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

[zerinus]

Abortion, the butchering of millions (and billions world wide) of totally helpless children in our very day and time!!! Have you ever read Roe Vs. Wade Z??? The wording is almost exactly the same as your current Mormon doctrine allowing abortions: "President Gordon
B. Hinckley for the first time publicly announced the current position of the LDS Church on Abortion; “While we denounce it, we make allowance in such circumstances as when pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, when the life or health of the mother is judged by competent medical authority to be in serious jeopardy, or when the fetus is known by competent medical authority to have serious defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth. But such instances are rare, and there is only a negligible probability of their occurring. In these circumstances those who face the question are asked to consult with their local ecclesiastical leaders and to pray in great earnestness, receiving a confirmation through prayer before proceeding.” (Exact quote from The Ensign Nov.1998 pg.71 see also The First Presidencies General Handbook of Instructions pages 10-4 & 11-4)
In review of this statement we see that first, Mr. Hinckley denounces abortions and in the same breath makes allowances for what he denounces. Next he lists 5 cases (i.e. 1.rape 2.incest 3.Jeopardy to the life of the Mother 4. Jeopardy to the health of the mother. 5.Severe deformity.)
Remembering that only God can place a child in the womb for whatever purpose is known to him and that the purpose of an abortion is to bring forth a dead child, we ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows them to kill a totally innocent child because someone injured them by rape or incest? Many Mormons argue devoutly for abortions where the mothers life is at risk, (while at the same time ignoring the other four cases their church allows) is it loving the child as she loves herself for a mother to ensure that her child dies because her life is at risk? Wouldn’t the council of other Christian Churches that if you are determined that the child must come forth do not kill it first, but rather bring it forth alive and give it every chance to live, uphold loving as we love ourselves? HEALTH is a term used by the abortion industry to uphold an abortion for virtually any medical or psychological reason. Roughly 95 percent of all abortions in Utah and nationwide are done using Therapeutic (Health) as a reason, In 1997 (the year of Hinckleys announcement embracing abortion) Utah had 3,054 of 3,140 total. (source; Utah Dept. Of Health, Bureau of Vital Records ph. 801–538–6301 free technical report). To those in the know, it is incredible that Mr. Hinckley would include health as a case for abortions his church allows. Would Jesus tell a mother he allows her to kill her innocent child because her health may be at risk?
Mr. Hinckley next makes allowances for a mother to kill her child if it is known to have serious defects, and he claims that the doctors know the child will not survive beyond birth? We ask, would Jesus tell a woman he allows her to kill her child now, because it may not survive 9 months? Is it loving The Child as our self? Is this how Jesus would have you treat the least of these? This is not a new concept, euthanasia (The concept that only the Healthy have a right to live as long as they will live) was also taught by Hitler and others who for their own purposes ignore the teachings of Christ in preference to their own. Amazingly, Mr. Hinckley suggests that people pray to God and receive a 'confirmation before proceeding. Would God give the confirmation that a parent should kill their own innocent child? Knowing that this has never happened and is strictly forbidden by the Holy Bible, isnt it obvious where Mormons are getting their instructions to kill their children from?

This is an apostasy of the Mormon church in our very day and time showing the Mormons clearly have their hands full of blood on a scale never equaled in history.

Worthless post. No additional comment required. Beaten to death already in a million other places.

zerinus

 

[kalt]

If you can read this book thank a catholic

I like this. There outta be a bumper sticker.

 

[kalt]

Worthless post. No additional comment required. Beaten to death already in a million other places.

zerinus

Not worthless. I didn’t know about this, so I don’t consider it beaten to death. I’m glad someone took the time to post the information again.

 

[kalt]

He didn’t, actually.It wouldn’t have bothered me at all if he had, but…he didn’t. Sorry. He was only able to fire three times and even THEN he didn’t fire until after the mob had killed his brother. It would have been difficult, given that there were 200 men trying to get into that room to kill him, for him to MISS with those three shots, but the fact is, even though John Taylor (he was on OUR side) wrote that he had heard that two of the men Joseph shot had died, it was wishful thinking based upon rumor. The three men who were shot were: John Willis…shot in the arm, survived just fine; William Voras…shot in the shoulder…survived; William Gallaher…shot in the face, also survived. All three where indicted for the murder of Joseph Smith and ran for the hills. There is no evidence at all that any of the three died as a result of their wounds, or even that they were seriously inconvenienced (well, except for the having to run to escape being tried for murder part)

There was, evidently, one more person wounded in that attack (well, other than the murder victims, who evidently don’t count according to you). Since Joseph only fired three times, it’s hard to put that down to his gun. In fact, there were so many bullets flying around that the odds are rather high that one, two, or all three of the men whose wounds were attributed to Joseph were actually wounded by 'friendly fire."

(shrug) I personally want to think that Joseph got them, though, so we’ll leave that as is.

Given the level of accuracy you have shown here, sir, I would say that the 'number of Mormons" you point to as ‘not knowing’ things you claim to be true would equal—all of them.

Only fired 3 times.

 

[mormonpro]

Worthless post. No additional comment required. Beaten to death already in a million other places.

zerinus

Hmmm. The facts are worthless??? I do not think so. Z, I always keep in mind the many who read these posts. I realize your conscience is seared with a hot iron, but many who read these posts are awaking for the first time to the fact that Mormons are allowing abortions for the same cases as Roe Vs. Wade. Believe me it is enough to deter any true believer in Christ from even considering the Mormon church as being legit. You and your kind are highly productive for our cause. You show a callousness towards the truth that makes you a primary asset in proving mormonism is a easily proved fraud, upheld by those who have no interest in the truth.

 

[dianaiad]

Only fired 3 times.

They were prisoners on trumped up charges, being attacked by 200 armed men that included the troops that were supposed to be protecting them. These 200 men thought they were going up against totally unarmed men. Their intent was to murder, and they managed it.

So yeah, it was “only” three times.

What, you think that those 200 men were honorable, brave folks who were administering justice according to the laws of the land?

You think it was perfectly acceptable for them to mob the jail and murder unarmed prisoners, and in your view the blame of the whole thing lies on Joseph Smith because he actually got to defend himself–and shoot three times before his gun misfired?

Your approval of mob violence and murder is noted.

 

[Stephen168]

Not worthless. I didn’t know about this, so I don’t consider it beaten to death. I’m glad someone took the time to post the information again.

I didn’t know about it either until about a year ago. I was listening to a podcast of an ex-Mormon dispelling the myth that Mormon’s are uniquely pro-family. He talked about the new essentially pro-abortion position of the Mormon Church.

 

[ParkerD]

Stephen and “MormonPro” (Not),
Am I to assume that every word from the two of you is the official position of the Catholic church, including your choices of words?
In other words, do you represent that if the pope were here writing, he would write what you write? or a cardinal, or any other Catholic leader?

If not, then how many Catholics do you represent with your caustic, injurious language and your non-factual assertions? I am sincerely curious, as it is not apparent to me though it may be something you think is well understood. I hear/read two different levels of talk in this forum, and they seem to represent a totally different foundation from which they are coming, more in this forum than in the “outside world”, where my perception of Catholics is that they are kind and forthright people who extend themselves with courtesy and sincerity.

 

[scottywolf777]

If you can read this book thank a catholic

I like this. There outta be a bumper sticker.

Thank you that is my plan sooner or later to do that.

RE: Mormon bashing and mormon tolerance.
It’s a little hard to take that seriously when your own Book of Mormon on the first page in verse 4 of the first book state : IN the end times there will be only TWO (and only TWO) churches the church of God (interpreted as the Mormon church) and the church of the devil (meaning everybody who isn’t mormon) How could ANYBODY not take offense to that?
A good read is Wife 19 by Ann Eliza Young if you can find it in print who was only able to publish her scathing memoirs of life with Brother Brigham after escaping to New York so as not to suffer an attack by those pacifist Utes (really it was the Danites).
In my research of mormonism I found NO “truth” or anything else older that 150 years but many skeletons and few saints. We catholics took 2000 years to amass that many. I’m impressed. I did however find an awful lot of spin doctoring though!

 

[Stephen168]

Stephen and “MormonPro” (Not),
Am I to assume that every word from the two of you is the official position of the Catholic church, including your choices of words?
In other words, do you represent that if the pope were here writing, he would write what you write? or a cardinal, or any other Catholic leader?

If not, then how many Catholics do you represent with your caustic, injurious language and your non-factual assertions? I am sincerely curious, as it is not apparent to me though it may be something you think is well understood. I hear/read two different levels of talk in this forum, and they seem to represent a totally different foundation from which they are coming, more in this forum than in the “outside world”, where my perception of Catholics is that they are kind and forthright people who extend themselves with courtesy and sincerity.

If our assertions were truly non-factual, then all you would have to do is correct our facts. Instead you prefer to whine about how you find the truth hurtful, and resorting to personal attacks. If my Church abandoned me on such an important moral issue, I might be hurt also.

 

[why_me]

I didn’t know about it either until about a year ago. I was listening to a podcast of an ex-Mormon dispelling the myth that Mormon’s are uniquely pro-family. He talked about the new essentially pro-abortion position of the Mormon Church.

The mormon position is not essentially pro-abortion. But it is pro-family.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Anti-Catholic sentiments have existed in the LDS Church in the past, and it goes way beyond the time of David O McKay. He inherited it; he did not start it. And not using the symbol of the cross has been a practice of the LDS Church from much earlier times. It is not a statement against the Catholic Church.

The LDS Church’s past anti-Catholic sentiments has now been recognized as a mistake. All churches make these kinds of mistakes. The Catholic Church used to be anti-Semitic for most of its history. Now they recognize that that was a mistake. They sent crusaders during the Middle Ages to kill and murder innocent Muslims in the Holy Land. Now they realize that was a mistake. The last Pope even went so far as to appologize for them. If you wanted to explore the past and dig up old graves, you will find a lot more skeletons in Catholic cupboards than in Mormon ones.

zerinus

These are very good points, Zerinus. Actually most Protestants were very anti-Catholic, especially during the time that Joseph Smith started his church. And you are correct, that the Catholic Church has been anti-Semitic in the past, (well, actually the whole New Testament is pretty anti-Semitic!) Through time, we all, hopefully, have become more respectful and tolerant of each other.

I don’t see anything wrong with the LDS changing and improving their religion over time. It’s prudent and intelligent to change, especially if that change is founded on Christian principles.

I thought that article was interesting, because it shows that really, originally, LDS had no problem with the symbol of the cross. And now today, younger Mormons are recognizing that they don’t have a problem with it either.

 

[ParkerD]

If our assertions were truly non-factual, then all you would have to do is correct our facts. Instead you prefer to whine about how you find the truth hurtful, and resorting to personal attacks. If my Church abandoned me on such an important moral issue, I might be hurt also.

Stephen,
Many people have “corrected your (supposed) facts”, but you choose to re-post the same error-filled items again and again. Why do you choose to do that? I do not understand you, other than it is clear you have a private personal agenda that is nowhere near the agenda of true Bible-loving honorable or ordained-leader Catholics.

I don’t find any “truth hurtful”, but I do find some use of language hurtful against people who have been victims. I am not personally one of them, but I feel to try and empathize with them, not call them names that are truly injurious and serve no helpful purpose to anyone.

I infer from your writing that if you had been standing in the crowd when the scene depicted in John 8:5-7 occurred, you would have stepped forward with the rock in hand. (Thankfully you weren’t.)

 

[why_me]

Mormons and The Cross

Having read through the comments section based on the article, I can see that there is much hatred toward the mormon church. And I have to question why? The mormon church is a church that has a great value structure. Also, it is a church that fosters good family values. Plus, it is a church that teaches its members to live christ-like lives through prayer, good works, and scripture study. Nothing wrong in that.

And so why so much hatred? My conclusion: satan does not like the lds church and what it represents. Thus, the hatred toward a church, that favors god, within the hearts of some men and women. It all makes sense. Mormon church represents something good, satan wants to destroy it.

But the mormon church and its goodness will continue because it represents an opposite to the world and the direction that the world is taking. It will create hostility by that great spacious building called the world as they laugh at christians holding on to the good rod that can lead them to god.

Now I also think that the catholic church is a good church too. It can also lead people to god. But the ignorance about the mormon church is great and unfortunate.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Having read through the comments section based on the article, I can see that there is much hatred toward the mormon church. And I have to question why? The mormon church is a church that has a great value structure. Also, it is a church that fosters good family values. Plus, it is a church that teaches its members to live christ-like lives through prayer, good works, and scripture study. Nothing wrong in that.

And so why so much hatred? My conclusion: satan does not like the lds church and what it represents. Thus, the hatred toward a church, that favors god, within the hearts of some men and women. It all makes sense. Mormon church represents something good, satan wants to destroy it.

But the mormon church and its goodness will continue because it represents an opposite to the world and the direction that the world is taking. It will create hostility by that great spacious building called the world as they laugh at christians holding on to the good rod that can lead them to god.

Now I also think that the catholic church is a good church too. It can also lead people to god. But the ignorance about the mormon church is great and unfortunate.

Being a Catholic, I am often appalled by my fellow Catholics in regards to their reactions to Mormons. It’s amazing, because I all the Mormons I have known have been very kind and intelligent people, and on this forum, most seem to be the same.

In some ways it seem like some people are afraid of Mormons, afraid they will be converted or something. I really don’t know - it’s strange.

 

[cothrige]

The Catholic Church used to be anti-Semitic for most of its history.

Ridiculous. Many in the Church were anti-semitic, yes. But the Church has never been anti-semitic. Christ is a Jew, and to be anti-semitic, is to be anti-christ. There is no doctrine of anti-semitism in the Church, and therefore the Church has never been anti-semitic.

They sent crusaders during the Middle Ages to kill and murder innocent Muslims in the Holy Land.

That is a lie. The crusaders were never sent to kill innocent people, but to regain Christian lands lost to the Islamic hordes. Where could you possibly get such detestable “facts” as to say that people were sent intentionally to kill the innocent? Your entire position here is just bigotry. The Muslims who attack and conquer Christian nations are “innocent” but the people who defend themselves are guilty of “murder.” I hope you never server on any juries in a self-defense case.

Now they realize that was a mistake. The last Pope even went so far as to appologize for them. If you wanted to explore the past and dig up old graves, you will find a lot more skeletons in Catholic cupboards than in Mormon ones.

zerinus

Balderdash. He never said any such thing. He, meaning Pope John Paul II, did apologise to the Orthodox in Greece with these words:

*For occasions past and present when the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church have sinned by actions and omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters, may the Lord grant us the forgiveness we beg of Him.

Pope John Paul II, in Athens May 2001​

*

He probably intended to include here the sacking of Constantinople during the Fourth Crusade, but he certainly doesn’t apologise for the Church or for the Crusades themselves. He never mentions them. He only apologises for the sins of Catholics against the Orthodox, and that is pretty general.

On 12 March 2000 he also said this:

We cannot fail to recognize the infidelities to the Gospel committed by some of our brethren, especially during the second millennium. Let us ask pardon for the divisions which have occurred among Christians, for the violence some have used in the service of the truth and for the distrustful and hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions.

Again, no mention of the Crusades, or “innocent Muslims.” He only asks pardon for sins, including “hostile attitudes sometimes taken toward the followers of other religions.” That may include certain acts during the Crusades, such as the sacking of Constantinople or other such events, but there is apology for the Crusades at all. Pope John Paul II has never, that I have ever found, said that the Crusades were wrong, unwarranted, or evil. And he never apologised for them. That is a myth, just as are the Crusades themselves, as understood by people such as yourself.

 

[why_me]

Being a Catholic, I am often appalled by my fellow Catholics in regards to their reactions to Mormons. It’s amazing, because I all the Mormons I have known have been very kind and intelligent people, and on this forum, most seem to be the same.

In some ways it seem like some people are afraid of Mormons, afraid they will be converted or something. I really don’t know - it’s strange.

If you would read the comments beneath the newspaper article posted by the OP, you will be amazed at the hatred. Just post onto the link and read the comments from the readers. It is truly amazing…the hatred toward the lds church.

 

[zerinus]

These are very good points, Zerinus. Actually most Protestants were very anti-Catholic, especially during the time that Joseph Smith started his church.

Many of them are still anti-Catholic. The Evangelical / Calvinist / Southern Baptist variety are still very much anti-Catholic.

(well, actually the whole New Testament is pretty anti-Semitic!)

I wouldn’t agree with that one. I don’t think that the New Testament is anti-Semitic.

I thought that article was interesting, because it shows that really, originally, LDS had no problem with the symbol of the cross.

The problem with that article is that they still don’t!

And now today, younger Mormons are recognizing that they don’t have a problem with it either.

I don’t think they have ever had! Not feeling the need to use or wear it does not translate into having a problem with it. I don’t wear a cross, and I don’t see any reason why I should want to. But that does not mean that I have a “problem” with it. I do have a problem with that article though. I think that that “thesis” is an artificial one. It is not genuine. He has artificially created a “thesis,” and then forced his facts to fit into his paradigm. Not terribly clever.

zerinus

 

[cothrige]

zerinus;5151987:

The LDS Church’s past anti-Catholic sentiments has now been recognized as a mistake.

zerinus

Does this mean that the Mormon church has given up it’s Apostacy-Restoration dichotomy?

That is the part of Mormonism that Catholics find the most offensive, the statement that the Catholic church became so corrupt and “apostate” that the Holy Spirit was withdrawn from the Church, and the church “died” until it could be “restored” back into existence by Joseph Smith.

But, our belief that Christ is God offends Muslims and Jews. Does that make it anti-semitic? This is an absurd position to take. Anti-catholicism, and other such ideologies, are wrong because they are bigotted, not because people are offended by them. People are offended by many things people believe, but that has no bearing on whether the belief is itself hateful, racist, or such. Bigotry is about the motive of the speaker, not the sensitivity of the hearer.

Until that doctrine is removed I see little hope for LDS/Catholic discussion.

You should consider that this is a discussion forum, not an official oecumenical or interfaith body. We are talking as members of our communities, and doing so in order to discuss, debate and learn. In that context I think these discussion are very “hopeful.”

 

[zerinus]

Being a Catholic, I am often appalled by my fellow Catholics in regards to their reactions to Mormons. It’s amazing, because I all the Mormons I have known have been very kind and intelligent people, and on this forum, most seem to be the same.

In some ways it seem like some people are afraid of Mormons, afraid they will be converted or something. I really don’t know - it’s strange.

I repeat what I said in another post. These folks are not genuine Catholics. Most of them are Mormon apostates who have opted for Catholicism as a suitable platform from which to bash Mormonism. They no more believe in Catholicism than they believe in Mormonism. They tend to congregate in places such as these, and they shout louder than anybody else, and so they exert a disproportionate influence. Anybody coming here would think that all Catholics are like that, which of course is not the case. The vast majority of Catholics are honest, decent, fair-minded people. They give the rest of Catholics a bad name. They only thing that keeps them alive is that other people (especially Mormons) reply to them. If they were ignored they would soon die away.

zerinus