Freedom Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 I am equally amused by the evangelicals who accuse the church of racism. the same evangelicals who murdered and raped African Americans and still prohibit them from attending many of their white churches.
cinepro Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 I am equally amused by the evangelicals who accuse the church of racism. the same evangelicals who murdered and raped African Americans and still prohibit them from attending many of their white churches.Well, to be fair, even President Hinckley accused the Church of racism.
why me Posted April 23, 2012 Author Posted April 23, 2012 To the OP, it saddens me in the approach this Catholic priest has taken in engaging LDS members. After being married to a faithful LDS member, there are better ways to engage LDS folks. Being Christ-like should be a major trait. IMO.I think that catholic apologists are becoming more militant in how they engage such religions as the lds church. And I think that it is there that there is a problem. And of course, this creates more militancy within the catholic members who post on the internet. They become aggressive and hostile. And we can see that from the comments section of the blog. And we can see this on the catholic apologetic site. And this does not do the catholic faith any good at all. And what it does show is that the catholic discussion boards are being hijacked by catholic militants who see it their duty to belittle other faiths and promote catholicism at the expense of others.And that is sad.
Yirgacheffe Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 Where are all these catholic apologists and sites?
blueadept Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) I think that catholic apologists are becoming more militant in how they engage such religions as the lds church. And I think that it is there that there is a problem. All faiths have their 'militant-type' of apologists where they believe they are preaching the truth in regards to other faiths. They seem to forget that the definition of an apologist = the defense of one's faith. The problem is that they are in a hurry to explain the faith of others. Not that I've experienced that here.... Edited April 23, 2012 by blueadept 1
Hamilton Porter Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 A matter of perspective. I'd rather deal with the problems of the RCC than deal with the BoA.I'm gonna steal your cartoon but I still do not want to trade.
3DOP Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 Where are all these catholic apologists and sites?Yirgacheffe,There is really only one that is huge and nasty. Catholic Answers. Why Me thinks they only pick on Mormons. They have suspended me twice. It is really an awful place and I am embarrassed of it. And I wasn't even visiting that other religions place where you Mormons go. Seeing how they hammer on their own, I have little doubt that they won't let Mormons explain themselves. The worst of it is that they erase your messages, always your best messages. They just disappear. Anyway...I think that is mainly what why me is talking about. 1
Calm Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) And I wasn't even visiting that other religions place where you Mormons go. He11? Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah
3DOP Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 That's rather odd.Why accept anyone's word, when you admittedly know nothing about the subject they say he's misrepresenting? There is nothing factually inaccurate in that video.For context, I had said Xander, that knowing nothing about the Book of Abraham, if Mormons say that a Catholic has misrepresented them, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the LDS. Since I have to choose based on authority, I would think that Mormons understand nuances about the Book of Abraham better that Fr. Longenecker could easily have overlooked. I also take this position because it makes me hope that seeing my example, an LDS will be willing to take my word over that of Barry Bickmore when he talks about Catholic things that he doesn't understand. I am not here to discuss the Book of Abraham. I don't need to believe anything about the Book of Abraham. It is nothing to me. I am not saying that I believe what Mormons believe about the Book of Abraham, only that for sake of argument, I am happy to concede that they have been misrepresented if they say they have. 2
why me Posted April 23, 2012 Author Posted April 23, 2012 All faiths have their 'militant-type' of apologists where they believe they are preaching the truth in regards to other faiths. They seem to forget that the definition of an apologist = the defense of one's faith. The problem is that they are in a hurry to explain the faith of others. Not that I've experienced that here.... I just don't see mormon apologists attacking other religions like the catholic apologists are and I don't think that mormon apologists would get away with attacking other faiths like the catholic apologists do. And I think that this is the point. The priest went out of his way to attack the lds faith by lumping them in with the moonies among other things.
Calm Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) = CARM I believe......... :rollseyes:Yeah, I know what was meant, I just couldn't resist. Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah
3DOP Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 = CARM I believe......... :rollseyes:Is this CARM also a Catholic site?
3DOP Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) Edited. Wasn't very nice. 3DOP Edited April 23, 2012 by 3DOP
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 (edited) While I appreciate the LDS aggressive approach in engaging other non-LDS folks, I actually appreciate the 'not as aggressive' Catholic approach in being there for others at the critical times of their lives. I can wander through the local hospital , senior care centers, and the shut-ins of the community, and all the staff and others know why I'm there.Gosh, uh, some of us actually do that too.Only we get to park in the "clergy" parking spots! Edited April 23, 2012 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 Whatever I was going to post isn't as good as Hamilton's post, so just go back and read his again.But it wouldn't let me give him another rep point. Dang.
selek1 Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 Well, to be fair, even President Hinckley accused the Church of racism.False, inflammatory- and a deliberate derail.But hey- you already knew all that when you threw the bomb.Of course, in the link you cite, President Hinckley also has some fairly strong words for those who would sew dissension and discord amongst the Saints for their own amusement.The 17th and 20th paragraphs are particularly relevant to such conduct.
selek1 Posted April 23, 2012 Posted April 23, 2012 While I appreciate the LDS aggressive approach in engaging other non-LDS folks, I actually appreciate the 'not as aggressive' While I appreciate your sentiment, I hope that you will clarify: are you referring to the "aggressiveness" in StormRider's tongue-halfway-in-cheek post or an "aggressiveness" you perceive in actual LDS missionary efforts?If it's the former, I don't think that's a fair characterization (for the reasons I've already stated in the thread).Catholic approach in being there for others at the critical times of their lives. I can wander through the local hospital , senior care centers, and the shut-ins of the community, and all the staff and others know why I'm there. It's not just the people we are visiting that we influence but it's the loved ones of these individuals that we affect as well. The church is visably there at the critical times of people's lives when they are sick, dying etc as well as the other special moments such as births, marriages, funerals etc. The Saints can make precisely this same claim. I wouldn't presume to attempt to cite numbers or name names, but the Latter-day Saints are known throughout the world for their humanitarian efforts in times of crisis- and many of those efforts were undertaken in partnership with the Catholic Church. We have been repeatedly lauded for our outpouring of food, clothing and other essentials. We have been praised for volunteerism- not simply the sometimes backbreaking physical labor, but for our ability to get supplies and manpower where they are needed quickly and efficiently.Two instances come most readily to mind: In the first, an elderly hurricane victim was standing outside her home, surveying the damage and wondering how she would ever arrange for clearing the debris- let alone make repairs. A contractor wandered past and tried to twist her arm into signing a deal for clearing and repairs at an exhorbitant cost- which she could not meet. Irritated, he wandered down to the next house in the road and left the woman in tears. Only minutes later, a small army of young Mormon men and women arrived with their own supplies, tools, and equipment- and began clearing away the damage and debris and effecting temporary repairs- at no cost or charge. Unlike the contractor- they were there to help a neighbor in need- someone they neither knew nor intended to convert. The second report was of an LDS man (and IIRC his sons) who were headed towards a disaster area with building materials and manpower when they were stopped by a non-LDS State Trooper who was turning away looters and rubber-neckers. The man explained the errand they were on and showed the Trooper his Temple recommend. On the strength of the man's story and that bit of parchment from the LDS Church, the man and his sons were allowed to continue their mission while others were turned away.I appreciate the LDS missionary efforts and I'm not trying to knock those efforts. IMO, LDS are best known for their missionary efforts. When local folks see me, most don't see me as trying to convert them but to be an extension of the priest in being his hands and feet. For obvious reasons, I disagree with this characterization- but I can understand why you feel that way.To the OP, it saddens me in the approach this Catholic priest has taken in engaging LDS members. After being married to a faithful LDS member, there are better ways to engage LDS folks. Being Christ-like should be a major trait. IMO. Agreed- it should be a major trait for any who profess his name.Mea culpa...Mea culpa...Mea maxima culpa...
Hamilton Porter Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 Response I got from Catholics: Our problems just show how much we need Jesus.
The Nehor Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 It's important to have a hobby. Glad he found one. Maybe with time he'll even get good at it.
cinepro Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 False, inflammatory- and a deliberate derail.I was responding to Freedom's comment about those who "accuse the church of racism" and his accusation that these groups have a history of "raping and murdering" African Americans and still exclude them from their churches.Odd that you found my comment to be more false, inflammatory and derailing than his. I was merely pointing out that according to President Hinckley we do have enough LDS expressing religiously-based racist views that it would warrant a mention in General Conference, and so if someone were to "accuse the LDS Church" of being racist, I would deny that the current leaders are racist, but couldn't deny that we don't have racist members. Depending on how you define a "church" apart from its "members", that could be an important point.
why me Posted April 24, 2012 Author Posted April 24, 2012 I was merely pointing out that according to President Hinckley we do have enough LDS expressing religiously-based racist views that it would warrant a mention in General Conference, and so if someone were to "accuse the LDS Church" of being racist, I would deny that the current leaders are racist, but couldn't deny that we don't have racist members.Depending on how you define a "church" apart from its "members", that could be an important point.Of course, there were prejudice members in the lds church but I wouldn't call them racist. What is unfortunate is that the word prejudice is now being replaced with racist. There is a difference. Racist is someone who believes that their race is superior to other races and acts accordingly. Prejudice is more of a dislike of others of another race or having negative thoughts and feelings about other races or ethnic groups.Archie bunker was prejudice but he wasn't racist.However, in the prostestant sects there was racism since some protestants in the south were Klansmen and these klansmen were not to kind to catholicism either.
Calm Posted April 24, 2012 Posted April 24, 2012 (edited) Bunker was racist at the beginning of the show, he had mellowed toward the end.And there were likely at least a few that were racist in the Church, such as those who held slaves. Edited April 24, 2012 by calmoriah
why me Posted April 25, 2012 Author Posted April 25, 2012 Bunker was racist at the beginning of the show, he had mellowed toward the end.And there were likely at least a few that were racist in the Church, such as those who held slaves.Bunker was not racist but prejudice. There was a difference between the two. Archie was a reflection of a society that had great prejudice not just toward blacks but also toward other ethnic groups: Poles, Italians, Jews etc. He was the ordinary working class WASP. The use of the word prejudice is not used much these days. Rather the more stronger term racist is used. But back in the day, prejudice was used more and racist was reserved for certain people belonging to supremacist groups 1
Recommended Posts