A Mormon And A Catholic

[blackstrap]

And here I was of the opinion that the Illuminati started the church of the devil.Boy was I wrong!!

As for the WHP spoken from the pulpit . Noah and I were in the same ward back in the day. Never heard of it.

[Biz]

You assume that they do still "perpetrate" this doctrine. I've been an active member of the church since 1966, and I cannot remember this doctrine EVER being taught from the pulpit, or, for that matter, in a church classroom.

As the article you link to indicates, the RCC requires converts from the LDS church to be re-baptized. Big deal.

At least on a monthly basis I hear in sacrament meeting, sunday school or priesthood language such as, "the constitution is hanging by a thread and the elders of Israel will rise forth to protect it." This has been occurring for years! This topic, folklore doctrine, whatever you want to call it all stems forth from the White Horse Prophecy. They don't specifically say White Horse but the substance of their language refers directly to the prophecy. So yes, I hear it all the time and I would bet on in your 46 years you have heard it from plenty of leaders and still hear it now despite your call back to 1966.

The second article is not special in anyway and I don't think it is a big deal myself. I simply use that as an example that on the first business day after the Romney's VP pic there are news outlets talking and writing about it the topic. Furthermore, I assume that the scrutiny will get more intense and there will be plenty of other worthy of a big deal articles being published to a wider audience.

What I'm interested in is if you think the Church will come out with a statement that the LDS Church does not hold as Doctrine that the Catholic Church is, The Church of The Devil, The Mother of All Harlots, and the Whore of all the Earth?" After all this language has been taught in the Church for years. This is not something the Church can hide from that easy.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Biz

[Biz]

For a long time I thought it was the White House Prophecy. So this "Horse Prophecy" has to do with being against Catholics? Hmmmm.

Anyways, Biz, I think it is pretty clear from how such stuff is now repudiated, that Mormons are not now inclined to that stuff which is probably just a carryover from 19th Century Americana, that occasionally worked its way into individual LDS beliefs. Unless it was officially endorsed, it doesn't need officially rejected. That a Mormon and Catholic could run for office on the same ticket without uproar from either church kind of shows where things are.

3DOP

3DOP,

In your opinion at what point should LDS Manuals and LDS Apostles constitute endorsed? Because clearly these teachings were taught by the Church leadership. When does truth become Folklore? Only when it becomes inconvenient?

Biz

Edited August 14, 2012 by Biz

[Biz]

I think that members can be misinformed. It happens. But the church statement that you linked to is very clear. I have never heard a church member use the white horse prophecy in a talk. I think that you are just attempting to cause a stir in an empty coffee cup.

Why Me,

I'm interested in this boards opinion regarding the matter and am not here to stir an empty cup. There is a lot of substance to this issue and it is an issue that gets under my skin quite a bit. My issue is when does truth become folklore? If it is folklore now then it always was folklore. Folklore is essentially just less harsh of a word than False Doctrine but they mean the exact same thing. Members of the Church have clearly been taught this folklore by the Church. Members have received this misinformation from the institution so how can you say they are misinformed?

[Zakuska]

Why Me,

I'm interested in this boards opinion regarding the matter and am not here to stir an empty cup. There is a lot of substance to this issue and it is an issue that gets under my skin quite a bit. My issue is when does truth become folklore? If it is folklore now then it always was folklore. Folklore is essentially just less harsh of a word than False Doctrine but they mean the exact same thing. Members of the Church have clearly been taught this folklore by the Church. Members have received this misinformation from the institution so how can you say they are misinformed?

One could look no further than the New testament to see this same phenominon.

[Biz]

What "Church Leaders", post January 2010, have you heard perpetuate this?

As for members perpetuating this, if they are, only they can answer for their misinformation. I suspect those members who perpetuate this, do so are of not wanting to believe the Church spoke against it.

David,

I have heard Bishops and a Stake President mentioned the related language. I have watched a Bishop and a 1st Counselor in a Stake Presidency listen to a sunday school lesson talking about it without correcting it. My mom talked to me about it from a recent meeting with an emeritus 70 who was in the Presidency of the Seventy where he talked about it.

The problem is, what member reads the LDSNewsroom? Almost no one knows this even exist. Most would not even consider it a message from the First Presidency making it official. The only thing read over the pulpit is political neutrality, that says nothing regarding the issue. I'm not asking for some general conference statement, (which would be proper regarding a lot of now folklore doctrines) I would simply be satisfied if Bishops and Stake Presidents received private letters informing them about the repudiation of certain doctrines. After all isn't that one of their main responsibilities to clear up false doctrine? Or maybe that does not apply to folklore and pet doctrines?

Biz

Edited August 14, 2012 by Biz

[why me]

Why Me,

I'm interested in this boards opinion regarding the matter and am not here to stir an empty cup. There is a lot of substance to this issue and it is an issue that gets under my skin quite a bit. My issue is when does truth become folklore? If it is folklore now then it always was folklore. Folklore is essentially just less harsh of a word than False Doctrine but they mean the exact same thing. Members of the Church have clearly been taught this folklore by the Church. Members have received this misinformation from the institution so how can you say they are misinformed?

You will need to provide references to the leadership teaching it to the members. And you will need to provide current references to support your claim. As you can see from the posters here, no one supports your accusation about misinformation.

[why me]

David,

I have heard Bishops and a Stake President mentioned the related language. I have watched a Bishop and a 1st Counselor in a Stake Presidency listen to a sunday school lesson talking about it without correcting it. My mom talked to me about it from a recent meeting with an emeritus 70 who was in the Presidency of the Seventy where he talked about it.

The problem is, what member reads the LDSNewsroom? Almost no one knows this even exist. Most would not even consider it a message from the First Presidency making it official. The only thing read over the pulpit is political neutrality, that says nothing regarding the issue. I'm not asking for some general conference statement, (which would be proper regarding a lot of now folklore doctrines) I would simply be satisfied if Bishops and Stake Presidents received private letters informing them about the repudiation of certain doctrines. After all isn't that one of their main responsibilities to clear up false doctrine? Or maybe that does not apply to folklore and pet doctrines?

Biz

I have this and I have heard that may not cut it. You will need to provide references that we can read to support your claim.

[Biz]

One could look no further than the New testament to see this same phenominon.

Zakuska,

But isn't that the whole point of Modern Prophets and Apostles to clear this stuff up? The New Testament exist in part simply because the Apostles were clearing up False Doctrine, correct?

So why not today?

[KevinG]

I find it a testament to the power of the Gospel and the Holy Spirit that we do learn better things over time, and come to more light and knowledge without the need for clarifying memos from Salt Lake City on every little thing.

The uniformity of practices, belief and doctrine across a worldwide Church of millions is remarkable.

Having said that we are not immune to taking opinions and turning them into folk doctrine. Elder Packer spoke several years back on dropping the positive Mormon Myths from our teachings. My children have come home from classes spouting some of the traditional glurge nonsense and I've corrected them.

[BCSpace]

I'm sure my overall topic has been hashed out many times but I have a question for the board. In light of this older news press article from the church on the White Horse Prophecy why do church members and leaders still perpetrate this doctrine from the pulpit?

Some Church members still do it because they are what I call "Fielding-McConkites" (Referring specifically to BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" and JFS's "Doctrines of Salvation" but also to other works as well), those who have accepted the non doctrinal works of various church leaders as doctrine. They usually grew up in the pre-correlation era though they also have children and grandchildren who they have influenced this way.

I don't see many church leaders doing it though.

If this is not doctrine shouldn't the leaders of the church be instructed to ensure its teaching is not taught to church members?

The members are instructed that works not published by the Church are not doctrine. But I'm not 100 percent certain that there isn't an officially published work somewhere that includes the white horse prophecy however. If it turns out to be the case, then my apologies to Fielding-McConkites.

Also, in light of a Mormon/Catholic presidential ticket do you think the Church will put out a press release repudiating this issue saying that according to Mormon Doctrine and teachings the Catholic Church is not the Church of the Devil, The Mother of All Harlots, and the Whore of all the Earth?

Doubtful. The official doctrine from the Book of Mormon Institute Manual on 1 Nephi 13:1-9 is:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie (1915–85) of the

Quorum of the Twelve Apostles defined the great

and abominable church: “The titles church of the

devil and great and abominable church are used to

identify all . . . organizations of whatever name or

nature—whether political, philosophical, educational,

economic, social, fraternal, civic, or religious—which

are designed to take men on a course that leads away

from God and his laws and thus from salvation in the

kingdom of God” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed. [1966],

137–38).

Note: This particular quote from "Mormon doctrine" is doctrine because it is quoted in the manual, a work published by the Church

While it then goes on to say that no known historical church fits the full definition/description of the church of the Devil, there is nothing to preclude all non LDS churches from being part of that church and from the description of above; the Catholic church does indeed take men on a course away from God and his laws via what we LDS would call false doctrine.

"Rather, the role of Babylon has

been played by many different agencies, ideologies,

and churches in many different times. . . ."

It does, however, place the fully defined church of the Devil where I would put it, prior to the Nicene creed and Constantine; the actual begining of the Catholic church. Unfortunately for Catholics and all other Protestants, they claim there was no universal Apostasy and place themselves as an existing organization squarely in this period.

Unfortunately, as far as I can tell and besides physically obtaining the book, this manual can only be downloaded as a pdf and not viewed directly online otherwise I would directly link to the appropriate section for you.

https://si.lds.org/b...-manual_eng.pdf

Edited August 14, 2012 by BCSpace

[KevinG]

Here is a good page on Mormon urban legends and quotes by Apostles debunking them...

http://www.shields-research.org/Hoaxes/LDSWorld_Internet_Hoaxes_and_Mormon_Urban_Legends.htm

"As I say, it never ceases to amaze me how gullible some of our Church members are in broadcasting these sensational stories, or dreams, or visions, some alleged to have been given to Church leaders, past or present, supposedly from some person's private diary, without first verifying the report with proper Church authorities." (Pres. Harold B. Lee, Ensign January 1973, p. 105)

[Biz]

I have this and I have heard that may not cut it. You will need to provide references that we can read to support your claim.

Why me,

What references would you need? Of course no one Bishop, Stake President, or even 70's fireside is going to have a transcript of their perpetuation of Folklore. So what you want? Will early leaders quotes including Prophets satisfy you? Or since all of these quotes wont be considered real doctrine because the first presidency has not ratified them through an official document even despite modern prophets have taught them. Will these quotes be disqualified from your CFR?

[3DOP]

3DOP,

In your opinion at what point should LDS Manuals and LDS Apostles constitute endorsed? Because clearly these teachings were taught by the Church leadership. When does truth become Folklore? Only when it becomes inconvenient?

Biz

Hey Biz.

I am Catholic. I think in terms of 2,000 years for the life of a Church. 200 years is nothing. It might seem like a long time, but I would suggest that if this doctrine has died out, and doesn't revive, and is quietly removed from manuals while living Apsotles don't mention it, that the White Horse thing was a brief and very temporary aberration.

As a Catholic, I have suggested that if I was LDS, I would believe that the Catholic Church was the Whore. I think it is a very defendable position to take. But I am not LDS, and if Mormons want to back away from these speculations that have never become official, I am happy to let "bygones be bygones". It would seem, at least based on LDS thoughts on this board, that this doctrine is bygone and on its way to the dustheap of the young history of your church.

3DOP

[thesometimesaint]

Biz:

I've heard it maybe half a dozen times in the last 41 years I've been a member of the Church, but never over the pulpit. Further I've been in Wards from Florida to California to Washington.

[Biz]

Biz:

I've heard it maybe half a dozen times in the last 41 years I've been a member of the Church, but never over the pulpit. Further I've been in Wards from Florida to California to Washington.

Maybe it is a Utah and Mississippi issue? Because that is where I heard it often.

[KevinG]

Why me,

What references would you need? Of course no one Bishop, Stake President, or even 70's fireside is going to have a transcript of their perpetuation of Folklore. So what you want? Will early leaders quotes including Prophets satisfy you? Or since all of these quotes wont be considered real doctrine because the first presidency has not ratified them through an official document even despite modern prophets have taught them. Will these quotes be disqualified from your CFR?

Any quote by a general authority of the Church that has not been repudiated or censured would do. Try lds.org for your search- that is the official web site and a good repository of teachings and conference talks.

In a worldwide church with volunteer ministry you might expect some folklore to get passed on and perpetuated so going to official sources is a good idea.

[KevinG]

Irony alert: If we as a church try to get away from this kind of speculative and sensational stuff we are accused of "mainstreaming".

Just wanted to stick that in here.

[thesometimesaint]

Biz:

I've lived in Utah(going to school at BYU) and Mississippi(as part of the military). Rumors abound within the Church, and I've often called Gospel Doctrine class Gospel Rumor class. But never over the pulpit.

[Biz]

Biz:

I've lived in Utah(going to school at BYU) and Mississippi(as part of the military). Rumors abound within the Church, and I've often called Gospel Doctrine class Gospel Rumor class. But never over the pulpit.

Testimony meeting count as pulpit? LOL

[thesometimesaint]

I'm so old that travel monologues were common in Fast and Testimony Meetings.

[KevinG]

I'm so old that travel monologues were common in Fast and Testimony Meetings.

Ugh... travelmonies, scoldamonies, confessamonies, cryamonies and the ever populat Whatthefreakwashesayingamoniy?

[Biz]

Any quote by a general authority of the Church that has not been repudiated or censured would do. Try lds.org for your search- that is the official web site and a good repository of teachings and conference talks.

In a worldwide church with volunteer ministry you might expect some folklore to get passed on and perpetuated so going to official sources is a good idea.

I suppose I won't take it any further than this. However, IMO simply stating that not all Apostles speak doctrine when speaking is sometimes not enough. The Church's official stance is no stance! Which gives plenty of ammo for the perpetuation of pet folklore. Seems like if it was wrong they would have said it was wrong, why so neutral? Are they the Whore of All the Earth and The Church of the Devil? If not say so, no need for Apostles to say they are without being corrected if it is wrong.

[gtaggart]

And here I thought the next line was going to be "walk into a bar."

Regards,

Pahoran

My thoughts exactly. The Mormon, of course, walks out when he realizes the bar doesn't serve root beer.

[KevinG]

I suppose I won't take it any further than this. However, IMO simply stating that not all Apostles speak doctrine when speaking is sometimes not enough. The Church's official stance is no stance! Which gives plenty of ammo for the perpetuation of pet folklore. Seems like if it was wrong they would have said it was wrong, why so neutral? Are they the Whore of All the Earth and The Church of the Devil? If not say so, no need for Apostles to say they are without being corrected if it is wrong.

Brigham would tell you to think for yourself...

I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inqure for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. (Brigham Young, 9:150)