This is not Christianity but great Apostasy.

[Imconfused]

Another example of LDS attempting to sanctify evil acts:

"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant…

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance… if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil… I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them…

“This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it… if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.” (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220)

This is extreme apostasy away from Christianity and an example of how Mormonism is nothing at all like Christianty. Blood Atonement for LDS is probably not practiced these days as it is actually murder. Even so, it is a fine example of a Church built on false foundations. In most major Christian religions, Christ and the New Testament is seen as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. And yet, one of LDS divine prophets has reversed this. Old Testament Mosaic type law is seen as fulfilling Christ’ s requirements for atonement for sin. More than that, it denies Christ in his role as Savior. Most of Christianity says
sins have already been atoned for by Christ’s Passion in the first place. However, Young is seeing a need for further atonement, apparently viewing the Atonement offered by Christ as inadequate.
Certain anti mormon sites view blood atonement as a convenient mode of elimination of the leader’s enemies. It is a way of attempting to sanctify an unholy deed of murder. Attempting to sanctify evil acts is, well, satanic.

 

[Jerusha]

Excellent. I already made reference to the Danites a few moments ago. The enforcing arm of the Mormon church-- historical fact, and an embarrassing and never openly repudiated part of Mormon doctrine, because to repudiate it would be to admit that it exists. The state of Utah still approves of the firing squad for the execution of murderers.

 

[BJ_Colbert]

Imconfused:

Another example of LDS attempting to sanctify evil acts:

"All mankind love themselves, and let these principles be known by an individual, and he would be glad to have his blood shed. That would be loving themselves, even unto an eternal exaltation. Will you love your brothers and sisters likewise, when they have committed a sin that cannot be atoned for without the shedding of their blood? Will you love that man or woman well enough to shed their blood? That is what Jesus Christ meant…

"I could refer you to plenty of instances where men have been righteously slain, in order to atone for their sins. I have seen scores and hundreds of people for whom there would have been a chance… if their lives had been taken and their blood spilled on the ground as a smoking incense to the Almighty, but who are now angels to the Devil… I have known a great many men who have left this Church for whom there is no chance whatever for exaltation, but if their blood had been spilled, it would have been better for them…

“This is loving our neighbor as ourselves; if he needs help, help him; and if he wants salvation and it is necessary to spill his blood on the earth in order that he may be saved, spill it… if you have sinned a sin requiring the shedding of blood, except the sin unto death, would not be satisfied nor rest until your blood should be spilled, that you might gain that salvation you desire. That is the way to love mankind.” (Sermon by President Brigham Young, delivered in the Mormon Tabernacle, February 8, 1857; printed in the Deseret News, February 18, 1857; also reprinted in the Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pages 219-220)

This is extreme apostasy away from Christianity and an example of how Mormonism is nothing at all like Christianty. Blood Atonement for LDS is probably not practiced these days as it is actually murder. Even so, it is a fine example of a Church built on false foundations. In most major Christian religions, Christ and the New Testament is seen as the fulfillment of the Old Testament. And yet, one of LDS divine prophets has reversed this. Old Testament Mosaic type law is seen as fulfilling Christ’ s requirements for atonement for sin. More than that, it denies Christ in his role as Savior. Most of Christianity says
sins have already been atoned for by Christ’s Passion in the first place. However, Young is seeing a need for further atonement, apparently viewing the Atonement offered by Christ as inadequate.
Certain anti mormon sites view blood atonement as a convenient mode of elimination of the leader’s enemies. It is a way of attempting to sanctify an unholy deed of murder. Attempting to sanctify evil acts is, well, satanic.

Another wonderful example of “Catholic Christianity” Thank you for proving my point. BJ

 

[Imconfused]

BJ Colbert:

Another wonderful example of “Catholic Christianity” Thank you for proving my point. BJ

Thank you for the sweet compliment. I’m glad you are pleased when Catholics speak truth about LDS.

 

[BJRumph]

Colbert, if I may ask;

How is posting the actual words of your prophet, Brigham Young, display an act of unchristian charity?

Or is it simply the analysis that offends you?

I am sorry, but surely you must realize that two parties with such drastically different views on what Jesus, Himself, taught will surely disagree to the “christian” nature of such a speech as given by BY.

It is an interesting historical fact that the RCC accepted LDS baptisms as christian, until they conducted further investigation into LDS theology. The reason for mentioning it here is towfold;

1.) That the RCC was ecumenically willing to “recognize” the legitimacy of the LDS as “Christian”, moreso than the LDS (who have never accepted non-lds baptisms)

2.) That there is an issue of basic incompatibility between the two faiths; both claim “the buck stops here” authority; but they both cannot have it, as one calls the other Apostate as a virtue of its own existence. There is no room for “healing” without a complete rejection of one or the other. Neither side is going to give in.

Also, if you consider it “unchristian” behaviour to reveal, debunk, and critisize false doctrine, then you are apparently unfamilliar with what our Lord, Himself, had to say regarding the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in the book of Revelation. See 2:6

The only “unchristian” behaviour being exhibited are the personal attacks taking place, and you are not innocent of this. Stop calling those who have more knowledge of your faith “liers” and stick to doctrine, as you should expect of us. If you are not interested in fighting for your faith, then go back to asking questions, as your professed and repeated declaration for being here indicates. Even you must see that in your “honest inquirerer” threads, you are answered with a far different spirit than what you will find here.

And if you are getting addicted to the contention, perhaps you will follow my earlier advice to someoone else, and check out ZLMB, where the LDS have a much stronger presence. Though, I will also pass along the warning that my Bishop gave me, and you should just stay away from any such board altogether as it only serves to destroy the faith, not help it.

 

[Imconfused]

BJRumph:

It is an interesting historical fact that the RCC accepted LDS baptisms as christian, until they conducted further investigation into LDS theology.

QUOTE]

Ain’t it the truth? this is the thing. We go into other religions with good faith in the thought that they have some aspect of truth to offer under the Christianity mantle. I have had foster paretns who were Mormons, and firends who were mormons, that I thought the world of, until they were confronted by accepted Christian writing and then they went nuts on me. It simply is not the fault of the RCC if LDS theology does not hold up under critiacl exam as an actual Christian religion. That is for the LDS to fix. Not to get mad about.

 

[TOmNossor]

BJRumph:

How is posting the actual words of your prophet, Brigham Young, display an act of unchristian charity?

Or is it simply the analysis that offends you?

I cannot speak for Sister Colbert, but for me the offense was associated with the culling of words from a past LDS. These words were provided by someone who has probably read less than one hundredth of what BY wrote/said. These words were chosen to shock LDS and Catholic alike. These words were chosen to paint a picture and create a perception. This picture/perception would then be labeled/analyzed.

There are thousands of picture/perceptions I could paint with actual words and deeds of Catholic leaders from Popes to Priests that would make BY in his ugly picture still smell like a rose. Such things are too easy to do.

In this particular case, few LDS know BY taught such things. They were not accepted by common consent, they were not canonized, they are not taught today. But critics of the church seem to think that these words by BY are the most important things he ever said. I would not suggest that the errant ideas of BY have no impact of LDS truth claims, but for a Catholic to bring them up when they are so regularly attacked by the errant teachings of their past leaders or… seems to be consciously or unconsciously applying a double standard.

Again, if I were to ever become a Catholic I would not form my theology from the heretical teachings of past popes; why would I spend most of my time focusing on these things?

BJRumph:

Also, if you consider it “unchristian” behaviour to reveal, debunk, and critisize false doctrine, then you are apparently unfamilliar with what our Lord, Himself, had to say regarding the doctrine of the Nicolaitans in the book of Revelation. See 2:6

When I just mention that I could do the things Catholics do on this board, I am accused by Catholics of focusing too much on the negative examples in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are advocating that BJ and her husband make their judgments based on experiences in a Catholic orphanage. I am saying this is an inappropriate way of searching for the truth. Again, if I ever became a Catholic, I would not be a person who ran an orphanage where children were hurt. Why should I spend the bulk of my time assessing the Catholic Church with these measuring sticks?

One other quick note on the words quoted. Some things were removed and replaced by ellipses. Things like, “Jesus Christ raises them up–conquers death, hell, and the grave.” I do not suggest the inclusion of such things absolves BY of likely teaching things not accepted by the church today, but those who have agendas even include … to further their cause.

Charity, TOm

 

[Jerusha]

Tom, isn’t the fact that he said such things, which are so contrary to the teachings of Jesus, an indication that he had no business leading a church?

So, by what process does the LDS church winnow the sayings of their “living prophets” to determine which are – to borrow a term-- ex Cathedra, and which are idle (and sometimes blaspehmous) speculations?

 

[stillsearching]

TOmNossor:

I cannot speak for Sister Colbert, but for me the offense was associated with the culling of words from a past LDS. These words were provided by someone who has probably read less than one hundredth of what BY wrote/said. These words were chosen to shock LDS and Catholic alike. These words were chosen to paint a picture and create a perception. This picture/perception would then be labeled/analyzed.

There are thousands of picture/perceptions I could paint with actual words and deeds of Catholic leaders from Popes to Priests that would make BY in his ugly picture still smell like a rose. Such things are too easy to do.

In this particular case, few LDS know BY taught such things. They were not accepted by common consent, they were not canonized, they are not taught today. But critics of the church seem to think that these words by BY are the most important things he ever said. I would not suggest that the errant ideas of BY have no impact of LDS truth claims, but for a Catholic to bring them up when they are so regularly attacked by the errant teachings of their past leaders or… seems to be consciously or unconsciously applying a double standard.

Again, if I were to ever become a Catholic I would not form my theology from the heretical teachings of past popes; why would I spend most of my time focusing on these things?

When I just mention that I could do the things Catholics do on this board, I am accused by Catholics of focusing too much on the negative examples in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are advocating that BJ and her husband make their judgments based on experiences in a Catholic orphanage. I am saying this is an inappropriate way of searching for the truth. Again, if I ever became a Catholic, I would not be a person who ran an orphanage where children were hurt. Why should I spend the bulk of my time assessing the Catholic Church with these measuring sticks?

One other quick note on the words quoted. Some things were removed and replaced by ellipses. Things like, “Jesus Christ raises them up–conquers death, hell, and the grave.” I do not suggest the inclusion of such things absolves BY of likely teaching things not accepted by the church today, but those who have agendas even include … to further their cause.

Charity, TOm

Um, I think one of the ways one assesses a church is by what the founder says. And one of the founders in this case said Jesus rally meant that he wanted us to kill those who disagree with us or are in sin. So, taking that, I would have to reject your Church, because first, it is not found in scripture, second it is not found in tradition, third, it is not found in history, 4. it is not found anywhere in the recognized Christian religion.
It is a radicla statement. You cannot deny that that is the opposite of what Christ said. And a reasonable person would say, wow, if he can make a mistake that humongous, can I trust him enough to read anything else he wrote? And if the whole Church agreed and accepted a teaching so hugely wrong, can anything good come out of it? And I would go on looking for a more truthful religion. And so do most. They move on to Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Islam.
And maybe she culled for that, and you have to admit she did not take it out of context- she quoted literally- because once you make a horrible mistake such as Young’s, the rest is irrelevant.

 

[BJRumph]

TOm;

Your church has not in any binding or authoritative way refuted these (or any other) teachings of BY (or any other prophet for that matter). It has only been hidden under the apologetic carpet.

Many of the false doctrines introduced by ECFs have been authoritatively refuted by the RCC.

In my book, that is a sufficient difference in itself.

But more pertainently, how does appealing to anothers “sin” excuse your (church’s) own? If the LDS Church is not apostate, and does not engage in the same errors of the RCC, then how are your proving that by repeatedly holding mysterious examples of similar behavior by the apostate RCC (under your profession of faith) over the heads of the catholics here? How can you hold to the superior position of your faith, if you are only going to use another religion, and their supposed tactics, to provide “supporting evidence” of your own religion’s virtue? You cannot; and you are but engaging in the very same tactic that you are decrying.

As I said elsewhere, the line has been crossed by both sides. It is easy to see that feathers have been excessively ruffled, and so why not everyone take a breather, and return to real issues.

Normally, TOm your conduct is far more comendable (and an example even to me who gets a little hot under the collar far more often than I’d like), and your anger does not so readily show. Good to know that you really are human Still, I think we all could use a coffee/water break.

Rightly (as in I agree), those words were posted here to shock. But then, I also believe that BY meant them to shock even his mormon audience, a tactic I have seen him use more than once to make a point. His style has never been an issue with me, neither the actual content of his material (as a different religion, I think you can believe to be true what you want). As for me, the issue is the relation of one prophet’s teachings to the rest of the church.

You do not deny that it was taught; you do deny it as a truthful, or rather, true, teaching. Naturally you will object to it. Unfortunately, all you and other lds who are offended by BYs words can authoritatively say is that you do not personally hold it to be true.

You cannot assert that it has not been taught by a church authority from a church pulpit as something to be believed, even if the current prophet denies it under his own “speculative” opinion. Because unless the church does categorically or specifically, and with full authority to proclaim binding interpretation on the matter, it is a teaching of your church, even if it is an unbinding one that each member is allowed to decide upon through their own revelatory authority; a facet of your religion that does not readily exist in the RCC and is often overlooked within ldds apologetics.(and therefore is probably, unconciously, negatively affecting these types of discussions).

Caritas numquam excidit

 

[June1945]

Hello folks,
I find this forum interesting. I agree that the mormon religion is very false and totally against the Bible. However, why is it, that, when one disagrees with the RC it is called ‘‘anti’’ catholic but when the RC is bringing out false doctrine in another religion that is not called being ‘‘anti’’. I think the RC needs to be able to take the criticism without feeling that someone is attacking them personally

I have alot against the teachings of the RC, mormons, JW and alot of protestant teachings but I dont consider it ‘‘anti’’ the people ----it is sticking to the TRUTH of God’s Word. Eternity is very long and we want to KNOW that we are going to heaven and not hell

sincerely, June

 

[stillsearching]

TOmNossor:

I cannot speak for Sister Colbert, but for me the offense was associated with the culling of words from a past LDS. These words were provided by someone who has probably read less than one hundredth of what BY wrote/said. These words were chosen to shock LDS and Catholic alike. These words were chosen to paint a picture and create a perception. This picture/perception would then be labeled/analyzed.

There are thousands of picture/perceptions I could paint with actual words and deeds of Catholic leaders from Popes to Priests that would make BY in his ugly picture still smell like a rose. Such things are too easy to do.

In this particular case, few LDS know BY taught such things. They were not accepted by common consent, they were not canonized, they are not taught today. But critics of the church seem to think that these words by BY are the most important things he ever said. I would not suggest that the errant ideas of BY have no impact of LDS truth claims, but for a Catholic to bring them up when they are so regularly attacked by the errant teachings of their past leaders or… seems to be consciously or unconsciously applying a double standard.

Again, if I were to ever become a Catholic I would not form my theology from the heretical teachings of past popes; why would I spend most of my time focusing on these things?

When I just mention that I could do the things Catholics do on this board, I am accused by Catholics of focusing too much on the negative examples in the Catholic Church. Perhaps you are advocating that BJ and her husband make their judgments based on experiences in a Catholic orphanage. I am saying this is an inappropriate way of searching for the truth. Again, if I ever became a Catholic, I would not be a person who ran an orphanage where children were hurt. Why should I spend the bulk of my time assessing the Catholic Church with these measuring sticks?

One other quick note on the words quoted. Some things were removed and replaced by ellipses. Things like, “Jesus Christ raises them up–conquers death, hell, and the grave.” I do not suggest the inclusion of such things absolves BY of likely teaching things not accepted by the church today, but those who have agendas even include … to further their cause.

Charity, TOm

But like Dude, you and your homies follow Jesus right? It’s the church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, right? And Jesus said, Dudes, you will know the prophets not to believe, because they will teach that which is false. And Young taught that which is like, not just a little false, but the whole cigar’s not Cuban right? So, how come you still follow him? If it was a little thing, like you know, it’s okay to yell at your old lady when she nags or something, then no sweat, but you know like, murder- that’s like a huge bummer,man.

 

[Jerusha]

However, why is it, that, when one disagrees with the RC it is called ‘‘anti’’ catholic but when the RC is bringing out false doctrine in another religion that is not called being ‘‘anti’’. I think the RC needs to be able to take the criticism without feeling that someone is attacking them personally

June, I was raised in a social climate where THERE WERE CONSEQUENCES if anyone said anything critical about the LDS church, while the Catholic Church was fair game. And that social climate continued at various times in my adult life. So I wholeheartedly disagree with you about your assessment.

:crying: Waaahhhh!!! Sainted and most perfect Joseph Smith— cruelly assasinated at the Carthage jail. :crying: Waaaahhhh! All the hardships of the journey to Utah (The Trail of Tears never happened). :crying: We most cruelly were evicted from the US—:crying: we were persecuted for our faith because it included polygamy. :crying: We are all living saints now, a perfect people because we gave up polygamy.

And I was taught those lies in PUBLIC school, in the very county where it happened. I KNEW that they were lies.

but you know like, murder- that’s like a huge bummer,man.

The death rate in Hancock county and the area from unnatural causes went WAAAY up after June 1844. (And was high before, too). The Danites continued their terrorism in Utah.

You know, it feels good to write that.

And if LDS people take what I wrote as a personal insult, then they don’t know TRUE history.

And I most wholeheartedly appreciate Tom’s perspective.

In this particular case, few LDS know BY taught such things. They were not accepted by common consent, they were not canonized, they are not taught today.

All I want is for the TRUTH to be taught. And that includes the past sins of the Spanish Catholics in the Americas, and the reversal through Guadalupe and Bartolome de las Casas.