Posted on 06/08/2013 9:00:01 PM PDT by Colofornian
In honor of the 35th anniversary of Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball’s announcement of the end of the priesthood ban against black Mormons (D&C Declaration 2), we are reposting Aaron Shafovaloff’s 30th anniversary article, “Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology.”
Mormon apologist Blake Ostler once said, “I personally believe that [Brigham Young’s] theology was a disaster for the most part” (>>). We have multiple reasons to concur with Blake (more than he would agree with), as Mormonism has spent much of its post-Brigham history picking up the pieces from the catastrophic mess of theology he left behind. The 1916 First Presidency statement on divine investiture and Elohim/Jehovah identities was largely driven by an effort to repair Brigham Young’s damaging Adam-God teaching. Contrary to the notion that it died with Brigham, it had carried well on into the 20th century. Some Mormons today are deeply embarrassed over Young’s teaching that Jesus was physically conceived by a natural union between Mary and the Father (who, for Brigham, of course, was Adam). Many Mormons have tragically settled for an “I don’t know” answer to the question of whether sexual intercourse was involved in the conception of Christ. Along with Adam-God, Brigham’s teaching that God still progresses in knowledge and power was condemned as a deadly, damning heresy by apostle Bruce McConkie. Then there’s individual blood atonement, men living on the Sun, participation in polygamy being absolutely necessary for Celestial exaltation, and on, and on. Many Mormons quietly write off Brigham Young as a crazy old uncle who has said very stupid, very irresponsible, very embarrassing, very damaging things. The problem is that he happened to say most of these things from the Tabernacle pulpit in a position of influential leadership and self-claimed prophetic authority. Mormons today try to laugh it off. Stephen Robinson even suggested that Adam-God might have been a joke. But at the end of the day Christians aren’t laughing. We have a higher standard for prophets than Mormonism allows. For us, becoming a Mormon would mean drastically lowering the bar for men who claim to be God’s living spokesmen on earth.
On June 8, 1978, Mormonism attempted to reverse yet another one of Brigham’s embarrassing doctrines, the ban on blacks from holding the Mormon priesthood. The dominant historical explanation given for the ban was an appeal to pre-mortal decisions or indecisions. Negros were not as valiant in the pre-existence, and were cursed with the mark of Cain, black skin. This explanation was taught and expressed by LDS prophets and apostles, from Conference pulpits to a First Presidency statement:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to.’ President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’ The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.” (Official First Presidency statement, August 17, 1951 [some sources date this to 1949], cf. John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89).
In spite of this, Mormon leaders today continue to say things like,
“When you think about it, that’s just what it is — folklore. It’s never really been official doctrine… We have to keep in mind that it’s folklore and not doctrine… It’s never been recorded as such” (LDS General Authority Sheldon F. Child, quoted in “LDS marking 30-year milestone”, by Carrie A. Moore, Deseret News, June 7, 2008).
“This folklore is not part of and never was taught as doctrine by the church” (LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle, quoted in “Mormon and Black”, by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2008)
This gives the impression that the teaching and belief had a mere bottom-dwelling existence, only kept alive by the culture in a way not initiated by or acquiesced to by the overarching institution. In the dictionary, “folklore” is defined as unwritten lore that is passed down through tradition or anecdote. Calling the “curse of Cain” teaching mere folklore obscures the fact that it was institutionally promoted and institutionally perpetuated—publicly and explicitly and in writing. It was rooted in the teachings of men considered to be prophets and apostles, the conduits of prophetic counsel and the stream of continuing revelation.
As a Christian I find the reversal on one level insignificant. The Aaronic priesthood is, according to Hebrews, “useless”, “weak”, and “obsolete”, a shadow of the Messiah to come who would serve as our sufficient sacrifice and priest. The “Aaronic priesthood” of Mormonism today doesn’t remotely follow the functions of the priesthood as described by the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Melchizedek is held up as an analogy for Christ’s unique priestly role and identity, but there is never described an ordained Melchizedek priesthood that flows from Christ to male followers. Mormonism simply reads Joseph Smith’s imaginary priesthood structure into the Bible. And I am not at all interested in obeying Satan when he tells people, “See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness.” Christians don’t feel like any non-Mormon Christian is missing out from Mormon temples. In Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Our intensified experiences with God and his people come through, among other things, reading his word, serving, singing, loving, suffering, praying, communing with our brotherhood in Christ, being swallowed up in the bigness of God’s creation. We don’t have to step inside a building to experience the Holy Spirit in a deeper way. Christians have the permanently indwelling Holy Spirit, immediately accessible, received at conversion in the same way we received justification and the forgiveness of sins: by grace through faith apart from personal works or merit or earning or worthiness. It is Mormons, white and black, who are missing out by being led astray from having a two-way personal relationship with Jesus Christ, based on the foundation of freely received eternal life.
In his book In the Lord’s Due Time, the first black to receive the Mormon priesthood after the 1978 reversal, Joseph Freeman, tells of hearing about the priesthood announcement. He writes,
“As I hung up the phone, little beads of perspiration broke out on my forehead, and my knees began to shake uncontrollably. It was true! It was really true! I could hold the priesthood! My lifetime dream of becoming a complete follower and servant of Jesus had come true.”
Did you catch that? Mormonism had deceived Freeman into thinking that, because he was black and because he couldn’t enter into a man-made temple, he could not yet be a complete follower and servant of Christ. Let that sink in.
Withholding blessings of the New Testament church (whatever one deems those blessings to be) from people based on skin-color or ethnicity reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel. The promise and assurance of the fullness of eternal life is not for the religious elite, but for the brokenhearted, coffee-drinking, cigarette-smoking, nose-pierced, foul-mouthed, rough-edged, self-despairing, barely spiritual, unworthy moral failures who come to Christ with the empty hand of faith, trusting him for the free promise of eternal life and the heart-changing indwelling of the Spirit. Scripture doesn’t take this lightly. Come to Christ with empty hands and you will have eternal joy. Put up the divisive, unscriptural barriers of moralism or ethnicity or skin-color or quasi-masonic or distinctively Jewish ordinances, and you incite what John Piper calls the “compassionate rage” of true apostles like Paul, who start calling down anathema (Galatians 1:6-9).
Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland seems to have at least a partial understanding of the institutional responsibility Mormonism has to make right the wrongs. In an interview associated with the PBS special, “The Mormons”, he said the following regarding actions the Mormon Church could take to make sure that the curse of Cain teaching isn’t perpetuated:
“I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.” (>>)
The problem for Holland is that he has bought into a shallow, inadequate, and irresponsible way of dealing with false teachings and false beliefs once promoted by Mormon prophets and apostles. In a noteworthy Mormon blog post called, “How does Mormon doctrine die?“, Margaret Young is quoted as saying,
“Card-carrying Mormons do often believe that Blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence and that polygamy is essential to eternal progression. Neither position has been formally repudiated by the powers that be. We have merely distanced ourselves from them.”
Kaimi Wenger, the author of the post, goes on to write:
“To the extent that they are not repeated and reinforced, unrepudiated ideas slowly fade from the community’s consciousness. This is in large degree because of the structure of Mormon belief. Mormon theology is unusually informal, vague and undefined. Because the church does not issue encyclicals or Summa Theologica, our theology is largely of the what-the-prophets-say-today variety… Our belief structure being what it is, [old ideas] cannot truly be killed — but neither are they really alive.“
Mormon leaders depend on this. Formal repudiation is avoided by Mormon leaders, as it would highlight the fallibility of church leaders (particularly prophets and apostles) and potentially bring a sensitive, embarrassing issue to light, prompting many to investigate material from earlier Church leaders which isn’t faith-promoting. Explicit, formal repudiation of past teaching that names names and quotes quotes would set a dangerous precedent in a religion which fosters so much dependency on the reliability of the institution’s succession of leaders. To save face, Mormon leaders opt for a quiet way of distancing old ideas, allowing them to continue amongst the culture in part, but betting on the forgetfulness and historical ignorance of future generations.
Authentic repentance, integrity, and love for people would demand not only a distancing by a lack of repetition, but also a formal, official, explicit apology for and repudiation of the priesthood ban and the teachings historically used to theologically justify it. Mormonism’s institution arrogantly sees itself as above having to give an apology for things like this. In fact, Mormonism has fallen short of even admitting the priesthood ban was wrong or racist. Gordon B. Hinckley had the audacity to say of the ban, “I don’t think it was wrong.” Marcus Martins, a black Mormon and the chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii, has been warped into thinking “The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist“.
Aspects and echos of the principles behind the curse of Cain teaching continue still today. At a recent BYU devotional the dean of Religious Education, Terry Ball, said,
“Have you ever wondered why you were born where and when you were born? Why were you not born 500 years ago in some primitive aboriginal culture in some isolated corner of the world? Is the timing and placing of our birth capricious? For Latter-day Saints, the answer is no. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that before we came to this earth we lived in a premortal existence with a loving Heavenly Father. We further understand that in that premortal state we had agency and that we grew and developed as we used that agency. Some, as Abraham learned, became noble and great ones. We believe that when it came time for us to experience mortality, a loving Heavenly Father, who knows each of us well, sent us to earth at the time and in the place and in circumstances that would best help us reach our divine potential and help Him maximize His harvest of redeemed souls” (“To Confirm and Inform: A Blessing of Higher Education,” March 11, 2008, BYU Devotional).
In the DVD set, “Blacks in the Scriptures“, Marvin Perkins was asked if the Church should make a kind of “mea culpa”, an admission of guilt and an apology for past wrongdoings. He responded by saying that his mother has always taught him to eat his dinner before he could have his dessert, that he should be content with what is already available. With all due respect to my black brother in humanity who is equally created (not begotten) in the image of God, it seems Mr. Perkins is still saying, “Yes, master”, to the human institutional powers above him. Instead of appropriately demanding the full dignity that is due, and publicly heralding a call for an explicit repentance and apology and confession from Mormonism’s top leadership for the Mormon institution’s past wrongdoings, he has settled in some significant ways for a continued second-class treatment. That simply bewilders me. I write this to let people like him know that we haven’t forgotten the apology that is due to him. We take note that the Mormon Church decided to publicly schedule a general authority, not an apostle or prophet, to speak at the Sunday, June 8th commemorative event held at the Tabernacle. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon institution has no black general authorities. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon Church largely (but not absolutely) squelches what could be entirely appropriate black cultural expressions of spirituality in aspects of the Sunday-morning church experience, choosing instead to significantly force culturally homogenous liturgy and hymnody and homiletics.
As an evangelical, I cannot celebrate the half-baked, unfinished reversal of policy and doctrine that happened in 1978. It serves as a reminder of institutional arrogance, of unrepentance, and of a false gospel that puts undue power in man-controlled ordinances. Saving faith instead looks alone to the person of Jesus Christ, who offers the assurance of the full and complete benefits of the gospel to anyone who would receive them by faith as a gift.
As long as you arrogantly refuse to issue an apology and an explicit renunciation, shame, shame, shame on you, Mormon leaders. Let June 8th be a day of shame.
The Catholic Church is not a denomination. By definition, if it were it would not be Catholic. It is THE One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. Only schismatic and heretical groups are denominations.
Peace be with you
Wait a minute.
The Lds will be sending out 60,000-70,000 missionaries 2x2 coming up (over 50,000 right now, but since they lowered the age requirement, thousands MORE have signed up)... By YOUR assessment, you should have gotten on FR LONG AGO & talked about the "Mormon obsession" to ride bikes while well dressed as they ring doorbells!
But hmmm...silence from your corner is probably a more accurate portrait, right?
If you don’t like that church, you are perfectly free to go to another church you do like.
Where's your elite lecture for Lds Missionaries here? (Why don't you simply tell them, "If you don't like it that non-Mormons are attending non-Mormon churches, you are perfectly free to stay home vs. ringing the doorbells of Christian homes.")
No, the catholics belong to a Christian denomination, but interesting post on a Mormon thread, I think the Mormon Prophet believes that they are the only thing going and teaches that to his followers.
Jenny, only a fool thinks a bomb goin' off here on earth is the three-alarm, city-wide meltdown that hell represents.
Aren't Christians to take our cultural cue from a certain "Lord" named Jesus Christ? Who are we to follow when it comes to setting cultural priorities? Jesus and the apostle Paul? or JennysCool?
Here's Jesus:
"I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." (Luke 12:4-5)
So does Jesus say, "fear the bombers" (No)
So, indeed, our "fear" is on behalf of those who are placing their eternal spiritual lives at risk.
ALL: Don't let this kind of assumption fool you.
And all of these Catholic-based "religious orders" from the chart below (& many other dozens/hundreds NOT included) exploded from how many originally?
And all these Catholic-based orders assume that their rule--their order-- is the right one...because obviously...if a previous order had it all correctly, then they were a needless overlap overkill...superfluous
Hence, haven't all these Catholic-based religious splinter orders operated as a sort of “mini-denominations” operating under the broader umbrella of Roman Catholicism?
Sorry...but Catholicism isn't as "united" as Catholics LOVE to pretend...It's not -- as is oft' presented by Catholics -- one giant monolith.
Even theologically, it's not monolithic. Liberation theology has invaded Catholicism. Solid theological reform movements – like Jansenism – hit Catholicism in the 1600s.
Some of the Roman Catholic order jumpstarters themselves bounced around before getting them off the ground. Take Isaac Thomas Hecker, founder of the Paulists (latter 19th century). Hecker was a Methodist-turned-transcendentalist-turned-member of the Catholic Redemptorist order before founding the Paulists. Hardly a “model heritage” deeply rooted Catholic.
And the “Romanizing party” was itself a party that grew stronger in the 7th century. As I look at the book of Acts, I don't see mention of “the Romanizing party” in the earliest church. Do you?
Instead of all these diverse Catholic orders, why couldn't have one said, “This is the rule of Christ. We'll follow it – and Him” ??? And then the rest of these man-made orders could have followed suit if generational stability and a unified front is so important.
| Year Founded | Name of Order [a 'Mini-Denomination' of Sorts] | Man-Made Founder | |
| 6th century onward | Benedictine-Based [Break-offs Included] | ||
| 525 | Benectines | Benedict | |
| Early 6th century | Female Benectines | Scholastica | |
| Early 10th century | Cluny [many Southern France orders were reformed under 'Clunaic lines] | Odo | |
| 11th century | Vallumbrosians | John Gualbert | |
| 1100 A.D. | Fontrevault | Robert of Arbissel | |
| 1701 | Mechlarists | Mechitar [w/16 others] | |
| Dominican/Augustinian Rule-based | Note: The Dominican order was NOT initial order based on Augustinian rule; hence not listed first | ||
| 1120 | Premonstratensions [also known as Norbertians] | Norbert [German-born who set up French orders and died residing in Italy]...so hardly a Middle-Ages localized presence only | |
| Late 12th century | Trinitarians [reformed group called 'Barefoot Trinitarians' still exists] | John of Matha | |
| 1206 | Dominicans | Dominic | |
| 1210 | Franciscan-Based | Francis of Assisi | |
| Franciscans also known as Friars Minor; Some Lay Franciscans known as Franciscan tertiaries; some Franciscans came to be known as 'Observatist Franciscans' others as 'Recollect Franciscans' and then 'Discalced Franciscans'...Such 'unity' of names even within the Franciscan bunch, eh? | |||
| 1557 | Alcantarines [Spanish Discalced Franciscans] | Peter of Alcantara | |
| Late 16th century | Camillans | Camillus [break-off of first Capuchins and then recollect Franciscans] | |
| 1540 | Jesuit-Based | ||
| 1540 | Jesuits originally known as The Society of Jesus | Ignatius Loyola | |
| Cistercian-Based | |||
| About 1099 | Cistercian | Robert of Molesne [with Stephen Harding as key early leader] | |
| 1084 | Carthusians | Bruno | |
| 1128 | Knights of Templar | Bernard of Clairvaux | |
| Mid-12th century | Gilbertines [no local presence only; a network of 25 monasteries] | Gilbert of Sempringham | |
| Latter-17th century | Trappists | Armand-Jean le Bouthillier De Rance' | |
| Ursulines/Carmelites-Based | |||
| Early 1500s | Ursulines | Angela Merici [Later, Barbe Jeanne Acarie helped establish Ursulines] | |
| Latter 16th century | Discalced Carmelites | John of the Cross a leader, but not founder | |
| 1603 | Carmelites | Barbe Jeanne Acarie | |
| Other Orders – Listed chronologically | |||
| 961 | Mt Athos | Athanasius the Athonite | |
| Early 1000s | Camaldolesians | Romauld | |
| 1113 | Victorines | William of Champeaux | |
| Early 1200s | Poor Clares | Clare | |
| 1235 | Mercedarines [Our Lady of Mercy] | Peter Nolasco and Raymond of Penafort | |
| Latter 13th century | Celestines | Celestine | |
| 1346 | Bridgetines | Bridget | |
| 1360 | Gesuati | John Colombini | |
| 14th century | Sisters of the Visitation [the Jesuatesses] | Catherine, cousin of John Colombini | |
| Latter 14th century | Brethren of the Common Life | Geert de Groote and Florentius Radewijns | |
| 1425 | Oblates of Mary [Later called Oblates of Torde' Specchi] | Frances of Rome | |
| 1436 | Minims [Ordo Fratres Minimorum] | Francis of Paola | |
| 1524 | Theatines [break-off of Orators of Divine Love] | Cajetan and Giovanni Pietro Caraffa (Pope Paul IV) | |
| 1532 | The Somaschi | Emiliani Jerome | |
| 1548 | Confraternity of the Most Holy Trinity | Philip Neri | |
| 1572 | The Brothers Hospitalliers | John of God | |
| Cistercian-Based | |||
| 1575 | Oratorians | Philip Neri | |
| 16th century | Volokolamsk | Joseph of Volokolamsk | |
| 1597 | Piarists | Joseph Calasanctius | |
| Early 1600s | Jansenism [not an “order” but a theological reform movement] | Cornelius Otto Jansen | |
| Very early 17th century | Visitation | Francis of Sales and Frances de Chantel | |
| 1633 | Sisters of Charity, Lazarites | Vincent de Paul | |
| 1737 | Vincent de Paul Society | Frederick Ozanam | |
| 1737 | Passionists | Paul of the Cross | |
| 1835 | Pious Society of Missions/Pallottini Fathers | Vincent Pallotti | |
| 1843 | Similar Pious Society of Missions for women | Vincent Pallotti | |
| Mid-19th century | Sisters of Providence/Fathers of Charity | Antonio Rosmini-Serbati | |
| 1859 | Salesians [Female version: Daughters of Our Lady Help of Christians, 3rd largest Catholic order today] | Giovanni Melchior Bosco | |
| 1880 | Sisters of the Sacred Heart | Frances Cabrini | |
| Latter 19th century | Paulists [break-off of Redemptorists] | Isaac Thomas Hecker | |
| 1903 | Catholic Daughters of the Americas | ||
| 1917 | Baptized and Unbaptized Disciples | Narayan Vaman Tilak | |
| 1933 | Little Brothers of Jesus/Little Sisters of the Sacred Heart | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald | |
| 1939 | Sisters of Jesus | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald | |
| 1958 | Little Brothers of the Gospel | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald | |
| 1965 | Little Sisters of the Gospel | Formed post-humously after the rule of Charles Eugene DeFoucald |
My FRiend,
This is not a matter of either or. My church or your church can have opinions about who is in full communion, and I fully accept that those decisions may color your view.
My church, the Catholic Church, seeks always to see the humanity of persons as God sees them, as his children. Must children be corrected or admonished? Certainly.
I go to sacramental confession every month because, objectively, I know that I sin. That may be quaint or absurd to you, but I will continue to do so.
It is a recognition of my fallen humanity and the path I am on to try to become the person Christ wishes me to be. He wishes me to be a saint, not as we perceive sainthood, but as He does.
You may snipe at those who are not of your faith community, but you imperil yourself if you do not recognize the humanity and real aspirations of others to wish to truly come closer to God.
In all sincerity, I wish God to bless you with an abundance of His graces.
Sursum Corda
We have WAYYY more important things to worry about in this crazy world than Mormons. Geez. Find a hobby.
Please review the chart in post #17 -- the statements of official Mormon "scripture" re: the worldwide church of Jesus Christ (Protestant/Orthodox/Catholic).
Did not Joseph Smith -- and his "disciples" ever since -- seek to swallow Christianity in one fell swoop by declaring it "apostate" en toto?
How did the Mormon "restoration" come to be so closely linked with so-called complete Christian apostasy?
(1) No "restoration" can occur minus the complete loss of the original church. (The Mormon founder needed to take a scorched-earth approach to Christians, otherwise he -- and his restoration -- was 100% superflous. Either he was unnecessary, or the Christian church was...so Smith chose the Christian church to be! He essentially tossed all Christians into one gigantic graveyard, and tried to erect a new religion on top of it.
(2) Let's face it, if Smith's "diagnosis" of Christians was wrong, that all did NOT commit apostasy, then no need existed for him or his restoration-from-scratch.
You are seemingly ignorant that any "let's get along" public relations by Mormon leaders masks what their true beliefs at their core actually are.
“You may snipe at those who are not of your faith community, but you imperil yourself if you do not recognize the humanity and real aspirations of others to wish to truly come closer to God.”
You’re connecting exposing a dangerous religious cult with, somehow, attacking someone’s humanity. If Joseph Smith was a con-man with 30 something wives, 12 of whom were still married to other men, and some as young as 14 years old, am I attacking the humanity of the person who doesn’t know this factoid about someone they entrust their immortal soul to? I’d rather think of it as a nice warning.
Your entire post is utterly false since it is based on false assumptions that do nothing except further the goals of an anti-Christian religious group.
“We have WAYYY more important things to worry about in this crazy world than Mormons. Geez. Find a hobby.”
So instead of attacking Christians who do take the teachings of Christ seriously, how about you go do those more important things? Or, at least get the hobby?
#1...Multi-tasking is allowed in this life...For example, we can take on liberals, Islam and Mormonism -- all at the same time...(that's allowed)
#2...I'm glad the "silent generation" who came before us -- the ones who fought on multiple fronts vs. multiple enemies during WWII -- had the fortitude you seemingly lack.
Our current ADHD culture has trouble taking on more than one thing at a time.
I don’t see my role as a Christian to get on forums to defend the Mormon religion, a religion built on converting Christians away from Christ, converting them into polytheists, and into believing that they can become Gods themselves, and finding pretty good success with Catholics by the way.
So snipe at me if you must, but I disagree with what you do for Mormonism.
I’ll go back to my original post. Why are people so OBSESSED about Mormonism, in a way they’re not obsessed over, say, Lutherens or 7-Day Adventists or snake handlers, for goodness sake. I really just don’t get it. It’s like a cult.
Take a deep breath.
Now, look at the totality of what Christ preached on this earth, rather than seeking to use partial pull quotes to support your perspective.
You have family issues, as you said. They can be among the most painful and discouraging things we may encounter. They can gnaw at us, give us no quarter. At the end of the day, we must balance the intellectual (wisdom), compassionate (charity} and the spiritual (faith).
God bless you on your spiritual journey, may you find and accept His truth in all things.
Sursum Corda
I'll bet you have dieting for a chance to repost that. Too bad it is rubbish. All Catholics are in complete agreement with the dogmas of the Church, that is what makes us Catholic.
Peace be with you
Should have said “dying”. Darned auto-correct on my iPad.
You simply have an epic failure of not understanding that approaches differ depending upon who you're talking to...
When Jesus was talking to sinners not caught up in their pride, he comforted them -- even when telling them (like the woman @ the well), to "go and sin no more."
When Jesus (& Paul) were talking to the religionists hung up on their legalism, he did the opposite: He afflicted the comfortable.
I don’t think I have ever seen a posting or a thread by this freeper that was on any other subject at all, I think anti-Mormonism is about it.
It seems like a creepy obsession. It was like that other freeper that only talked about pit bull attacks and another one who was fixated on trains.
Well, I guess it takes all types.
Sadly, I must conclude that you are so set in your ways, which you seek to cloak in orthodox, pristine Christianity, that you are no longer open to real discussion.
Free Republic, as my years here have shown me, is a wonderful venue for real discussion. Not all threads are golden.
I will take my part in the blame for failure of this thread.
May God bless you abundantly for your virtues.
Sursum Corda
LOL, you seem pretty obsessed for someone with no interest in Christianity and Mormonism’s war against it, you have a pretty long history of intense and persistent ‘non-interest’ in Mormonism, and it looks like you are pretty dedicated to showing how ‘uninterested’ you are on this thread as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.