Questions for Mormons..

[why_me]

yeah well i have a frekkn fly abusing and harrassing me…

aaaaaaaaagggghhh…of all the darn things in the house why does it KEEP landing on me…

A fly is a fly…the poor thing is just acting like a fly. Now Religio is I believe is a human being who claims to be catholic. True, he knows doctrine…but if a person says that they find his pasting and reposting their posts without comment but with underlines abusive and that person chooses to ignore it, and continues to do it, well…is that person a devout catholic or just someone who knows doctrine but behaves like a fly?

 

[Charlotte408]

A fly is a fly…the poor thing is just acting like a fly. Now Religio is I believe is a human being who claims to be catholic. True, he knows doctrine…but if a person says that they find his pasting and reposting their posts without comment but with underlines abusive and that person chooses to ignore it, and continues to do it, well…is that person a devout catholic or just someone who knows doctrine but behaves like a fly?

lmbo…im so sorry i couldnt help myself…

lol… i luv yewwwwww…lol…

 

[Religio71]

lmbo…im so sorry i couldnt help myself…

lol… i luv yewwwwww…lol…

case in point right? LOL. I’ll respond to your PM soon.

Also, one word come’s to mind when reading why me’s “Catholic” posts: orthodoxy. Not whether someone is copying and pasting posts, which is some how…abusive, LOL.

Also welcome back to the Catholic Church!

 

[Religio71]

Read the confession of John D. Lee. The same men who murdered at Mountain Meadows are the same who had been practicing “blood atonement”, with the murder of Rasmus Anderson. It was rumored that some in the Fancher-Baker party were responsible for the murder of Smith. Blood atonement, for Smith’s death, was one of the reasons given to massacre the entire company of men, women and children.

“Earth must atone for the blood of that man”

And Brigham Young was by no means preaching peace.

Why me’s response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an example of blood atonement is:

“Mormons are not perfect then and now”. Also “Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined.”

WAY to avoid whether Mountain Meadows was an example of blood atonement.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Why me’s response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an example of blood atonement is:

“Mormons are not perfect then and now”. Also “Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined.”

WAY to avoid whether Mountain Meadows was an example of blood atonement.

I didn’t read his response. Since his few days of personal tirades against me, he is the second person I have ever put on ignore.

At any rate. These sort of “defenses” say to me that the BY doctrine of blood atonement was justified because of a, b and c.

 

[twopekinguys]

Why me’s response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an example of blood atonement is:

“Mormons are not perfect then and now”. Also “Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined.”

WAY to avoid whether Mountain Meadows was an example of blood atonement.

And this suprises you how??:whacky:

 

[Gethsemane]

Quote: Randy Carson
“Do Jesus and the Heavenly Father have the same nature?”

Quote: ParkerD
“Yes, as resurrected Beings with the “substance” of being God, They have the same nature. They both have perfect bodies with tangible presence. Man was created in the actual “image” of God the Father.”

Forgive me if you’ve already addressed this which is likely true, but I’m slightly confused.

You said that God and Jesus were both resurrected which would indicate that they both died. How can the be that God died?

 

[Religio71]

And this suprises you how??:whacky:

So true. I need to go back to only responding to real Mormons and Catholics, and I guess he would do well to only respond to real Catholics, since I’m not, especially because of my abusive copy and pasting…

 

[dianaiad]

case in point right? LOL. I’ll respond to your PM soon.

Also, one word come’s to mind when reading why me’s “Catholic” posts: orthodoxy. Not whether someone is copying and pasting posts, which is some how…abusive, LOL.

Also welcome back to the Catholic Church!

Oh, I don’t think that doing the cut and paste thing without comment is abusive. It is, however, confusing. Not so much when you do it (Ok, I’m being nice, it’s confusing when you do it too…) but when it is done by others, I am left wondering what the )(*(& POINT is.

But that could just be me. After all, I figure that if I wrote the thing in the first place, the meaning of it isn’t going to change for me just because someone else reposts it and underlines a sentence or two.

(shrug)

Never mind. If you think it’s fun, have fun. What P’O"S ME is when this is done…and the quotes used are taken entirely out of context. THAT really frosts me, and as far as I am aware, you haven’t done that, at least.

Diana

 

[Religio71]

Quote: Randy Carson
“Do Jesus and the Heavenly Father have the same nature?”

Quote: ParkerD
“Yes, as resurrected Beings with the “substance” of being God, They have the same nature. They both have perfect bodies with tangible presence. Man was created in the actual “image” of God the Father.”

Forgive me if you’ve already addressed this which is likely true, but I’m slightly confused.

You said that God and Jesus were both resurrected which would indicate that they both died. How can the be that God died?

There isn’t much known about God the Father’s life on a similar world as this. It is sufficient in LDS thought to believe that in Jesus’ only doing what He saw the Father do, that includes the earthly life. Also, many LDS emphasize that, just as how Jesus did not give up His divinity to incarnate, we don’t have to assume that if the Father incarnated similarly, He also didn’t necessarily give up His divinity. This is what some refer to as an “infinite regression of Gods”, since if God the Father incarnated as Jesus Christ did, He could be assumed to also have had a Father, who had a Father, etc.

 

[twopekinguys]

I didn’t read his response. Since his few days of personal tirades against me, he is the second person I have ever put on ignore.

At any rate. These sort of “defenses” say to me that the BY doctrine of blood atonement was justified because of a, b and c.

After his attack on me/us, I have nothing further to say to him either.

 

[Religio71]

Oh, I don’t think that doing the cut and paste thing without comment is abusive. It is, however, confusing. Not so much when you do it (Ok, I’m being nice, it’s confusing when you do it too…) but when it is done by others, I am left wondering what the )(*(& POINT is.

But that could just be me. After all, I figure that if I wrote the thing in the first place, the meaning of it isn’t going to change for me just because someone else reposts it and underlines a sentence or two.

(shrug)

Never mind. If you think it’s fun, have fun. What P’O"S ME is when this is done…and the quotes used are taken entirely out of context. THAT really frosts me, and as far as I am aware, you haven’t done that, at least.

Diana

Thank you diana. No, I don’t take anything he says out of context, I post the entirety of his message. The point is to show the nature of his view against Catholics and Catholicism, and how for a Catholic (who varying claims to be both LDS and Catholic, or formerly LDS and now getting back into Catholicism), he puts down Catholicism in many subtle and not so subtle ways. For example, asking an evangelical her views on the Catholic Church, which I can already see will be part of some “point” he’ll make about Catholics vs. LDS.

Sorry if it’s confusing , I’m usually just highlighting or bolding some sort of hypocrisy or illogical statement in his posts.

 

[twopekinguys]

Oh, I don’t think that doing the cut and paste thing without comment is abusive. It is, however, confusing. Not so much when you do it (Ok, I’m being nice, it’s confusing when you do it too…) but when it is done by others, I am left wondering what the )(*(& POINT is.

But that could just be me. After all, I figure that if I wrote the thing in the first place, the meaning of it isn’t going to change for me just because someone else reposts it and underlines a sentence or two.

(shrug)

Never mind. If you think it’s fun, have fun. What P’O"S ME is when this is done…and the quotes used are taken entirely out of context. THAT really frosts me, and as far as I am aware, you haven’t done that, at least.

Diana

Huh?

LOL…just kidding.

 

[dianaiad]

Why me’s response to the Mountain Meadows Massacre as an example of blood atonement is:

“Mormons are not perfect then and now”. Also “Many Mormon settlers vividly remembered the hardships of being forcibly (and violently) expelled from Missouri and Illinois, and were resolved not to be driven from their homes again. The mood in the territory was grim and determined.”

WAY to avoid whether Mountain Meadows was an example of blood atonement.

It was not an example of ‘blood atonement’ in any way, nor can even the worst of the anti-Mormons argue, logically, that it is. I mean, they DO, but not *logically. *

Consider; blood atonement, as presented by Rebecca et.al (I am not claiming that this is what blood atonement is; I’m noting that this is what our enemies claim it is) is about sinners having to shed their own blood in atonement for certain specific sins. She would have you believe that this includes murder, adultery, breaking Temple covenants…and so forth. The point is, even to Rebecca and the anti’s, that the SINNER has to bleed—and that the sinner has to be Mormon in the first place. By no stretch of the imagination has anybody ever come up with the merest whisper of an accusation that this was done to non-Mormons, or to Mormons who weren’t quite aware of what was happening.

So the MMM…the Fanchers were stupid, but that’s not a sin. It’s certainly not on anybody’s list of ‘blood atonement’ sins. Nor were they Mormon; far from it. They did some rather assinine mouthing off against the Mormons, threatening to send the militia up from California to attack them once they made it through the territory.

Think about it. If you were a small group of Americans wandering through the mountains of Afghanistan, would you stop and tell a bunch of Taliban leaders who are preparing to fend of the UN combined force attack that if they didn’t sell you their family’s food and supplies, that you would stop at the nearest American base and send reinforcements against them? I mean, really—WOULD you?. And no, I don’t want to hear comparisons of Mormonism and the Taliban; that would be an extremely cheap and inaccurate shot. However, it has to be said that the FANCHERS thought they were facing a very similar group (they had been traveling with group of men who bragged for weeks about how they had murdered Mormons and how horrible they were), and to be sure the Mormons KNEW they were facing an imminent attack by the US army…and they had no idea why. They were already putting a ‘scorched earth’ policy in place. So,there was an army coming after them, the Fanchers DID threaten to send the California militia up so that the Mormons would be fighting two forces…not good.

So, if you were in the Fancher group, wouldn’t you have been a bit more circumspect? They had been, after all, warned not to go.

What happened to the Fanchers was wrong. It was a massacre, a tragedy, a crime. It is a very black mark on our history. But it was not ‘blood atonement.’ It was scared men who’d had enough, and who formed a mob–in direct disobedience to the orders of Brigham Young. "Blood atonement’ was about allowing a sinner to atone for something that cannot be atoned for any other way. the MMM was about fear, and about murder.

 

[twopekinguys]

It was not an example of ‘blood atonement’ in any way, nor can even the worst of the anti-Mormons argue, logically, that it is. I mean, they DO, but not *logically. *

Consider; blood atonement, as presented by Rebecca et.al (I am not claiming that this is what blood atonement is; I’m noting that this is what our enemies claim it is) is about sinners having to shed their own blood in atonement for certain specific sins. She would have you believe that this includes murder, adultery, breaking Temple covenants…and so forth. The point is, even to Rebecca and the anti’s, that the SINNER has to bleed—and that the sinner has to be Mormon in the first place. By no stretch of the imagination has anybody ever come up with the merest whisper of an accusation that this was done to non-Mormons, or to Mormons who weren’t quite aware of what was happening.

So the MMM…the Fanchers were stupid, but that’s not a sin. It’s certainly not on anybody’s list of ‘blood atonement’ sins. Nor were they Mormon; far from it. They did some rather assinine mouthing off against the Mormons, threatening to send the militia up from California to attack them once they made it through the territory.

Think about it. If you were a small group of Americans wandering through the mountains of Afghanistan, would you stop and tell a bunch of Taliban leaders who are preparing to fend of the UN combined force attack that if they didn’t sell you their family’s food and supplies, that you would stop at the nearest American base and send reinforcements against them? I mean, really—WOULD you?. And no, I don’t want to hear comparisons of Mormonism and the Taliban; that would be an extremely cheap and inaccurate shot. However, it has to be said that the FANCHERS thought they were facing a very similar group (they had been traveling with group of men who bragged for weeks about how they had murdered Mormons and how horrible they were), and to be sure the Mormons KNEW they were facing an imminent attack by the US army…and they had no idea why. They were already putting a ‘scorched earth’ policy in place. So,there was an army coming after them, the Fanchers DID threaten to send the California militia up so that the Mormons would be fighting two forces…not good.

So, if you were in the Fancher group, wouldn’t you have been a bit more circumspect? They had been, after all, warned not to go.

What happened to the Fanchers was wrong. It was a massacre, a tragedy, a crime. It is a very black mark on our history. But it was not ‘blood atonement.’ It was scared men who’d had enough, and who formed a mob–in direct disobedience to the orders of Brigham Young. "Blood atonement’ was about allowing a sinner to atone for something that cannot be atoned for any other way. the MMM was about fear, and about murder.

Ok, let me catch up here.

If a person commits one of these heinous sins. The only way to atone for it is through his own death? There isn’t any salvation through Christ on the Cross?

 

[RebeccaJ]

In his confession, Lee included a statement that Brigham Young taught that all those who had passed through the endowment were placed under a sacred obligation to avenge the blood of Joseph Smith.

The rumor of the Fancher party having participants in the murder of Joseph Smith was just that, a rumor, but this oath played a part in the decision to massacre over 140 people.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ok, let me catch up here.

If a person commits one of these heinous sins. The only way to atone for it is through his own death? There isn’t any salvation through Christ on the Cross?

Exactly.

 

[Religio71]

Ok, let me catch up here.

If a person commits one of these heinous sins. The only way to atone for it is through his own death? There isn’t any salvation through Christ on the Cross?

Here are some descriptions of blood atonement, including one from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/history/blood_atonement_eom.htm

"The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior’s sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ."

 

[twopekinguys]

Here are some descriptions of blood atonement, including one from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

lightplanet.com/mormons/response/history/blood_atonement_eom.htm

"The doctrines of the Church affirm that the Atonement wrought by the shedding of the blood of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is efficacious for the sins of all who believe, repent, are baptized by one having authority, and receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands. However, if a person thereafter commits a grievous sin such as the shedding of innocent blood, the Savior’s sacrifice alone will not absolve the person of the consequences of the sin. Only by voluntarily submitting to whatever penalty the Lord may require can that person benefit from the Atonement of Christ."

OK, so a person like…John Wayne Gacey, would be in a fry or fly situation then right?

Although, as I understand it, lds believe in outer darkness, so it would be light or night.

I know, bad jokes…it’s the pain medicine, I promise.

Now, 2 more questions.

1. Is this belief part of doctrine now, or was it at one time?
2. Can a proxy baptism take care of this for the individual (assuming they accept it)?

 

[dianaiad]

Ok, let me catch up here.

If a person commits one of these heinous sins. The only way to atone for it is through his own death? There isn’t any salvation through Christ on the Cross?

(sigh)

Remember, I didn’t present the idea of ‘blood atonement’ as it actually is. I presented it as REbecca and the anti’s pretend it is. The two presentations are not the same. I presented theirs in order to show that even by THEIR measure of it, the MMM doesn’t qualify as 'blood atonement."

I believe that in order to avail oneself of Christ’s Atonement, one must repent, and accept it. Repentance involves acknowledging the sin, feeling remorse, providing restitution as far as it can be done, asking forgiveness from whoever you sinned against, and not repeating the sin. I believe that as a Catholic you might be more familiar with the idea of confession and penance than a few other Christians who have a sort of ‘instant purity’ sort of thing going on, or worse, a sort of ‘get out of hell free’ card.

There is no sin under the sun that one can commit that one cannot, somehow, make restitution for, at least partially, except—ending a life. How DO you repent of that? What restitution can you possibly make?

Oh, you can do great things…for other people. You can spend your life saving other lives. You can be the most perfect person that ever lived (short of Jesus Himself) and it doesn’t matter; you cannot provide restitution to the person you harmed…that person is out of your reach. You cannot ask him for forgiveness. You cannot, no matter how worthily you spend the rest of your life, make up for the life you ended. After all, you are SUPPOSED to live your life worthily anyway; you have just made it impossible for your victim to do so.

Now you know that you can (as a Catholic) confess and do penance all day and all night, but without Christ’s Atonement, it would not be enough. It is as impossible for us to be perfect here on earth as it is for an infant to dress himself, no matter how hard he tries.

So how IS a murderer to access that Atoning sacrifice? By offering up his own life. I don’t know if it is required that it actually be taken…but he has to be willing to offer it…and it has to be done according to law and judgment.