Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dee_Dee_King
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
why_me said:
You know Stephen I am teaching you a good lesson. Attacks can get attacks back. And protestants and mormons can do so on these threads but they would probably get banned. But no church is shielded against attacks. Atheists attack all churches and religions and they certainly also have good arguments about the cruel behaviour that has been done in the name of religion.
Click to expand...
 
even the fact that mormonism teaches to not drink hot drinks–tea, coffee–is nuts. why not? it’s no more bad for you than saturated fats yet joe smith didn’t prohibit that? could it be because joe smith made the whole thing up?? nahhh… it’s got to be true because it feels true.
 
interestingly (i think I use that word too much 🙂 ), over on CARM, they have been going on about how the Bible prohibits the eating of fat. That was after our discussion about how we shouldn’t eat anything with blood, and whether blood is fully drained from meat. :rolleyes:
 
Religio71 said:
interestingly (i think I use that word too much 🙂 ), over on CARM, they have been going on about how the Bible prohibits the eating of fat. That was after our discussion about how we shouldn’t eat anything with blood, and whether blood is fully drained from meat. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Isn’t it Leviticus that tells us we shouldn’t eat shellfish, among other things?

Sorry, love my Shrimp Scampi, and Steak and Lobster.

I guess I can’t win, any way you look at it.😃
 
twopekinguys said:
Isn’t it Leviticus that tells us we shouldn’t eat shellfish, among other things?

Sorry, love my Shrimp Scampi, and Steak and Lobster.

I guess I can’t win, any way you look at it.😃
Click to expand...
Yeah I can’t win either, I had shrimp yesterday. :eek:

And since we can’t have blood in our meat too, I’ve gotta make sure it’s 100% drained out, otherwise I’m hellbound. :rolleyes:
 
Religio71 said:
Yeah I can’t win either, I had shrimp yesterday. :eek:

And since we can’t have blood in our meat too, I’ve gotta make sure it’s 100% drained out, otherwise I’m hellbound. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If all the blood is out of beef, is it still red? Brown meat…yummmmmm

Not

How have you gotten away with posting over at CARM? I didn’t think they tolerated much Catholic posting over there.
 
twopekinguys said:
If all the blood is out of beef, is it still red? Brown meat…yummmmmm

Not

How have you gotten away with posting over at CARM? I didn’t think they tolerated much Catholic posting over there.
Click to expand...
Nor mormon posting. Intolerance among christians is a terrible thing. It is unchristian.
 
twopekinguys said:
If all the blood is out of beef, is it still red? Brown meat…yummmmmm

Not

How have you gotten away with posting over at CARM? I didn’t think they tolerated much Catholic posting over there.
Click to expand...
I’ve already been banned once 😃 I got a penalty one time because they thought I was calling an evangelical “non-Christian” even though I was CLEARLY referring to Catholics in their own terms, “non-Christian” (I said something like, “explain to us non-Christians how blah blah blah”). I go there for laughs. I didn’t say a word about being Mormon before Catholic either, they’d have a field day about me being permanently lost. :rolleyes:
 
Religio71 said:
Yes, diana, I have heard of that reasoning before (that the ban came into effect (or God never ended the ban prior to 1978) because of an unworthy surrounding society. It’s always interesting to note the views of Black LDS on this issue, and most seem okay with the above reasoning.

Someone else can comment on priests or priestly organizations owning slaves, as I am not as read in that area. However the difference I see is this: the Catholic Church’s priesthood has been open to all males that desire it forever.
Click to expand...
I have just shown you where, in practice, it wasn’t.

Not really. If it were true, it wouldn’t have taken three hundred years to get one in North America, nor would that first one have had to go to Rome for training because he wasn’t welcome in American seminaries.
Religio71 said:
There have been black bishops for a long period of time. We not only have to look at the number of black bishops and priests, but also the percentage of such members and the timeline for evangelization of those areas. Also note that people are not “ordained” a Cardinal. The highest ordination in the Catholic Church is that of bishop. We have had black bishops for centuries.
Click to expand...
Not in the Americas, you haven’t. See, the problem is that if racism is a problem anywhere, then it is a problem everywhere.
Religio71 said:
In contrast, the LDS Church had an institutionalized doctrine of not ordaining those of African descent to the priesthood. When one thinks of the role that the priesthood plays in Mormonism, it was quite devastating spiritually. Yes, Blacks could always be members of the church, but it is through the priesthood that males fully participate in the LDS Church. Even if priests owned slaves (again, someone else can comment on that, I know nothing about it!), the Catholic Church never stated that Blacks were somehow not the same as Whites and others as to hold the priesthood and be Endowed, Sealed, and other ordinances. I remember one black LDS on the 30 year anniversary of the Priesthood Revelation video said something to the effect of “blacks coveted the priesthood, but were unable to hold it”.

But again, black LDS today don’t seem to care much about the ban.
Click to expand...
Why should they?

Do you, in all honesty, care about the very real racism of the Catholic church in the Americas? About how priests owned slaves, supported slave owners, and saw to it that no black priest was ordained until the late 1800’s?

The thing is, black Mormons should not care; the ban was a policy, upheld by all. Upon the change of that policy, it was instantly (and I do mean instantly) put into place. The first black priesthood ordinations occurred within days, and literally within weeks we had the first black high priests, high council members and bishopric members. Within 11 years we had the first black general authorities. Our actions match our policies in this matter, in other words.

It is done. It is time to move on.

Catholics, too, should not care about the racism of their past, either…because there has been so much change, improvement and progress. True, it took the Catholics longer to get their act together than we did, (by several centuries, when you compare lengths of years) but y’all did. Right now there are no Mormon blacks under the age of 40 who have experienced the sort of racism that we are being accused of. I don’t think there are many Catholics of that age who have, either. Don’t you think it’s time we both laid off each other in this matter?

As I said…the argument that can be used against one is equally usefull against the other…Catholics and Mormons (and, come to think of it, most Protestants, as well) who get all self righteous about LDS racism really are forming a circular firing squad.
 
Just in the last few decades we had our first Polish Pope and now the first German Pope. Prior to that, all the Popes were Italian. Does that mean the Church is/was anti-German or anti-Polish?

I think it was the Boston Pops that till recently had no black musicians. Does that mean they were racist? Hardly. All candidates auditioned behind a curtain. They violated their own rule and hired a black anyway. Now, that was racist. Getting something just because of your color.
 
ricko said:
Just in the last few decades we had our first Polish Pope and now the first German Pope. Prior to that, all the Popes were Italian. Does that mean the Church is/was anti-German or anti-Polish?

I think it was the Boston Pops that till recently had no black musicians. Does that mean they were racist? Hardly. All candidates auditioned behind a curtain. They violated their own rule and hired a black anyway. Now, that was racist. Getting something just because of your color.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I was thinking. The very difference between our churches is that the priesthood is not necessary for full salvation in Catholicism. Also, there is a very real difference between the sins of those who may have restricted the first African American Catholic priest from becoming a priest, and a policy stating that blacks worldwide could not be ordained. The fact is that all males that desired the priesthood have always been able to discern it. I may have been told that I can’t attend college in one place, but I was able to elsewhere. There is no policy that says I cannot attend college.

And unfortunately I do not agree that we should forget about the priesthood ban. It was a real part of LDS history, just like the rest of it. I unfortunately don’t see any equivalence with whether blacks were impeded in their goals to become Catholic priests (again, others can comment on such issues), as all have always been able to participate in all sacraments in the Church necessary for salvation and giving grace. We did not need a revelation from God to say that a black person should be allowed to attend seminary in the USA.
 
ricko said:
Just in the last few decades we had our first Polish Pope and now the first German Pope. Prior to that, all the Popes were Italian. Does that mean the Church is/was anti-German or anti-Polish?

A case could be made for that, yes.

Put it this way; a preference for one group automatically means a discrimination against the rest.
ricko;5593379:
I think it was the Boston Pops that till recently had no black musicians. Does that mean they were racist? Hardly. All candidates auditioned behind a curtain. They violated their own rule and hired a black anyway. Now, that was racist. Getting something just because of your color.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I love it. First you defend the idea that up until recently all the Popes were Italian, meaning that it’s not racist to get something because you are a member of a specific group (in this case, Italians…)

Then you criticize the Boston Pops for hiring a musician because of race (black) in spite of the fact that s/he may not have passed the audition to the same level as a ‘white’ candidate…calling 'getting something just because of your skin color" racist.

But you go ahead, argue with yourself. When you figure out which side of this you are going to take, let me know, will you?
 
Religio71 said:
This is exactly what I was thinking. The very difference between our churches is that the priesthood is not necessary for full salvation in Catholicism. Also, there is a very real difference between the sins of those who may have restricted the first African American Catholic priest from becoming a priest, and a policy stating that blacks worldwide could not be ordained. The fact is that all males that desired the priesthood have always been able to discern it. I may have been told that I can’t attend college in one place, but I was able to elsewhere. There is no policy that says I cannot attend college.

And unfortunately I do not agree that we should forget about the priesthood ban. It was a real part of LDS history, just like the rest of it. I unfortunately don’t see any equivalence with whether blacks were impeded in their goals to become Catholic priests (again, others can comment on such issues), as all have always been able to participate in all sacraments in the Church necessary for salvation and giving grace. We did not need a revelation from God to say that a black person should be allowed to attend seminary in the USA.
Click to expand...
Yes, the difference between a racist Church and racist in a Church
 
Every faith has members that act like the taliban…extremist. Most catholics do not act like the taliban of their faith and I am grateful for that. People who are docrinaire and dogmatic are often the most intolerant. Discover christ in his words and you will see a christ that preached love of humankind. The early christians understood this simple rule: love your neighbor and love your god and love your enemy. How wonderful the world would be if it followed that simple dictum.
 
josie_L said:
Melanie Anne I’m pretty sure he knows how to write “ad hominen”, and furthermore you were not acting very Christ-like in your response to him. God bless.
Click to expand...
You’re probably right. I trust you’re giving him appropriate counsel as well.
 
We did not need a revelation from God to say that a black person should be allowed to attend seminary in the USA.
Click to expand...
james augustine healy was the first black bishop in the U.S. back in 1875. st. moses the black was ordained a priest in 405. the coptic church has had a black priesthood probably going back to the time of the apostles.

what you say here highlights how mormons attempt to make equivalent two things which are very different. on one hand, you have as religous dogma that blacks were punished with dark skin; on the other, you have ephemeral state sponsored racism prohibiting the catholic church from being fully integrated in america, especially in the south.

how can anyone be part of this mormon cult is beyond me. they taught racism as a religious tenant. that is evil.
 
Religio71 said:
I’ve already been banned once 😃 I got a penalty one time because they thought I was calling an evangelical “non-Christian” even though I was CLEARLY referring to Catholics in their own terms, “non-Christian” (I said something like, “explain to us non-Christians how blah blah blah”). I go there for laughs. I didn’t say a word about being Mormon before Catholic either, they’d have a field day about me being permanently lost. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Bless your heart.

I don’t think I could handle the place. A few years ago (even two or three, maybe) I would have said 'lemme at 'em!!!" But I have lost my edge, I think…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top