How Do We Deal With The "Catholic Question?"

[kassie]

I guess I can post a "thread" now! Been here long enough?

Here is my question! I have several Catholic friends, I am a BIC LDS, and these are the people who just give me....trouble....They claim to have the true church. They lean to apostolic succession. I don't have any trouble with the Protestants. They are "borrowers." But the Catholics (and us) claim to have the "true Church." How have other LDS conversed with Catholics?

[David T]

I seek to learn from them, and invite them to read from the Book of Mormon. I have enjoyed familiarizing myself with the Catechism, and the latest Papal Encyclicals. I find much wisdom and fascinating perspectives there. Outside of one of our LDS meetings, a Catholic mass is the most spiritual service I have attended. I love their use of symbols and liturgy.

In other words, express the good their tradition brings, and show them and express what we bring to the table. Arguments over origins are rarely fruitful for anyone.

Edited August 10, 2013 by David T

[williamsmith]

You're likely not going to convince them of much, you only have to learn for yourself.

For myself, there is no actual evidence that Peter transferred the key's to the Bishop of Rome simply because he may have been killed there (but even that is in question). In fact, there is plenty evidence against it. Bishop's were first Bishop's, and the Rome one remained so for some time before they created this new thing called "Pope", completely contrary to the normal pattern, since several Apostles were replaced, it seems that the Apostleship was meant to continue. For me, reading the history it seems to have simply been a power grab by the Bishop of Rome since they had the most power, and other Bishops clearly contended against that claim. For example the Orthodox Church was one of the other big sect's of the 7 Churches that continued still existing today.

Also, the entire history of the Catholic Church, the many wicked Popes, the many things done in God's name, etc. The changing and creating of several doctrines and practices. As a side note, it's also possible that one of the reasons we don't have slam dunk proof of the Book of Mormon is because of all the materials destroyed by the Catholic Church when they raided central/south America.

So, while indeed we are both as well as the Orthodox Churches fruits of the same tree, it seems clear that it's not the original Church anymore both authoritatively and in plain and precious truths. But, we are certainly much more in common than most other Christian sects which are farther from the tree in many things. There is still much retained in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it makes one appreciate the Restoration more. Interesting also how none of the founding members or otherwise were even Catholic, yet we are near identical in so many way's.

Each person has to gain their own testimony either way. There are books on the subject, FAIR even has one online that's related.

Restoring the Ancient Church:

Joseph Smith and Early Christianity

http://www.fairlds.o...ly-christianity

Edited August 10, 2013 by williamsmith

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

The idea that we are the sole "true church" is based on a common misunderstanding of D&C 1. Kevin Christensen has done some excellent work on this, and I'd recommend digging up some of his stuff on this board. A quick summary he wrote in response to a blog post:

The notion of "one true church" itself does not match the concept expressed in D&C 1. "the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth with which I the Lord, am well pleased..." I once presented at Sunstone on the topic of why this verse has 29 words instead of three or four. Two points: Biblical passages using "true" and "living" imagery, such as "the true vine," "living waters," "truth and life," "the true God, the Living God," "the living way," "tree of life," "living way," etc. match the themes of D&C 1 verse for verse and point for point. The "and living" therefore is not a mere rhetorical flourish, but actually means something. Together, "true and living" is a merism, a succinct way of expressing the themes of D&C 1 as a whole. The Biblical images describe revelation, priesthood, sacraments and temple ordinances, which in fact are the things that set the LDS gathering apart.

Second, notice that the "only" is qualified by the phrase "which which I, the Lord, am well pleased..." which makes the distinction "well pleasingness," relative to the "true and living" epithet. The rest of D&C 1 expressly, bluntly states that the LDS faith is incompletely, imperfect, and the leaders are subject to error, which shall be made manifest. In D&C 1, the LDS faith is expressly non-exclusive with respect to truth, virtue, and revelation. Which means that such things have nothing to do with the actual LDS distinctions as defined by the Lord in D&C 1.

The picture in D&C 1, if understood properly, is far more robust and tolerant than the non-scriptural common places or "one true church," or "only true church," or even "one and only true church." I find D&C 1 quite astonishing and accurate in the ways it sets us apart, and and in the way it sets realistic expectations for what I should see in both the LDS, and non-LDS peoples.

My thought: when read in context, the verses are talking about the well-pleasing aspects of our church among many "true churches". Catholicism is awesome, and deserves a ton of respect for preserving scriptures, etc that might have been lost long ago without their intervention. I love the symbolism they use (and the fact that they're so much less skittish about talking in terms of symbolism than we too often are.) I got to see a mass in St. Peters, and it's quite beautiful. Yes, we have significantly different interpretations of the scriptures we have in common, and I think there are important theological distinctions which make Mormonism the right religion for me, but that doesn't mean we can't come together on those teachings we share (love your neighbor as yourself, for instance). I'm Native American, I'm well aware of the abuses that have occurred in Catholicism's name, but I'm also aware that it was often only the Priests who stood up to defend native rights. So there is no white and black good and evil thing going on.

Joseph Smith taught that:

The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said. Here is a principle of logic that most men have no more sense than to adopt. I will illustrate it by an old apple tree. Here jumps off a branch and says, I am the true tree, and you are corrupt. If the whole tree is corrupt, are not its branches corrupt? If the Catholic religion is a false religion, how can any true religion come out of it? If the Catholic church is bad, how can any good thing come out of it? [...] Any man who will betray the Catholics will betray you.

The point being, we're all connected, we're all in this together.

The Saints can testify whether I am willing to lay down my life for my brethren. If it has been demonstrated that I have been willing to die for a ‘Mormon,’ I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves.

"The inquiry is frequently made of me. 'Wherein do you differ from others in your religious views?' In reality an essence we do not differ so far in our religious views, but that we could all drink into one principle of love. One of the grand fundamental principles of 'Mormonism' is to receive truth, let it come from whence it may.

We should cultivate a meek, quiet and peaceable spirit. Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error. We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons'.

We don't ask any people to throw away any good they have got; we only ask them to come and get more.

In a 1906 Conference address, B. H. Roberts remarked that he had previously been asked if the Book of Mormon’s “church of the devil” referred to the Catholic Church.

“Well,” said I, in answer, “I would not like to take that position, because it would leave me with a lot of churches on my hands that I might not then be able to classify.” So far as the Catholic church is concerned, I believe that there is just as much truth, nay, personally I believe it has retained even more truth than other divisions of so-called Christendom; and there is just as much virtue, and I am sure there is more strength in the Roman Catholic church than there is in Protestant Christendom.

I would not like, therefore, to designate the Catholic church as the church of the devil. Neither would I like to designate any one or all of the various divisions and subdivisions of Protestant Christendom combined as such church; nor the Greek Catholic church; nor the Buddhist sects; nor the followers of Confucius; nor the followers of Mohammed; nor would I like to designate even the societies formed by deists and atheists as constituting the church of the devil. The Book of Mormon text ought to be read in connection with its context -- with the chapter that precedes it and the remaining portions of the chapter in which it is found -- then, I think, those who study it in that manner will be forced to the conclusion that the Prophet here has in mind no particular church, no particular division of Christendom."

Edited August 10, 2013 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[canard78]

I guess I can post a "thread" now! Been here long enough?

Here is my question! I have several Catholic friends, I am a BIC LDS, and these are the people who just give me....trouble....They claim to have the true church. They lean to apostolic succession. I don't have any trouble with the Protestants. They are "borrowers." But the Catholics (and us) claim to have the "true Church." How have other LDS conversed with Catholics?

Borrowers? While it was a great book as a kid it's not really a term to apply to a group of people our own leaders have called inspired.

The great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, as well as philosophers including Socrates, Plato, and others, received a portion of God’s light. Moral truths were given to them by God to enlighten whole nations and to bring a higher level of understanding to individuals.

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1988/01/i-have-a-question?lang=eng

As for how to interact with your Catholic friends, Joseph said:

Joseph Smith, in History of the Church, 5:499

If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No. I will lift them up, and in their own way too, if I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way. Do you believe in Jesus Christ and the Gospel of salvation which he revealed? So do I. Christians should cease wrangling and contending with each other, and cultivate the principles of union and friendship in their midst; and they will do it before the millennium can be ushered in and Christ takes possession of His kingdom.

Quoted by Elder Jeffrey R Holland: http://www.lds.org/liahona/2012/08/standing-together-for-the-cause-of-christ?lang=eng

[canard78]

The idea that we are the sole "true church" is based on a common misunderstanding of D&C 1. Kevin Christensen has done some excellent work on this, and I'd recommend digging up some of his stuff on this board. A quick summary he wrote in response to a blog post...

Jeremy, you've made my day! What an awesome list of quotes and thanks also for your perspectives.

While reading the combination of quotes something occurred to me. There should be an 'adendum' on the following:

"We should cultivate a meek, quiet and peaceable spirit. Have the Presbyterians any truth? Yes. Have the Baptists, Methodists, etc., any truth? Yes. They all have a little truth mixed with error (as do we). We should gather all the good and true principles in the world and treasure them up, or we shall not come out true 'Mormons'."

(Addition mine). There are multiple Prophetic quotes and scriptures that teach:

- We do not have all truth

- There is truth yet to be found or revealed

- We also have errors

The volume of truth is somewhat immaterial. It's the usefulness and applicability to us as individuals that is important.

[Calm]

I guess I can post a "thread" now! Been here long enough?

Here is my question! I have several Catholic friends, I am a BIC LDS, and these are the people who just give me....trouble....They claim to have the true church. They lean to apostolic succession. I don't have any trouble with the Protestants. They are "borrowers." But the Catholics (and us) claim to have the "true Church." How have other LDS conversed with Catholics?

You should read their Catechism. It is online at Vatican.va Well worth the time invested, it was my bedtime reading for about a year (a friend let me borrow a parish copy). I found many things we were closer in belief then I expected and some differences that hadn't occurred to me.

I have had very few issues with any Catholics and those few were converts from the evangelical tradition and brought their aggressiveness with them. I think one can have great conversations with others as long as one avoids the temptation to tell the other what he believes and always is open to correction.

[The Nehor]

Don't worry. We are working on a "Final Solution" to the "Catholic Question".

[Freedom]

In a respectful religious discussion, it is a matter of interpretation and perspective. If one could prove their interpretation to be the right one, there would only be one church, just as there is one law of gravity or law of thermal dynamics. No discussion that has as its foundation the desire or intent to cause 'trouble'will ever succeed. I recently had a marvelous discussion with a born again christian as he shared his views on salvation and he let me share mine. We came to the conclusion that we believe the very same thing, but that, as he expressed it, we are looking at it from a different ends of the stick.

The Catholics cannot prove their apostolic lineage, but they are certainly entitled to it. Likewise, we cannot prove our divine investiture. When I had my discussion with the born again (for lack of a better name)we both agreed that we would be sharing verses that supported our point of view but that we did not expect the other to justify themselves. We acknowledged that the other would be able to come up with a very reasonable alternative point of view if given the chance.

[Calm]

Forgot to mention that I think approaching interfaith discussion from Bishop Krister Stendahl's three rules is the most effective and enjoyable:

http://www.religious-diplomacy.org/node/40

“Three rules for religious understanding”

1. Let the believers define their religion, not their critics.
   
2. Don’t compare your best with their worst.
   
3. Always leave room for holy envy.
   

If you are looking for a great example of a Catholic to practice discussions with, 3DOP is my Catholic ideal poster archetype. Read some of his content to see how great such discussions can be.

In reading the Catechism as well as any other time I have attempted to study others' faith, I always approach study from the standpoint of "I know that intelligent, thoughtful people are committed to these beliefs, therefore if they don't make sense to me or seem foolish, chances are the fault is mine and I need to examine both my own and their assumptions better until it does make sense to me before making any judgment (if that is even needed)".

If there is a particular issue you have with your friends....perhaps you all are arguing against each others' faiths rather than sharing your own experiences?...more information on what your issues are may allow us to be more helpful.

Edited August 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[Darren10]

Don't worry. We are working on a "Final Solution" to the "Catholic Question".

If I understand that statement correctly, that's just wrong, Nehor.

[Darren10]

Alongside Jeremy Orb's outstanding post let me ad that I've no problem openly advocating, as I have openly advocated, that the entire world is in a great debt of gratitude for the Catholic Church for its preservation of the teachings of Jesus and so much of the gospel of Jesus Christ via the scriptures. I also agree that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints does not have an exclusive hold on all truths but I do say that all truths necessary for the salvation and exaltation of man are found in the LDS Church. That if there were any futuristic truths necessary to reveal to that end it'll be done in the LDS church through it's leaders ordained by the Melchizedek Priesthood.

When approaching Catholicism I listen to active believers in that faith, particularly the well studied ones. I've also gone directly to the Vatican website seeking doctrinal clarification. It's important to me to speak accurately when I speak about my faith and those of others.

[mfbukowski]

Christknight is a former Catholic who joined our church a few years ago after tons of study and he is very well informed and a great guy.

Check out some of his posts/threads.

I used to be Catholic myself and my whole birth family is Catholic- love 'em like crazy.

My only beef is that Greek philosophy became engrained in their official doctrine, and I have a major beef with Plato and Aristotle.

[Storm Rider]

_{Kassie, I don't think there is anything to "do" with Catholics per se. As a LDS I enjoy reading from the texts of many of the great religions of the world. I have stated many times on this Board that John Paul II was a great man and I believe that he was inspired, a prophet even (please note the small "p"). The restored gospel of Jesus Christ is not competing with other churches or other faiths. We stand as a witness to the divinity of Jesus Christ, his crucifixion and resurrection, and that he is the head of our church today. I try to avoid conflict with others and I appreciate their interest in talking about the Savior, but when conflict does arise I realize the conversation has gone from being uplifting to being something else. Don't try to denigrate their beliefs. We do not seek those that are healthy in their faith, but those that are lost and are seeking answers. To them we testify of God's love, mercy, and truths. If through their own study of the scriptures and prayer are drawn to Church of Jesus Christ, then we have even more for which to be grateful. If however they are not drawn to it there is no problem. We teach the truths and have the authority that will lead to Exaltation, but that does not indicate that we have a corner on truth. As a LDS we all must learn to be a source of peace in the world rather than a source of contention. We do not back down from the truths we know; we testify and teach, but the decision is theirs to follow.}

[The Nehor]

If I understand that statement correctly, that's just wrong, Nehor.

You do and yes it is.

[Rivers]

Fiona Givens is a former Catholic and she still has great admiration for the Catholic tradition.

[blueadept]

My wife is LDS (we're civilly divorced) and my father's side of the family is LDS and I'm technically a 6th generation LDS even though I've always been raised Catholic. I'm fine with both sides considering themselves the true church and respect the LDS perspective on the issue. I find it amusing that I seem to correct others about their misconceptions of the LDS faith than I do explaining my own faith.

Edited August 11, 2013 by blueadept

[Storm Rider]

My wife is LDS (we're civilly divorced) and my father's side of the family is LDS and I'm technically a 6th generation LDS even though I've always been raised Catholic. I'm fine with both sides considering themselves the true church and respect the LDS perspective on the issue. I find it amusing that I seem to correct others about their misconceptions of the LDS faith than I do explaining my own faith.

There is so much that LDS and Catholics both value and hold in common that it is easy for both groups to cooperate. I don't think either side as a monopoly on saintly actions when they come together to discuss religion; however, I do think that the Catholic forum website has some particularly nasty people that participate there. Regardless, I do enjoy the fellowship of good Catholics. It is sad when all those who follow Christ cannot put him first and their differences second. Individuals such as yourself lead best by example and I am glad to see you here.

[ZelphtheGreat]

Little is to be gained by discussing/arguing religion. LDS teachings are pretty clear as to all the other churches in the world from Joseph Smith and his first vision story. ALL of the churches are wrong. Unless your friend can accept that it is a good thing to steer clear of religion as talking about it will only cause problems.

[canard78]

Little is to be gained by discussing/arguing religion. LDS teachings are pretty clear as to all the other churches in the world from Joseph Smith and his first vision story. ALL of the churches are wrong. Unless your friend can accept that it is a good thing to steer clear of religion as talking about it will only cause problems.

Nope. You misrepresent the first vision story. "All of their creeds are an abomination..."

The following is from an official LDS source:

“Informed Latter-day Saints do not argue that historic Christianity lost all truth or became completely corrupt. The orthodox churches may have lost the ‘fullness’ of the gospel, but they did not lose all of it nor even most of it. Many Evangelicals caricature or overstate the actual LDS view, which is that the orthodox churches are incomplete rather than corrupt. It is their postbiblical creeds that are identified in Joseph Smith’s first vision as an ‘abomination,’ but certainly not their individual members or their members’ biblical beliefs."

Craig L. Blomberg and Stephen E. Robinson, How Wide the Divide? A Mormon and an Evangelical in Conversation (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/authority-in-the-church

[Storm Rider]

Little is to be gained by discussing/arguing religion. LDS teachings are pretty clear as to all the other churches in the world from Joseph Smith and his first vision story. ALL of the churches are wrong. Unless your friend can accept that it is a good thing to steer clear of religion as talking about it will only cause problems.

No, they are not wrong. To the contrary they each have varying degrees of truth; some more than others. I would also expect that each of them can add truth to our own faith and/or teach us to be better disciples. In these relationships we need to seek to exemplify holiness and it can work. If we try to convince the other who is "more" true we will end in conflict and undermine the beauty of the gospel that is found in our Savior.

[CV75]

I guess I can post a "thread" now! Been here long enough?

Here is my question! I have several Catholic friends, I am a BIC LDS, and these are the people who just give me....trouble....They claim to have the true church. They lean to apostolic succession. I don't have any trouble with the Protestants. They are "borrowers." But the Catholics (and us) claim to have the "true Church." How have other LDS conversed with Catholics?

I just share and listen so they can share.

[Hestia]

Unfortunately this topic has led to some inappropriate comments by more than one person.