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

[dianaiad]

This is actually a misunderstanding on your part. Catholics do NOT get a “church approved divorce.”

I know. What they get is an annulment. That’s the point.

A declaration of nullity (I believe is the correct term) is what is granted when it has been determined that there was no marriage to begin with.

i.e.There was never a marriage to begin with. So that means that no divorce is being “granted.” The “divorce,” when applying for this declaration, is a civil divorce, i.e. a legal divorce in the eyes of the law. Not church law.

How that is determined is is dependent on each case. Regardless, it looks as if you have your own misconceptions and misunderstandings about the Catholic church.

 

[GodIsGracious]

I know. What they get is an annulment. That’s the point.

Well, no. They don’t “get” anything. It is determined that the marriage never existed. How can you “get” something from what never existed? That’s what “null” means. It is DECLARED that the marriage is null, i.e. it never existed.

This is important. Because you are going around telling people that Catholics have a “Catholic divorce” or a “church approved divorce” when that is not correct. There is NO SUCH THING as “church approved divorce.”

If you want us to get your beliefs correct, get OUR beliefs correct.

 

[Jerusha]

I just noticed this. Would you care to show me what deaths were on the OTHER side in this incident? Say, within a decade on either side of the mob attack on Carthage Jail?

Just a quick response, simply because I am tired of your ravings. Why don’t you do a search yourself? Only one word need suffice. “Danite” will do it. But, of course, you won’t, even though many Mopologists admit that they existed.

 

[cothrige]

In fact, the only difference between the Catholic position on abortion and the Mormon position on abortion is that we don’t weasel out of calling it one when one is required. YOU might call it ‘a necessary medical procedure to save the life of the mother that incidentally results in the death of the fetus,’ but when that medical procedure is required specifically because the woman is pregnant and her life is endangered BY that pregnancy, then there is no getting around the fact that we are ending one life in order to save another one.

I am not terribly familiar with the LDS position regarding induced abortions, and so I won’t suggest that you or your Church are not pro-life. I will assume that they are. However, you have continued to misstate the Catholic position badly. I will repeat the clarification for your benefit.

We Catholics are not engaging in double-talk or avoiding the facts. When Catholics speak of abortion we are talking about the wilful terminating of the life of the foetus as an end in itself, which is the sin of abortion. Not all abortions are the sin of abortion, and that is what the Church is concerned with. Sin is a wilful act, not an unavoidable outcome. It speaks of intent and motive. If people die in a traffic accident they are not necessarily murdered. Driving was not a sin. The Church, regardless of how many people die in such collisions every year, does not teach that people should not drive. Sin is the issue.

 

[cothrige]

I have no idea why such would be considered a medical necessity. From what little I do know, the only time such a thing is done is during a late term ‘partial birth’ abortion, and the purpose is to make it easier to expel the fetus.

As I understand it the purpose is not to ease the delivery. That is stopped in the middle, with the baby still partially in the canal, and then the baby’s brains are removed. It makes nothing easier for the mother, and puts extra stress on her. She carries out a full vaginal delivery, only it takes longer than usual in order to kill the baby. The only reason they ever happen is to terminate the life of the child, not to help the mother.

So…what part of ‘we don’t agree with late term abortions’ or ‘partial birth abortions’ seems to be unclear?

I am perfectly comfortable accepting that we agree on late term abortions. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I was simly clarifying that abortions and induced abortions are not equivalent. An abortion may happen, but that doesn’t mean was was induced. There is no sin in the former, but there may be in the latter. It is very possible that we are just understanding the words being used by each other slightly differently. You may be thinking in terms of medical terminology, where we are focussing on moral terminology.

 

[dianaiad]

Just a quick response, simply because I am tired of your ravings. Why don’t you do a search yourself? Only one word need suffice. “Danite” will do it. But, of course, you won’t, even though many Mopologists admit that they existed.

Jerusha, you made the claim. You prove it. Give me one instance of murders committed by Mormons within a decade either side of the Carthage killings.

That’s not ‘raving.’ that’s a simple question.

And, just perhaps, you should get your information about Danites from someone other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He wrote fiction.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, no. They don’t “get” anything. It is determined that the marriage never existed. How can you “get” something from what never existed? That’s what “null” means. It is DECLARED that the marriage is null, i.e. it never existed.

This is important. Because you are going around telling people that Catholics have a “Catholic divorce” or a “church approved divorce” when that is not correct. There is NO SUCH THING as “church approved divorce.”

If you want us to get your beliefs correct, get OUR beliefs correct.

I did; isince Catholics do not divorce, it was an apt comparison of how difficult it is for an LDS woman to obtain permission to get an abortion for any but the most life saving reasons. It was NOT a claim that Catholics divorce; it was like claiming that, oh, it’s as easy to walk on water as it is to flap your arms and fly. Since flapping your arms to fly is not only unproductive and highly improbable (if not outright impossible) then by comparison, it’s not going to be easy to walk on water, either. As far as I am aware, only one or two have accomplished the water walking thing…and one of THEM started to sink.

As to your objection here, my apologies. Perhaps it would have been better to write “a declaration of annulment” or something? The thing is, “annulment” MEANS “it never was.” I am aware of this, and so would a reader be.

 

[Jerusha]

Like I said, if you really wanted to know, you would do your own research.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He wrote fiction.

So did Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, and Solomon Spalding. Except Solomon Spalding had a bit of historicity in his original version. We now call it a “historical novel”— fiction based on actual events.

 

[dianaiad]

I am not terribly familiar with the LDS position regarding induced abortions, and so I won’t suggest that you or your Church are not pro-life. I will assume that they are. However, you have continued to misstate the Catholic position badly. I will repeat the clarification for your benefit.

We Catholics are not engaging in double-talk or avoiding the facts. When Catholics speak of abortion we are talking about the wilful terminating of the life of the foetus as an end in itself, which is the sin of abortion. Not all abortions are the sin of abortion, and that is what the Church is concerned with. Sin is a wilful act, not an unavoidable outcome. It speaks of intent and motive. If people die in a traffic accident they are not necessarily murdered. Driving was not a sin. The Church, regardless of how many people die in such collisions every year, does not teach that people should not drive. Sin is the issue.

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

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.

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.

 

[dianaiad]

As I understand it the purpose is not to ease the delivery. That is stopped in the middle, with the baby still partially in the canal, and then the baby’s brains are removed. It makes nothing easier for the mother, and puts extra stress on her. She carries out a full vaginal delivery, only it takes longer than usual in order to kill the baby. The only reason they ever happen is to terminate the life of the child, not to help the mother.

I am perfectly comfortable accepting that we agree on late term abortions. I wasn’t suggesting otherwise. I was simly clarifying that abortions and induced abortions are not equivalent. An abortion may happen, but that doesn’t mean was was induced. There is no sin in the former, but there may be in the latter. It is very possible that we are just understanding the words being used by each other slightly differently. You may be thinking in terms of medical terminology, where we are focussing on moral terminology.

What you describe is anathema to us…and that is something that is annoying me to no end: YOU are not guilty of this, but others who have addressed this issue in this forum seem to believe that anybody who would accept an abortion in any circumstance at all (including saving the life of the mother when the child is doomed anyway) is, therefore, OK with scenarios such as you describe.

Very few people are, y’know.

 

[Sunstone]

Jerusha, you made the claim. You prove it. Give me one instance of murders committed by Mormons within a decade either side of the Carthage killings.

That’s not ‘raving.’ that’s a simple question.

And, just perhaps, you should get your information about Danites from someone other than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He wrote fiction.

Are you being genuine here? In referring to the troubles of 1838, BYU Professor William Hartley has said that:

“There is no question that Latter-day Saint rangers burned buildings at Millport and Gallatin… It is certain that some Danites played the thief, and it is possible, although unproven, that one or two were murderers.” (My Best For the Kingdom, p. 69).

If you go outside of your convenient, 10 year window, there is Mormon on non-Mormon violence a-plenty.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Are you being genuine here? In referring to the troubles of 1838, BYU Professor William Hartley has said that:

“There is no question that Latter-day Saint rangers burned buildings at Millport and Gallatin… It is certain that some Danites played the thief, and it is possible, although unproven, that one or two were murderers.” (My Best For the Kingdom, p. 69).

If you go outside of your convenient, 10 year window, there is Mormon on non-Mormon violence a-plenty.

I think Dianaiad has you on this one. She said **prove **there were murders. Clearly the above states there were unproven murders.

 

[Finrock]

Are you being genuine here? In referring to the troubles of 1838, BYU Professor William Hartley has said that:

“There is no question that Latter-day Saint rangers burned buildings at Millport and Gallatin… It is certain that some Danites played the thief, and it is possible, although unproven, that one or two were murderers.” (My Best For the Kingdom, p. 69).

If you go outside of your convenient, 10 year window, there is Mormon on non-Mormon violence a-plenty.

Hello Sunstone. I’m glad to meet you and welcome to the forums! I hope you are doing well today.

I haven’t been intensely following the line of discussion that dianaiad has been taking part in, but I did notice that dianaiad made the claim of “no murder”, within the 10 year window, and not the claim of “no violence”, which is the subject you ended your post with. Perhaps by “no murder”, dianaiad meant “no violence” as well, but at least going off of her (I’m assuming dianaiad is a girl) words alone, she didn’t claim that there was no Mormon to non-Mormon violence within that 10 year window.

In any case, I don’t think there is any reason to question her sincerity. Perhaps she is just mistaken about the “no murder” claim? Is there anything other than unproven possibilities of murder that would indicate otherwise? I would be curious to know.

Thank you in advance if you take the time to read and respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

 

[Jerusha]

Thomas sharp mentions Danites here:

sidneyrigdon.com/dbroadhu/IL/sign1844.htm
And talks of mysterious deaths, which he tracked to the lawless element in Nauvoo, and perhaps mistakenly holds JS responsible.

Danites are here:
1857massacre.com/MMM/danites_index.htm

And here:
jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Missouri.shtml

And here:
fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Nauvoo_Legion

And here:
mormoncurtain.com/topic_danites.html

And here:
www2.ida.net/graphics/shirtail/wildbill.htm

And here:
realmormonhistory.com/Real%20Life%20Mormon%20Experiences.htm

You are FREE to do your own research. I notice that many of the sources are church-approved reading material.

 

[Jerusha]

No, Finrock, Sunstone, Parker. She is absolutely convinced that no Mormon has ever done any wrong. She has done this before, a long time ago. You deal with her.

 

[Sunstone]

Hello Sunstone. I’m glad to meet you and welcome to the forums! I hope you are doing well today.

I haven’t been intensely following the line of discussion that dianaiad has been taking part in, but I did notice that dianaiad made the claim of “no murder”, within the 10 year window, and not the claim of “no violence”, which is the subject you ended your post with. Perhaps by “no murder”, dianaiad meant “no violence” as well, but at least going off of her (I’m assuming dianaiad is a girl) words alone, she didn’t claim that there was no Mormon to non-Mormon violence within that 10 year window.

In any case, I don’t think there is any reason to question her sincerity. Perhaps she is just mistaken about the “no murder” claim? Is there anything other than unproven possibilities of murder that would indicate otherwise? I would be curious to know.

Thank you in advance if you take the time to read and respond to my post.

Kind Regards,
Finrock

My question about genuineness comes from the fact that the well-known Mountain Meadows massacre is just outside of the 10-year window (in 1857). And while I don’t know of “proof” of murder during the 10-year window, it’s no secret that the Danites were up to no good and could have murdered during that period (which the BYU professor acknowledges).

There’s also the issue of the Mormon’s relative isolation once they left Nauvoo and before they were well-established in Utah.

So I guess I’m saying that the 10-year window seems arbitrary, and in a self-serving way.

I meant no offense.

 

[zaffiroborant]

She mourns the loss of that first baby now…but she understands, as do her parents and the church, that there was no choice at the time—and the sin is on the head of the rapist.

this is not ‘condoning murder.’ It is…placing the blame of the murder on the head of the one who is responsible; the rapist.

While the rapist’s sins may be compounded or added to in some way by the mother’s action she is still guilty of the sin of murder not him.

 

[Finrock]

My question about genuineness comes from the fact that the well-known Mountain Meadows massacre is just outside of the 10-year window (in 1857).

I gotcha.

And while I don’t know of “proof” of murder during the 10-year window, it’s no secret that the Danites were up to no good and could have murdered during that period (which the BYU professor acknowledges).

There’s also the issue of the Mormon’s relative isolation once they left Nauvoo and before they were well-established in Utah.

So I guess I’m saying that the 10-year window seems arbitrary, and in a self-serving way.

I meant no offense.

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

 

[why_me]

Maybe I can shed some light here. The turning point came with Rigdon’s Salt Sermon which was given on June 19th 1838 against church member apostacy. This speech more or less gave birth to the Danites which were formed to enforce orthodoxy. Joseph made a short speech which seemed to sanction what Ridgon said.

The second speech however by Rigdon was the most militant. It was given on july 4th 1838 This speech was geared away from dissenters and more toward the gentile population which were persecuting the members. In that speech, he declared that violence would be met by violence and that the lds will now defend themselves in a war of extermination. This led to the mormon war. The mormons lost and ceased hostilities with the mobs and missouri militia when the Haun Hill Massacre occurred where mormon women and children were murdered by missouri militia and mobs.

Forever afterwards, Rigdon was assiociated with militant mormonism and his power waned among the mormons. He never really recovered from it.

 

[Daedelus76]

Family is very important in Mormon religion, you are right, but there is more to it than just that. Eternal Life, or Celestial glory, isn’t attained by merely wishing for it.

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.

standard slur noted.

We do not flee. We deeply respect. We don’t wear jewelry made into crosses.

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.