J
News Article: Mormon aversion to the cross due to the anti-Catholicism of their leaders
- Status
P
ParkerD
Guest
Rebecca,
I understand your point, but a person thinking about the “poor” ought to think about long-term implications, not just the very short term.
An investment of $1.5 billion seems very large to me, but if the net present value of the return on that investment is, say $20 billion, then guess what? The “poor” living around Salt Lake City can count on better conditions near where they live, and the “poor” in other places around the world can continue to have opportunities for wheelchair programs, vision programs, relief during disasters including blankets, tents, food and water, well-drilling programs, and so forth, including an expansion of those programs.
P
pipper
Guest
That is only if the Mormon church actually spend that income on the poor, but if they plow that money into more real estate ventures aimed at the wealthy it will do little.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Pipper,
Good point. But the malls were in a condition that was going to require extensive investment anyway, so this project is a one-time, one-place project. It enhances the area around it, encourages other building investment by other entities because of that enhancement, besides which thousands of jobs are created both by the project itself and by those other entities which make building project investments. Those thousands of jobs involve many non-LDS as well as some LDS–I would guess more non-LDS than LDS.
But the ROI from the investment in the project just doesn’t seem to me to be headed toward “real estate ventures aimed at the wealthy”. Perhaps some general-benefit uses such as educational facilities. Or we may see the day when a more significant thrust toward welfare projects such as canneries are needed–I have no idea.
One thing I do know is that President Monson has had significant experience in the humanitarian relief and welfare needs where the LDS church has been involved over many, many years’ time throughout the world, and has been involved in direct leadership toward the increases in funding support in those areas. I think that he has been “raised up” as a leader for particular needs within our time.
D
dianaiad
Guest
Actually, people who have looked at the charges against him, both LDS and non–and especially non–pretty much agree that he would have been acquitted; that’s why the mob killed him.Trumped up, I suppose, is one way of twisting history.
Wow. Let’s see, Smith claims to everyone that no one in the community of Nauvoo is practicing polygmay. NO ONE. He makes doctrinal with an entry in your D&C. Problem is, there are people who know that he and others are. And that Smith has grand ideas to take over the US. THIS is what was printed by the Expositor. The truth of the polygamy that was being practiced and Smith’s “prophecies” that the Mormons were going to make a nice little theocracy out of the United States.
WHY do you think Smith ordered the press destroyed?
The charge of treason was added because of Smith’s actions.
No one here is in support of murder. But claiming the anger at Smith & Co was over a printing press is white washing history to the extreme.
Yeah, it would be pretty incredible if that’s all it were about. And Diana, such language.
Smith would have come up with something on his own. His actions, one after the other, were anything but what happens in a civil society.
I agree. He should have gone to trial and have been sent to prison. Mormonism would then be without their “martyr” and only have to show what he truly was: a criminal.
But Rebecca, you are spending a great deal of time here defending what the mob did, as if it were acceptable.
As to the Expositor, I notice that you didn’t address the issue of the assassination plot (very real) or the call to violence against the Mormons in that paper. It is true that the paper talked about polygamy. It is ALSO true that it called for violence against the Mormons.
It is also true that the excuse for Joseph’s arrest was the destruction of the printing press. He wasn’t arrested for anything else, and the charge of treason was added specifically and only to keep him from posting bond. The excuse for the charge of treason was that Joseph and the city council declared martial law in Nauvoo after the assassination plot against Joseph and the city council leaders…a charge that was ludicrous. However, since the charge of treason was a capital offense, the prisoners could not post bond.
In fact, Joseph Smith was the first person in US history to be charged with treason by a state…and only two other people have been charged with treason by a state since then. Neither case was remotely similar to Joseph’s. In fact, legal experts who have combed through Joseph’s legal history have determined that had he been brought to trial he would most certainly have been acquitted; if not by the first court, then by an appeal. Most of them have enough confidence in the legal system to believe that the judge would have thrown the case out before he even went to trial.
Evidently everyone around him thought the same thing, hence…the mob.
I’m sorry, but if anybody is twisting history here, it is…not me.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Amen, and mob violence is NEVER right.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
I agree that Satan is working to destroy God’s church. One could also make the case that the rise of Mormonism is part of that plan. 
C
Catholic20064
Guest
It’s definitely leading a lot of Catholics to hell unless they repent.I agree that Satan is working to destroy God’s church. One could also make the case that the rise of Mormonism is part of that plan.
M
Mike_Reed
Guest
Hello everyone. I am pleased to see all of the coverage my research is getting.
Let me just quickly agree with Zerinus’ point that there has always been anti-Catholic sentiment in the Church. This observation is not in conflict with my argument. My thesis reveals certain key factors explaining why the Mormon mainstream (dispite their anti-Catholic tendency) didn’t start having issues about the cross until around the turn of the 20th century (and before the aversion was institutionalized in the 1950s). The factors were 1) LDS involvement in Freemasonry which encouraged the use of the cross, 2) early LDS involvement in Folk-Magic which also promoted cross symbolism, and 3) The Pre-Columbian cross was understood by LDS as a validation of the BoM’s authenticity. Factors one and two largely became things of the past by the turn of the 20th century, and factor three was not strong enough to preserve the acceptance of the symbol when another wave of anti-Catholic tension hit the state of Utah particularly hard. It was at this time that Catholics were starting to establish a real presence in the state of Utah, and this new presence (along with conflicts with Catholics abroad) freaked a lot of Mormons out. The theory I propose and argue in my thesis is very complex. Although I think Peggy did a great job with the story she provided… I hope all here understand how impossible it would be to do justice to a complex argument that has a total pagination of 145pp. It can’t be done in such a short article.
Hopefully my thesis will be available soon, for all to read and judge for themselves how persuasive my arguments really are.
Let me just quickly agree with Zerinus’ point that there has always been anti-Catholic sentiment in the Church. This observation is not in conflict with my argument. My thesis reveals certain key factors explaining why the Mormon mainstream (dispite their anti-Catholic tendency) didn’t start having issues about the cross until around the turn of the 20th century (and before the aversion was institutionalized in the 1950s). The factors were 1) LDS involvement in Freemasonry which encouraged the use of the cross, 2) early LDS involvement in Folk-Magic which also promoted cross symbolism, and 3) The Pre-Columbian cross was understood by LDS as a validation of the BoM’s authenticity. Factors one and two largely became things of the past by the turn of the 20th century, and factor three was not strong enough to preserve the acceptance of the symbol when another wave of anti-Catholic tension hit the state of Utah particularly hard. It was at this time that Catholics were starting to establish a real presence in the state of Utah, and this new presence (along with conflicts with Catholics abroad) freaked a lot of Mormons out. The theory I propose and argue in my thesis is very complex. Although I think Peggy did a great job with the story she provided… I hope all here understand how impossible it would be to do justice to a complex argument that has a total pagination of 145pp. It can’t be done in such a short article.
Hopefully my thesis will be available soon, for all to read and judge for themselves how persuasive my arguments really are.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Actually, there was some sharing between Mormons and Catholics from the beginning.
In 1841 Jesuit missionary and explorer, Father Pierre-Jean de Smet, passed through the valley of Salt Lake on his way to Green River, Wyoming. This remarkable priest was, in the autumn of 1846, the guest of the Mormon leader, Brigham Young, who was wintering with his followers near Council Bluffs, preparing to enter the Great American Desert in the spring of 1847. As the Mormon president had not yet determined where he and his people would finally settle, he was greatly impressed with Father de Smet’s description of Salt Lake and Cache Valleys stretching away from the Wasatch Mountains. “They asked me a thousand questions about the regions I had explored”, writes the priest to his nephew, “and the valley which I have just described to you pleased them greatly from the account I gave them of it. Was this what determined them to settle there? I would not dare to affirm it. They are there!”
Early in June, 1866, Rev. Edward Kelly visited Salt Lake by request of Bishop O’Connell of Sacramento, who believed his jurisdiction extended over the entire State of Utah. Father Kelly offered up the Holy Sacrifice – the first Mass said in Salt Lake City – on the morning of 29 June, 1866, in the Assembly Hall of the Latter Day Saints, courteously placed at his disposal by the president, Brigham Young.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Am I? I think I’ve spent about 10 minutes, tops, replying to you in this thread. (Mormons seem to be so concerned about my time.)
I sure would like for you to show where, as there is no such thing. Perhaps you have forgotten that the people who printed the paper were Mormons.
You can second guess all you like. The fact is, Joseph Smith was preaching a “gospel” of uniting church and state, with himself the head of this grand idea. He was hostile towards anyone who denied him his megalomania.
Yeah, you are.
M
Mike_Reed
Guest
Yes. I know. Early Catholic presence in the State of Utah was minimal and therefore non-threatening to Mormons (which is why I qualified my remark as “real presence”. Things started to quickly change around the turn of the 20th century.
Reverend Patrick Walsh built the first Catholic chapel in the state of Utah in 1869, a few years later the small chapel was replaced by a larger brick church, and finally in 1887 “Catholicism [officially] entered Utah as an organized religion.” Naturally, this new Catholic
presence would have renewed the anxieties of some Saints who remained convinced that
the Church of Rome was the “Church of the Devil” and “Great Abominable.”
Especially troublesome, however, were Mormon and Catholic relations abroad.
LDS missionary work was very challenging in countries (such as France, Belgium, and
Italy) that were predominantly Catholic. The mission in Mexico even closed down in
1913, due to violence against Mormons living in Mexico and the Mexican revolution (1910-1917).
“The Mexican Saints were left alone to take care of themselves” when the
Mormon missionaries left, explain historians Donald Q. Cannon and Richard O. Cowan.
Just two years after their departure [1915]… the brutal forces of revolutionary
conflict and religious prejudice resulted in the murders of [Branch] President
Monroy and his cousin, Vincent Morales. As an excuse to persecute these new
Mormon converts, Monroy had been falsely accused of being a colonel in a rival
revolutionary faction.
The Catholic executioners told them, “Now, as one last chance, we tell you if you will
renounce your religion and confess before the Virgin Mary, we will spare your lives.”
Upon their refusal to deny the gospel that they had been converted to, Monroy and
Morales were shot and murdered.
As a result of conflicts with Catholics abroad (such as this), smaller conflicts with
Catholics in Utah had a tendency to get blown to greater proportions than otherwise
would have been the case.
P
ParkerD
Guest
Christine,
Thank you once again both for your kindness and for the insights you share that have helped me (and perhaps others) learn things I didn’t know. This is one example.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
Wow that’s a sad story. It sound like the war may have help to incite this incident. Were the Catholic executioners military men or priests? I know that religious persecution often gets inflamed by politics. A lot of Catholics in Japan were told to renounce the cross, and if not they were crucified.
M
Mike_Reed
Guest
Military men. I agree that it is sad. Of course, (like the embarrassing things that I mention about Mormonism in my thesis) this story isn’t mentioned to make Catholics look bad. It is merely given to provide proper historical context, to help readers understand why many Mormons had increased anxiety about Catholicism when the Cross aversion started developing in the Mormon mainstream around the turn of the 20th century.
C
CHRISTINE77
Guest
That’s very interesting. So you think that the anti-Catholic sentiment started when the missionaries went out to predominately Catholic countries and were treated badly?
Do you think this sentiment is still strong, or is there more sharing between Catholics and Mormons? I have heard that Mormons sometimes attend Catholic Mass (like on Christmas) and that the Mormon Tabernacle Choir sometimes sings in the Catholic Church in SLC.
M
Mike_Reed
Guest
It didn’t start then. As I explained in my first post in this thread, there was a tendency for early Mormons to buy into the anti-Catholic sentiment of the day. But conflict abroad (struggle with missionary work, violence during the war, etc) led to another wave of increased anti-Catholic tension in the state of Utah.
Right. Catholic relations are much better now than they used to be. Thanks to the embarrassment of Bruce R. McConkie’s Mormon Doctrine, the Church was motivated to reconsider popular anti-Catholic folk-doctrines. The institutionalized opposition to the cross (which had anti-Catholic basis) still remains, however. One might say that the Church still has some more pruning to do.
M
Mike_Reed
Guest
Well… I should probably sign out for now. Its a bummer, but there are other priorities that I need to attend to. I’ve enjoyed the discussion. Thanks to all, and I will see you around cyberspace!
Sincerely,
Mike reed
Sincerely,
Mike reed
Stephen168
New member
Yes, by their fruits you will know them.
Stephen168
New member
Considering they were killing priests, I would say it was the military
List of Clergy
Persecution_of_Christians_in_Mexico
- Status