience!
News Article: Mormon aversion to the cross due to the anti-Catholicism of their leaders
- Status
J
Jerusha
Guest
May we all give up hatred, and harming others because their beliefs differ from ours. Parker, your change of subject was beautifully timed.
Many Brighamites have an aversion to the cross because they don’t need it. They, instead, metaphorically crucify others to ease their own consciences.
We are talking about forgiveness of sin, folks. It goes deeper than anti-Catholicism.
Many Brighamites have an aversion to the cross because they don’t need it. They, instead, metaphorically crucify others to ease their own consciences.
We are talking about forgiveness of sin, folks. It goes deeper than anti-Catholicism.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Christine, I am amazed that you can participate in such a hypocrisy as calling yourself Catholic, when you are so obviously LDS. Just call it what it is, lyin’ for the lard.
And I am not an ex-Mormon.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Nope, I’m a Catholic. I just have read a lot about Mormons and their history. Also I know a few Mormons and have always found them to be good people. I don’t believe in the Book of Mormon, but I like to see what makes them believe in it. I’m curious. I don’t see why you are so against them. What is it that makes you hate them so much?
J
Jerusha
Guest
I don’t hate them. Many are good people. They are just deceived. They refuse to look at both sides of the story. They have a filtration system, so that they can ignore anything that is contrary to what they have been taught. They also fear, because of intergenerational scars, to look at the true history. I have a deep concern for the naive believers, and the hoax that has been perpetrated on them. There are some LDS believers, who I call Brighamites, who will do anything to perpetrate the lies.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
That may be true, (I can think of one!), but Parker and Finrock and Dianaias don’t seem to be that way. They seem to have a lot of knowledge about their history and religion and are very articulate. They don’t even seem all that defensive, but I could certainly understand it if they were, because people are so accusative and belittling to them. I admire thier spunk and perseverance. I’d be turning tail if I were being attacked like they are.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
It is one of the reasons that Christians wear crosses, so no, it does not make too much sense as a reason not to.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
mmm, ok, I suppose I must be reading different posts than you.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Quote function is not working for me today. Neither are smilies."mmm, ok, I suppose I must be reading different posts than you. " LOL!! I mean, Diana, the most obnoxious LDS here, asked me to PROVE any murders committed by Mormons between 1834 and 1854. I have LOTS more information. (rolls eyes) I am just doing what I was asked to do. How could she get mad about that???
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rebecca,
What I meant was a follower of Christ, a believer in Christ, a practicer of living the teachings of Christ including non-retribution, non-back-biting, non-grudge-holding, will show it in their eyes and in their countenances. That is what He taught.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
How is this related to the Mormon aversion to the cross? I’m not getting the connection, which you say, is there.
P
PaulDupre
Guest
Yes, he knows. He is using his sicky-sweet demeanor as a weapon. Another Mormon passive-agressive tactic.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rebecca,
I don’t have an aversion to the cross or have any feeling other than appreciation for those who wear a cross, but it seems to me that some few people either think that the cross protects them or shows that they believe in Christ. The LDS and my personal belief is that what shows that a person believes in Christ is how they act and what shows in their eyes and their demeanor toward others. That is what I’ve been trying to say.
Let’s say a young person wears a cross, but belittles others or perhaps talks badly about someone (gossips) when out of their presence. I’m not saying anyone in particular would do this other than that it can and does happen. Then their wearing of a cross has not been really showing belief in Christ. The question becomes, what do they attach to the symbol they are wearing as to how they act when wearing it? I think Christ wants a person to act as a follower of Him whether or not they wear a symbol of Him and His love and forgiveness and mercy. I think He wants their actions to be their outward symbol that they have taken upon themselves His name, and their heart’s desire to be their inward symbol of the same thing… in other words, their love of neighbor and love of God.
I hope this has clarified, and I appreciate your having asked for the clarification.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Was Abraham committing adultery? Isaac?Zaffiro, may I rephrase?
Was it your intent to ask if Mormon “polygamy” was actually adultery with a prettier name?
You may not like polygamy. You may think polygamy is a sin…and it is, actually, in the CoJCoLDS; one that will get you excommunicated.
But the sin is not adultery.
J
Jerusha
Guest
False piety, telling others that because you are religious, you should be trusted, is common among all people. More so among LDS. I do not carry my religion on my sleeve. I strive to live it. I am reminded here of:Lachoneus, most noble and Chief Governor of the land: behold I write this epistle unto you, and do give unto you exceeding great praise because of your firmness, and also the firmness of your people, in maintaining that which ye suppose to be your right and liberty; yea, ye do stand well, as if ye were supported by the hand of God, in the defence of your liberty, and your property, and your country, or that which ye do call so. And it seemeth a pity unto me, most noble Lachoneus, that ye should be so foolish and vain as to suppose that ye can stand against so many brave men, which are at my command, which do now at this time stand in their arms, and do await, with great anxiety, for the word, Go down upon the Nephites and destroy them. And I knowing of their unconquerable spirit, having proved them in the field of battle, and knowing of their everlasting hatred towards you, because of the many wrongs which ye have done unto them, therefore if they should come down against you, they would visit you with utter destruction; therefore I have wrote this epistle, sealing it with mine own hand, feeling for your welfare, because of your firmness in that which ye believe to be right, and your noble spirit in the field of battle; therefore I write unto you desiring that ye would yield up unto this my people, your cities, your lands, and your possessions, rather than that they should visit you with the sword, and that destruction should come upon you; or in other words, yield yourselves up unto us, and unite with us, and become acquainted with our secret works, and become our brethren, that ye may be like unto us; not our slaves, but our brethren, and partners of all our substance. (3 Nephi 3:2-7)Oh, so sickeningly sweet!! Barf!! What lies. Sorry, I just read Oaks, and my temper is short.
J
Jerusha
Guest
Polygamy is institutionalized adultery. Period.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
How could it, though ? Romans 5 contrasts the “earthy man” Adam, with the “man from heaven”. What atonement for us could Adam make, to regain for us the favour of God ? He may have been able to if the “Inspired Version” of the Bible, with its additions to Genesis, that Joseph Smith is responsible for, is taken as reliable - but only Mormons (& not all of them) acknowledge it.
Jesus does not have to become a “perfected man” - He is the Lord of Glory, the Redeemer provided by God to be our Righteousness, our Salvation, our Saviour, & our Lord. In all heaven and earth, in the seas, & under the earth, there is none like Him. He is Incomparable, Unique. Mormonism makes Him no more than a Catholic Saint, when He is the King of Saints: it cuts Him down to our size
- it allows Him, who “has the primacy in all things”, no pre-eminence but a verbal one; if that 
. In all these ways - & others - it is not evangelical. Unless God is the Unique Transcendent Gracious Sovereign Creator-Lord Who by the Word of His Power has created & sustains all things that He has created, no Gospel is possible. Only a God Who is Transcendent, & sovereignly free of all constraint, can humble Himself to share in our humanity. That He has, despite the terrible fact of sin, & has fully redeemed sinful man from it, is a large part of the Gospel. That is evangelical.The Death of Christ is Unique in being the Death of God-with-us - it is of infinite worth & grace & power, because of Who suffered; the length of time, though shorter than for many who were crucified, is immaterial.
Do Mormons know that St. Paul gloried in the Cross of Christ (Galatians 6.14), & that the very thought of it was precious to the successors of the Apostles ? They never tire of praising it, & of finding analogies to it; as well Biblical types of it. And this was at a time when many Christians had to reckon with the possibility that they might be crucified - crucifixion, the “slaves’ punishment”, was not abolished until 315. The wonder is, not that some Christians (Arnobius of Sicca (c. 300) is an example of this) found the crucifixion awkward, & tried to slur over it; but that so many were quite prepared to admit the difficulty of having a leader who had been crucified by the Roman government. There were many reasons for the crucifixion to be an embarrassment: they are fully discussed in Martin Hengel’s book Crucifixion - but despite all of them, the Church has never lost its veneration for the Cross. Can Mormonism say the same ?
But if the Mormon doctrine of:
- God
- Christ
- Divine revelation
- sin
- original sin
- Providence
- man
- evil
That is the worst feature of Mormonism - that it does in fact relativise Jesus Christ. St. John, St. Paul, the writer to the Hebrews, & the seer of Revelation, teach us to exalt Jesus Christ immeasurably - and how !
P
ParkerD
Guest
Gottle of Geer,
Diana was talking about the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Garden of Eden. While He was in the Garden of Gethsemane and His disciples were asleep, the Atonement and His infinite suffering began. See Matthew 26:36-42.
Diana was talking about the Garden of Gethsemane, not the Garden of Eden. While He was in the Garden of Gethsemane and His disciples were asleep, the Atonement and His infinite suffering began. See Matthew 26:36-42.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Well, thanks for the primary lesson, I think I taught this one.
You have reduced the Cross to something less than it is, is all I can say.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Ok, put yourself in the position of the Fanchers. For quite a few weeks you have had, traveling with you, a group of men who portrayed the Mormons as bloodthirsty barbarians who were utterly beneath contempt; not even human–so much so that they bragged with great glee about their own involvement in several of the murders committed against Mormons: Haun’s Mill, the Carthage mob and the murder of Parley P Pratt. They then spent a good deal of time bragging further about what they would do when they got to Salt Lake; they would 'finish the job." Then they broke off from the train before it entered Utah and the braggarts took a route that did NOT get them near Salt Lake.
Wouldn’t you, being a reasonably intelligent person, figure that traveling through a state full of such evil people would be fraught with danger, and it would be a good idea to be a little discrete? The Fanchers were anything BUT that.
The Fanchers got there, and were warned that A: there was unrest in Utah because there was an army coming; nobody would be allowed to sell supplies to them because they were preparing for a possible invasion; B: that the Mormons knew what the men who had BEEN with them had been bragging about, and were understandably not pleased; therefore it would probably be wiser for them to stay put for awhile or take that other route.
Wouldn’t you, being a reasonably intelligent person, put this information together with what your recent travelers claimed, and figure that discretion would be a good idea? That is, if you are traveling in a war zone, and had just been in company with men who were dedicated and deadly enemies of the people whose supplies you want to purchase, you should be a little careful about insisting that the about-to-be-invaded folks sell you their supplies and ammunition?
“Discretion” seemed to be a foreign word to the Fanchers. Now, having been so warned, and KNOWING that they weren’t going to be sold supplies, they stopped to buy them anyway, and proceeded to make obnoxious and insulting remarks (including threatening to send the militia from the south…from California.) in at least one town because nobody would sell them supplies.
Now wouldn’t you, being a reasonably intelligent person, add all the preceding up in your head and realize that a group of people about to be invaded by HALF the US Army might not be real thrilled about having another force attacking them from another front? Wouldn’t you treat them with the courtesy you would treat a rattler with his tail buzzing?
But no; the Fanchers treated them with a high handed condescension and disrespect that must have REALLY frosted a group of people that had lost husbands, wives, children, property and homes to people with attitudes just like theirs, and who were threatening to send people to take more of the same away from them. Like I said…stupid.
the Fanchers SAW all this. They HEARD all this, but they didn’t listen, and they didn’t believe; they thought that—heaven alone knows what they thought.
No, the Mormons absolutely were wrong to attack them. The massacre was a horrendous blight on our history, and a horrific thing to do. NOBODY deserves the fate the Fanchers got, not for just being stupid. One must, however, note the stupidity, since our noses are being rubbed in it so completely. I read the accounts of the Fancher trip, and if there was a single opportunity to offend the Mormons, the Fanchers did not pass it up. They didn’t MEAN to…their bigotry was innocent. Their stupidity lay in their refusal to amend it, and to pay attention to the warnings they were given.
So they paid the price owed by many other people, and those who attacked them wreaked vengeance upon innocents.
- Status