Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
MiserereNobis

Pope Francis and President Nelson (and Catholic/Mormon history)

Recommended Posts

Great!

Hey @MiserereNobis, are you able to find anything for a Catholic-focused channel on this?  You know where to look better than I. 

Share this post


Link to post
24 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Great!

Hey @MiserereNobis, are you able to find anything for a Catholic-focused channel on this?  You know where to look better than I. 

There's the Vatican News service, but there's not an article there yet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

They used the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (win for satan) gifted to the Vatican library by Gordon b Hinckley to officially invalidate our baptisms.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni-ladaria_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20010605_battesimo_mormoni_en.html

https://www.archbalt.org/vatican-ruling-on-mormon-baptism-clarifies-catholic-practice/

 

Tremendous tension as well over aggressive proxy baptism efforts

"the Vatican has written to Catholic dioceses around the world telling them not to provide parish records to the Genealogical Society of Utah"

http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2008/05/08/catholic-mormon-tension-over-lds-baptism-of-the-dead/

It's good to see we're meeting to discuss how to work together.

 

Edited by blueglass
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, blueglass said:

They used the Encyclopedia of Mormonism (win for satan) gifted to the Vatican library by Gordon b Hinckley to officially invalidate our baptisms.

Does that bother you? It seems odd that it would.

 

23 minutes ago, blueglass said:

It's good to see we're meeting to discuss how to work together.

Absolutely! I was happy to read the article.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that bother you? It seems odd that it would.

....hmm.. yes and no.  On one hand, 'no' because it's totally ok for a group to have requirements for what is considered to be a valid baptism.  On the other hand it is annoying to have the entire core of who you are (a disciple of Christ) systematically just denied, rather than just saying "you don't have a valid baptism".  Also, it does feel that the decision was... based upon a suddenly added extra requirement and sort of silly since a non-Christian who totally does't even believe in God can baptize.  It is annoying. 

All that being said, I don't loose one wink of sleep over this.

Edited by Jane_Doe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I wonder what the opposition was about -- maybe left over ideas about the church of the devil?

If I remember right it was more concerns over what impact building a large high school would have on the area.  The usual concerns any resident would have when a school is being build neaby; trafic, noise, etc.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If I remember right it was more concerns over what impact building a large high school would have on the area.  The usual concerns any resident would have when a school is being build neaby; trafic, noise, etc.

That makes more sense to me.  My experience in Utah is the members here want to be very inviting to other faiths.  The fact that there is a Hindu temple in Spanish Fork, Muslims have praised Utah as a good place to raise a family, etc. generally leaves members I know expressing satisfaction (they think it is cool) even if they aren't particularly interested in learning details of faith.  That doesn't mean prejudice doesn't sometimes leak out in comments.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that bother you? It seems odd that it would.

The vatican quotes from the EoM.

"God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). "

Christians have a real hard time with theogony, other planets, super evolution, and mother Goddesses.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, blueglass said:

Christians have a real hard time with theogony, other planets, super evolution, and mother Goddesses.

Traditional Christianity has no problem with "mother Goddesses" -- in Catholicism, the veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary fits the bill :) (Theotokos in Eastern Orthodoxy).

It's those dang protestants who want to remove the feminine divine.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

It’s good to see the visit. 

Historically, the leadership of the LDS Church has been less than kind to Catholics. 

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

Does that bother you? It seems odd that it would.

No. The feeling is mutual so it would seem odd for us to get huffy about it.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Misere, we in the USA have all inherited a lot of Protestant gunk. Part of that gunk is antipathy for conspicuous displays in churches. Silver candlesticks was a genuinely rage inducing issue during the English Civil War.

But without those how would Jean Valjean have been able to escape his life of paroled poverty?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No. The feeling is mutual so it would seem odd for us to get huffy about it.

Well, nowadays most Saints would say Catholics are Christian, I would hope, while if I understand the phrasing of the Catholic announcement and other teachings, we are not part of the body of Christ because we are not properly baptized and therefore technically not Christian in the official view.

That at least balances out some of our members, including prominent ones, in the past (hopefully very few are left) thinking the great and abominable church was the Catholic Church (never came close to fitting the description in the Book of Mormon in my view).

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I have been on vacation for a week. I'm sure it's been nice to not hear negative comments from me for a time and I feel sort of bad for bringing this up. But I didn't much care for the statue of the Saviour that was given to the Pope. It reminded me of the Christus that Relief Society sisters bought at RS meetings in the 80's. But if I had seen the front of it, it was probably something different. It seemed a little too little of a gift. But it's not about the money I guess, but the thought behind it. ETA: We do have our past as well, but surely it doesn't coincide with how the early church leaders felt about the Catholics. Trying to keep on the topic. 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
17 hours ago, blueglass said:

The vatican quotes from the EoM.

"God the Father has a wife, the Heavenly Mother, with whom he shares the responsibility of creation. They procreate sons in the spiritual world. Their firstborn is Jesus Christ, equal to all men, who has acquired his divinity in a pre-mortal existence. Even the Holy Spirit is the son of heavenly parents. The Son and the Holy Spirit were procreated after the beginning of the creation of the world known to us (cf. EM, Vol. 2, p. 961). "

Christians have a real hard time with theogony, other planets, super evolution, and mother Goddesses.

That is funny - I would call that false doctrine and a misunderstanding of LDS beliefs - I must be on a road to apostasy. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

It really says just "sons" and "the Heavenly Mother", "equal to all men", and " created after the beginning of the world"?  I doubt that is an actual quote and instead is likely a paraphrase that misunderstands our doctrine.

Page 961 is the Mother in Heaven entry and that is obviously not a quote.  The "created after the beginning of the world" appears to be a misinterpreted paraphrase of "pre-mortal life".  There is nothing that says "equal to all men".

https://contentdm.lib.byu.edu/digital/collection/EoM/id/3962

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2019 at 9:23 AM, MiserereNobis said:

 

I wonder what the opposition was about -- maybe left over ideas about the church of the devil?

It's great that both churches are helping the other out when it comes to ending opposition to each other's buildings. 

 

Regarding the opposition to the Catholic school in Draper, I live just a few blocks from that school and have for many years. In fact it was built in the area where I grew up. 

I don’t recall such opposition and am chagrined to read of it now. I’m not saying it didn’t happen, only that it apparently was minor enough that it flew under my radar. In any event, I’m glad that President Monson put a stop to it. 

I can say that there has been no animosity or tension since the School was built. They are good neighbors to us, and I believe we have been to them. I have even visited a Christmas service at the church there and took my son to fulfill an assignment for his AP Human Geography class in ninth grade. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Historically, the leadership of the LDS Church has been less than kind to Catholics. 

It has varied over the years.  Given most early leaders came from the Protestant tradition and antiCatolicism was rampant in the 1800's, that being present at times is not surprising to me.

More troubling to me was the specific identification of the RCC as the great and abominable by Elder McConkie in his first edition of MD, similar to other identifications of the Church of the devil by some nonCatholics.  Leadership correcting him is gratifying to me as are the Ensign articles rejecting that claim.  Not sure how that identification impacted actual interaction with leadership though even if it likely increased negativity towards the Catholic Church among membership (would be interested to know if research had been done to see if there was an impact).

A quick skim of a 1971 article yields one obvious negative criticism to me ("periods of infamy" section) and oddly does not draw comparison with our own doctrine and practices where it could, using language not usually used by ourselves (such as sacramentalism), so it feels distancing to me rather than demonstrating shared ideas (central hierarchy, Priesthood, ordinances necessary part of accessing the Atonement, etc), but still avoids the exteme condemnation of the label "great and abominable" or "Church of the devil".  So there is a sense of awkwardness still when I read it which feels consistent with my memory of that time.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1971/04/roman-catholicism?lang=eng

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

It has varied over the years.  Given most early leaders came from the Protestant tradition and antiCatolicism was rampant in the 1800's, that being present at times is not surprising to me.

More troubling to me was the specific identification of the RCC as the great and abominable by Elder McConkie in his first edition of MD, similar to other identifications of the Church of the devil by some nonCatholics.  Leadership correcting him is gratifying to me as are the Ensign articles rejecting that claim.  Not sure how that identification impacted actual interaction with leadership though even if it likely increased negativity towards the Catholic Church among membership (would be interested to know if research had been done to see if there was an impact).

A quick skim of a 1971 article yields one obvious negative criticism to me ("periods of infamy" section) and oddly does not draw comparison with our own doctrine and practices where it could, using language not usually used by ourselves (such as sacramentalism), so it feels distancing to me rather than demonstrating shared ideas (central hierarchy, Priesthood, ordinances necessary part of accessing the Atonement, etc), but still avoids the exteme condemnation of the label "great and abominable" or "Church of the devil".  So there is a sense of awkwardness still when I read it which feels consistent with my memory of that time.

https://www.lds.org/study/ensign/1971/04/roman-catholicism?lang=eng

The church surely felt differently as early as 1984 when I went to the temple for the first time and it was a Catholic Priest being portrayed as Satan. All the way up to the 1990's, I'm thinking. But very glad the church saw the error in putting that in the movie at the temple and it's no longer there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 3/9/2019 at 9:23 AM, MiserereNobis said:

...When President Trump separated immigrant families and then reversed and tried to put them back together, the LDS church gave $420,000 to Catholic Charities to help rather than create their own refugee resettlement agency since Catholic Charities was already up and running.

To be fair, if I recall correctly, the policy of separating families (if, indeed, it is families that are being separated) did not begin with President Trump.  Part of the problem (though I'm unsure how widespread it is) is that adults claiming to be relatives of children when these groups cross the border may or may not be related to them: The adults could simply be non-relatives who have been recruited by coyotes to take the children across the border, which is at least part of the reason why the separations occurred in the first place.

Quote

And the help continues, 4 years in a row now. Rather than calling asylum seekers "an invasion" and painting them as terrible people (as the Trump administration does), the LDS church works with us to help them. That makes me really happy.

The article is a great read and well worth the time.

 

Again, to be fair, there is a process in place for people seeking asylum.  The usual process for anyone desiring to seek asylum is to go to the embassy of the country from which one wishes to seek asylum that is located in one's own country (the US Embassy, in this case) and to request it.  It's not necessary to brave the hazards inherent to making a journey of hundreds, if not thousands, of miles, and crossing more than one border if Mexico is not one's country of origin.

I don't have hard numbers, but I would guess that the process of seeking asylum takes place dozens of times a week, perhaps hundreds of times a month, and perhaps thousands of times a year, and it never makes news unless an asylum seeker has some sort of a high profile in his country of origin.  One asylum seeker is a statistic: Hundreds or thousands at once is news.  I hold no brief for President Trump.  I did not vote for him the first time he ran for president, and I'm not sure for whom I will vote in 2020.  Yes, often, he is imprecise (and impolitic, and worse) in his use of language.  But if you want to get upset at someone, get upset at the people who are responsible for and who are encouraging the caravans, many of whom are using their members as political pawns.

Edited by Kenngo1969
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I

On 3/9/2019 at 7:14 PM, ksfisher said:

If I remember right it was more concerns over what impact building a large high school would have on the area.  The usual concerns any resident would have when a school is being build neaby; trafic, noise, etc.

That sounds about right. 

The last few decades have seen an immense inflow of residents and businesses to Draper, a once highly agricultural and rural community. Sad to say, some of these new move-ins have been the sort who, once they get their palatial country homes built, want to shut the door behind them and not allow any other newcomers or additional development. I saw this a decade or so ago with the bitter opposition in Draper to the extension by Utah Transit Authority of its light-rail line into Draper. I was very much annoyed with some of my neighbors to the south for their NIMBY attitude. 

We Latter-day Saints get perturbed by the frequent opposition by local residents to the construction of our temples, but it must be acknowledged that the reason almost always given is not religious hatred but rather, the perception that the new construction will cause traffic congestion or other unwanted impacts on the area. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...