The Church Of Satan

[mfbukowski]

You are so quick. I softened what I first said. In editing I would rather say that the Catholic Church "teaches very clearly that Vatican II may be questioned and is definitely fallible."

 

So the popes say that its fallible.

Sorry but I missed the reference for that?

That is disputed, right? I have no dog in the fight- I am just trying to understand both sides and what the rationale is for each.

Sorry if I missed something. The terminology has become foreign to me.

[Maedros]

The scriptures quoted in my previous thread were: 1 Nephi 13:5-9. Here is the quote from The Great Apostasy by Elder James E Talmage (pg 140 - 142):

22. Is it possible that a church teaching such heresies can be the Church established by Jesus Christ? The Lord Jesus commanded all: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."--(John 5:39; compare verse 46; also Isaiah 8:20; Luke 16:29; and Acts 17:11.)

23. Surely a pall of darkness had fallen upon the earth. The Church of Christ had long since ceased to exist. In place of a priesthood conferred by divine authority, a man-created papacy ruled with the iron hand of tyranny and without regard to moral restraint. In a scholarly work Dr. J. W. Draper gives a list of pontiffs who had stood at the head of the Church from the middle of the eighth to the middle of the eleventh centuries, with biographical notes of each.--(See Note 3, end of chapter.) And what a picture is there outlined! To win the papal crown no crime was too great, and for a period of centuries the immoralities of many of the popes and their subordinates are too shocking for detailed description. It may be claimed that the author last cited, and whose words are given below, was an avowed opponent of the Roman Catholic Church, and that, therefore, his judgment is prejudiced; in reply let it be said that the attested facts of history support the dread arraignment. In commenting on the facts set forth, Dr. Draper says:

24. "More than a thousand years had elapsed since the birth of our Savior, and such was the condition of Rome. Well may the historian shut the annals of those times in disgust. Well may the heart of the Christian sink within him at such a catalogue of hideous crimes. Well may we ask, Were these the vicegerents of God upon earth--these, who had truly reached the goal beyond which the last effort of human wickedness cannot pass? Not until several centuries after these events did public opinion come to the true and philosophical conclusion--the total rejection of the divine claims of the papacy. For a time the evils were attributed to the manner of the pontifical election, as if they could by any possibility influence the descent of a power which claimed to be supernatural and under the immediate care of God. * * * No one can study the development of the Italian ecclesiastical power without discovering how completely it depended on human agency, too often on human passion and intrigue; how completely wanting it was of any mark of the divine construction and care--the offspring of man, not of God, and therefore bearing upon it the lineaments of human passions, human virtues, and human sins."--(Draper, "Intellectual Development of Europe;" Vol. 1, p. 382.)

25. By increasing changes and unauthorized alterations in organization and government, the earthly establishment known as "the Church," with popes, cardinals, abbots, friars, monks, exorcists, acolytes, etc., lost all semblance to the Church as established by Christ and maintained by His apostles. The Catholic argument that there has been an uninterrupted succession of authority in the priesthood from the Apostle Peter to the present occupant of the papal throne, is untenable in the light of history, and unreasonable in the light of fact. Authority to speak and act in the name of God, power to officiate in the saving ordinances of the gospel of Christ, the high privilege of serving as a duly commissioned ambassador of the court of Heaven,--these are not to be had as the gifts of princes, nor are they to be bought for money, nor can they be won as trophies of the bloody sword. The history of the papacy is the condemnation of the Church of Rome.--(See Notes 2 and 3, end of chapter.)

Also read Note 2 and 3 at the end of chapter 3 for more insight. I personally believe that Nephi's prophecy referred to the formation of Constantine's church although I do not believe that the Church of Satan is the Catholic church. I have great respect for Catholics as my Catholic friends and family can attest to but should a discussion arise: I will not hesitate to state my views and expect Catholics and people of all faiths to be as thick-skinned as the latter-day saints when in the firing line of criticism - in fact Catholics are more experienced in handling criticism than any other religion.

[Calm]

Your personal interpretation and Elder Talmadge's is contrary to current church doctrine. Nor does it line up well with the scriptures given the RCC has never held nor is likely to hold power over all the world:

" 11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-4-1-nephi-12-15.p23?lang=eng

Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm

[Maedros]

Your personal interpretation and Elder Talmadge's is contrary to current church doctrine. Nor does it line up well with the scriptures given the RCC has never held nor is likely to hold power over all the world:

" 11 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-manual/chapter-4-1-nephi-12-15.p23?lang=eng

 

You need to read more about the history of the RCC, I suggest reading note 2 and 3 of chapter 3 of the Great Apostasy; or better yet: read the whole book. When the Saviour spoke to his disciples in Matt 24 about the events that will precede his second coming: he referred to events that they would experience in their life time and events that will occur in ours - a prophecy has many faces and may be fulfilled in many ways. This great and abominable church (founded by the devil) which killed the apostles (I speculate) was probably a secret combination started by the Jews who hated Christianity mixed with the Romans who also hated Christianity thus leading to the persecution of the saints and the destruction of the early church which continued until the formation of the Church of Rome which continued its abominable practices. Either way you look at it, the church of Constantine was not a force for good in the world at that time and through it and by it were thousands of innocent people sent to the spirit world. Later on it moved to all the world (as when Paul said that the gospel of the kingdom was preached in all the world) and sat upon many waters and entire civilizations were wiped out by it (Cortez, etc). The RCC is a much different church today but its history is inescapable and you can't start a topic about the Church of Satan and not expect that there will be some reference to the RCC and then get offended when such reference is made. Its like starting a topic about polygamy and not expect someone to comment about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and their many wives or start a topic about skin colour and expect no mention of the priesthood ban and slavery. 

[Calm]

I have read history of the RCC and much about the GandA but included more recent scholarship using better methodologies. The Great Apostasy has not been printed for a number of years under the official church publisher unlike Jesus the Christ and Miracle of Forgiveness, though the last is no longer offerred through Church Distribution, can't remember if the first still is and might be going through an update due to old scholarship.

I have also read LDS doctrine and nowhere today will you find any leaders supporting the idea the RCC is the Church of the Devil. And in fact, it has been specifically rejected.

You are teaching according to official doctrine false doctrine. If you wish to continue to promote the claim on the board, then at least be willing to state that you are noy in accordance with current teachings and doctrine.

Brigham Young helped with building the Catedral in SLC. Not the treatment one would expect towards the GandA.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

You need to read more about the history of the RCC, I suggest reading note 2 and 3 of chapter 3 of the Great Apostasy; or better yet: read the whole book. When the Saviour spoke to his disciples in Matt 24 about the events that will precede his second coming: he referred to events that they would experience in their life time and events that will occur in ours - a prophecy has many faces and may be fulfilled in many ways. This great and abominable church (founded by the devil) which killed the apostles (I speculate) was probably a secret combination started by the Jews who hated Christianity mixed with the Romans who also hated Christianity thus leading to the persecution of the saints and the destruction of the early church which continued until the formation of the Church of Rome which continued its abominable practices. Either way you look at it, the church of Constantine was not a force for good in the world at that time and through it and by it were thousands of innocent people sent to the spirit world. Later on it moved to all the world (as when Paul said that the gospel of the kingdom was preached in all the world) and sat upon many waters and entire civilizations were wiped out by it (Cortez, etc). The RCC is a much different church today but its history is inescapable and you can't start a topic about the Church of Satan and not expect that there will be some reference to the RCC and then get offended when such reference is made. Its like starting a topic about polygamy and not expect someone to comment about Brigham Young and Joseph Smith and their many wives or start a topic about skin colour and expect no mention of the priesthood ban and slavery.

After reading your previous post and being reminded of what Talmage had to say about the RC church in "The Great Apostasy," I believe Bruce R. McConkie has been getting a bad rap for what he had to say about the RC church in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine. People act as if McConkie's identifying the RC church with the great and abominable church is something he made up out of whole cloth, when the fact of the matter is that McConkie was simply echoing what many other early LDS leaders believed before him. Whether or not McConkie was correct in his assessment, he can't be faulted for reiterating what had been a commonly held belief among LDS leaders for well over 100 years. What follows is just one example:

"It was the apostate Catholics that first originated the idea and by them the fatal delusion has been handed down from generation to generation; and all the children that she has brought forth, or that have left her communion, have, more or less, imbibed the same great features of the apostasy. Well might the Revelator John, speaking by the spirit of prophecy, call her "the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth!" It is her true name, for all the "harlots" which she has brought forth have walked in the footsteps of their "Mother" in declaring against new revelation, and in pretending that ancient revelation is a sufficient rule of faith. It is to be expected that as is the Mother, so will be her Harlot daughters." (Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.40)

[Calm]

"People act as if McConkie's identifying the RC church with the great and abominable church is something he made up out of whole cloth, when the fact of the matter is that McConkie was simply echoing what many other early LDS leaders believed before him"

On the contrary, it has been most often claimed in my experience that these attitudes were carryovers from the antiCatholic ministries among the Protestant faiths they converted from, ideas that demonstrated well what happens when the traditions of men can mess with the truths of the Gospel. We see it happening in the explanations of the Curse of Cain, beliefs of what that means attached to LDS scripture when there is not only no need to do so, but now they have been disavowed by the Church as wrong.

"Whether or not McConkie was correct in his assessment, he can't be faulted for reiterating what had been a commonly held belief among LDS leaders for well over 100 years"

So following a tradition of man is okay as long as lots do it?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm

[Spammer]

Sorry Maedros. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." (Possibly an annoying quote quote for you, coming as it does from a Catholic).

 

Your interpretation makes no sense in terms of the actual history of events. Stephen Robinson makes that abundantly clear in his essay:

 

"More often, some have suggested that the Roman Catholic church might be the great and abominable church of Nephi 13. This is also untenable, primarily because Roman Catholicism as we know it did not yet exist when the crimes described by Nephi were being committed. In fact, the term Roman Catholic only makes sense after AD 1054 when it is used to distinguish the Western, Latin-speaking Orthodox Church that followed the bishop of Rome from the Eastern, Greek-speaking Orthodox Church that followed the bishop of Constantinople.

 

In the period between Peter and the Roman emperor Constantine, there were many Christian churches besides the Orthodox Church: Ebionites, Syrian and Egyptian churches, Donatists, Gnostics, Marcionites, and so on. Even if we use the term Catholic for the church Constantine made the state religion in AD 313, the New Testament as we know it was already widely circulating. That is, the plain and precious parts had already been removed. The notion of shifty-eyed medieval monks rewriting the scriptures is unfair and bigoted. We owe those monks a debt of gratitude that anything was saved at all.

 

By the time of Constantine, the apostles had been dead for centuries. Furthermore, the early Orthodox Church can hardly be accused of immorality. It had, in fact, gone to the extremes of asceticism. In some areas of the world, Orthodoxy replaced an earlier, already corrupt form of Christianity. And during much of the period, members of the Orthodox Church were not in a position to persecute anyone, as they were being thrown to the lions themselves."

 

The breadth and complexity of Nephi's vision is much greater than what you want it to be. Additionally, Storm Rider's call to use a little charity as lens through which to view these things is well-taken.

 

Just a minor historical quibble.  Constantine ended the persecution of Christians and legalized Christianity.  It was Theodosius I who made Christianity the state religion in 381.  

[Bobbieaware]

"People act as if McConkie's identifying the RC church with the great and abominable church is something he made up out of whole cloth, when the fact of the matter is that McConkie was simply echoing what many other early LDS leaders believed before him"

On the contrary, it has been most often claimed in my experience that these attitudes were carryovers from the antiCatholic ministries among the Protestant faiths they converted from, ideas that demonstrated well what happens when the traditions of men can mess with the truths of the Gospel. We see it happening in the explanations of the Curse of Cain, beliefs of what that means attached to LDS scripture when there is not only no need to do so, but now they have been disavowed by the Church as wrong.

"Whether or not McConkie was correct in his assessment, he can't be faulted for reiterating what had been a commonly held belief among LDS leaders for well over 100 years"

So following a tradition of man is okay as long as lots do it?

Did I say it was OK? And did I not say, "whether OR NOT McConkie was correct in his assessment?" I was simply referring to the fact that many early leaders of the LDS Church informed McConkie's thinking. And just out out curiosity, apart from the fact that early LDS leaders may have misapplied the label of great and abominable church to the RC church, do you dispute the historical facts that Pratt, Talmage and McConkie summoned to prove there are many historically documented abominations perpetrated by the RC church? Or do you believe the Reformers were all wet when they risked their lives justifying a breaking away from the tyrannical control of the RC church.

[Tacenda]

"People act as if McConkie's identifying the RC church with the great and abominable church is something he made up out of whole cloth, when the fact of the matter is that McConkie was simply echoing what many other early LDS leaders believed before him"

On the contrary, it has been most often claimed in my experience that these attitudes were carryovers from the antiCatholic ministries among the Protestant faiths they converted from, ideas that demonstrated well what happens when the traditions of men can mess with the truths of the Gospel. We see it happening in the explanations of the Curse of Cain, beliefs of what that means attached to LDS scripture when there is not only no need to do so, but now they have been disavowed by the Church as wrong.

"Whether or not McConkie was correct in his assessment, he can't be faulted for reiterating what had been a commonly held belief among LDS leaders for well over 100 years"

So following a tradition of man is okay as long as lots do it?

I know John F. Kennedy as a Catholic, had the same mistrust from the public as Romney had as a Mormon when running for president. Never quite understood it.

[stemelbow]

Seeing as we seem to agree it is wrong to label the Catholic Church as the Great and Abominable, it makes me curious how inspired leaders of the church had it wrong for so long? Do we dismiss it as mistakes of men, or do we say the leaders weren't seeking inspiration? There are too many issues like this from our past that we tend to just leave in the past instead of looking at them so we 1. don't make the same mistakes 2. understand the method of the mistakes so we don't perpetuate other mistakes.

It bothers me that we'd prefer to say, "well the prophet must be so right we don't need to challenge current teaching and practice". We should be able to challenge in case we have some error.

[Maedros]

I have read history of the RCC and much about the GandA but included more recent scholarship using better methodologies. The Great Apostasy has not been printed for a number of years under the official church publisher unlike Jesus the Christ and Miracle of Forgiveness, though the last is no longer offerred through Church Distribution, can't remember if the first still is and might be going through an update due to old scholarship.

I have also read LDS doctrine and nowhere today will you find any leaders supporting the idea the RCC is the Church of the Devil. And in fact, it has been specifically rejected.

You are teaching according to official doctrine false doctrine. If you wish to continue to promote the claim on the board, then at least be willing to state that you are noy in accordance with current teachings and doctrine.

Brigham Young helped with building the Catedral in SLC. Not the treatment one would expect towards the GandA.

 

Indeed the RCC is not the church of the devil which is so nicely pointed out in the link you sent me and I am not advocating that it is; what I am saying (and pay attention to this) is that: "the formation of a church" as stated in 1 Nephi 13:5 has reference to the Church of Constantine, see below from the link you sent me:

 

 

One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:

“Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles (Rome, Constantine); it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures (RCC, there is sufficient evidence of this); it must have slain the Saints of God (a saint is not necessarily an apostle or priesthood holder - we are latter-day saints; it is an indisputable fact that many people were murdered by the Roman Church), including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views (RCC, history has enough evidence); it must have dominion over all the earth (there was a time when it had dominion over all the known world); it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality (RCC: history of the papacy); and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description."

 

The RCC from the time of its formation until about the 18th century fit the description of Nephi's prophecy which is probably why Elder Mckonkie included it in his book; the evidence supporting what I am saying (about the atrocities of the RCC) is overwhelming; so yes it is not the Church of Satan (today) but to the millions who died under its rule, it most definitely was. We both have uncomfortable histories which is a cross that we unfortunately have to bare although we despise the shame of it.

[Maedros]

After reading your previous post and being reminded of what Talmage had to say about the RC church in "The Great Apostasy," I believe Bruce R. McConkie has been getting a bad rap for what he had to say about the RC church in his first edition of Mormon Doctrine. People act as if McConkie's identifying the RC church with the great and abominable church is something he made up out of whole cloth, when the fact of the matter is that McConkie was simply echoing what many other early LDS leaders believed before him. Whether or not McConkie was correct in his assessment, he can't be faulted for reiterating what had been a commonly held belief among LDS leaders for well over 100 years. What follows is just one example:

"It was the apostate Catholics that first originated the idea and by them the fatal delusion has been handed down from generation to generation; and all the children that she has brought forth, or that have left her communion, have, more or less, imbibed the same great features of the apostasy. Well might the Revelator John, speaking by the spirit of prophecy, call her "the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth!" It is her true name, for all the "harlots" which she has brought forth have walked in the footsteps of their "Mother" in declaring against new revelation, and in pretending that ancient revelation is a sufficient rule of faith. It is to be expected that as is the Mother, so will be her Harlot daughters." (Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.40)

 

You're definitely right, so many well known leaders were already teaching this doctrine and when one reads what they wrote, it actually does make a lot of sense. This quote from Elder Pratt is quite pointed - it is offensive today and in the time of Elder Mckonkie because our relations with the RCC changed, they became more tolerant of us as the world began to see that we are in fact a force for good in the world and as we see them today as well, thanks for that quote.

[jkwilliams]

Indeed the RCC is not the church of the devil which is so nicely pointed out in the link you sent me and I am not advocating that it is; what I am saying (and pay attention to this) is that: "the formation of a church" as stated in 1 Nephi 13:5 has reference to the Church of Constantine, see below from the link you sent me:

 

 

One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:

“Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles (Rome, Constantine); it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures (RCC, there is sufficient evidence of this); it must have slain the Saints of God (a saint is not necessarily an apostle or priesthood holder - we are latter-day saints; it is an indisputable fact that many people were murdered by the Roman Church), including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views (RCC, history has enough evidence); it must have dominion over all the earth (there was a time when it had dominion over all the known world); it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality (RCC: history of the papacy); and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description."

 

The RCC from the time of its formation until about the 18th century fit the description of Nephi's prophecy which is probably why Elder Mckonkie included it in his book; the evidence supporting what I am saying (about the atrocities of the RCC) is overwhelming; so yes it is not the Church of Satan (today) but to the millions who died under its rule, it most definitely was. We both have uncomfortable histories which is a cross that we unfortunately have to bare although we despise the shame of it.

 

Having skeletons in your closet doesn't make your church the church of the devil, wittingly or not. I find it fascinating that the church has long since distanced itself from these earlier prejudices, but some people seem to want to resurrect them. I keep wondering if you're just trolling here. Your misspelling of BRM's last name suggests that's possible.

Edited October 14, 2015 by jkwilliams

[Maedros]

Seeing as we seem to agree it is wrong to label the Catholic Church as the Great and Abominable, it makes me curious how inspired leaders of the church had it wrong for so long? Do we dismiss it as mistakes of men, or do we say the leaders weren't seeking inspiration? There are too many issues like this from our past that we tend to just leave in the past instead of looking at them so we 1. don't make the same mistakes 2. understand the method of the mistakes so we don't perpetuate other mistakes.

It bothers me that we'd prefer to say, "well the prophet must be so right we don't need to challenge current teaching and practice". We should be able to challenge in case we have some error.

 

I agree with what you're saying - for instance someone who opposed polygamy when it was first practiced was likely excommunicated but a few years down the line the church opposed it, so was the member who opposed at the onset wrong and sinful if the church later came around and agreed with his first objection. If the leaders say this today and we say that - then a year down the line they say what we're saying now; we were wrong in opposing them?

[Sanpitch]

I haven't followed this subject closely but I think what Joseph Smith said in his history would add to the discussion and add to McConkie's opinions :

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

Edited October 14, 2015 by Sanpitch

[Maedros]

Having skeletons in your closet doesn't make your church the church of the devil, wittingly or not. I find it fascinating that the church has long since distanced itself from these earlier prejudices, but some people seem to want to resurrect them. I keep wondering if you're just trolling here. Your misspelling of BRM's last name suggests that's possible.

 

Seems like you're hurt some how - you don't have to say some people, say its me and no need to psychoanalyze me and point a small spelling error: tell me directly, I can handle it. If you carefully read what I've said then you'll know that I'm not saying that the RCC is (today) the church of the devil but in the past it was considered to be, based on the evidence of the millions of skeletons. 

[jkwilliams]

Seems like you're hurt some how - you don't have to say some people, say its me and no need to psychoanalyze me and point a small spelling error: tell me directly, I can handle it. If you carefully read what I've said then you'll know that I'm not saying that the RCC is (today) the church of the devil but in the past it was considered to be, based on the evidence of the millions of skeletons. 

 

Hurt? Why would you say that? Weird. And I wasn't referring to you specifically, as others on this thread seem to agree with you.

 

IMO, a lot of the anti-Catholic rhetoric of the past originates in the 19th century, when the LDS church was trying to draw hard and fast lines between itself and "apostate Christianity." If one reads the Book of Mormon as a 19th-century production, as I do, it definitely shows the anti-Catholic and anti-Masonic feeling of its day and place.

[Storm Rider]

I haven't followed this subject closely but I think what Joseph Smith said in his history would add to the discussion and add to McConkie's opinions :

19 I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.”

 

 

I agree; there are other statements of Joseph Smith of which two come to mind:

 

“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 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?

 

Hard to sell that Joseph had some prejudice against Catholics or any other Christian church.  He certainly was committed to the truthfulness and need of the Restoration and its importance, but that is it. 

[Maedros]

Hurt? Why would you say that? Weird. And I wasn't referring to you specifically, as others on this thread seem to agree with you.

 

IMO, a lot of the anti-Catholic rhetoric of the past originates in the 19th century, when the LDS church was trying to draw hard and fast lines between itself and "apostate Christianity." If one reads the Book of Mormon as a 19th-century production, as I do, it definitely shows the anti-Catholic and anti-Masonic feeling of its day and place.

 

Admittedly some of my comments on this topic could be construed to be anti-Catholic but I assure you that its not my intention - I am just trying to discuss the issue that was brought forth about the Church of Satan and the old notion that it was the RCC. Unfortunately this is an uncomfortable topic for Catholics but I trust that you are mature enough to see this as mere discussion. In my opinion the 19th century notion of the RCC as the G&A is based on historical facts and my pointing it out is in line with the topic and it should not make me anti-Catholic anymore than a Catholic talking about our polygamous history should be considered an anti-Mormon. 

[jkwilliams]

Admittedly some of my comments on this topic could be construed to be anti-Catholic but I assure you that its not my intention - I am just trying to discuss the issue that was brought forth about the Church of Satan and the old notion that it was the RCC. Unfortunately this is an uncomfortable topic for Catholics but I trust that you are mature enough to see this as mere discussion. In my opinion the 19th century notion of the RCC as the G&A is based on historical facts and my pointing it out is in line with the topic and it should not make me anti-Catholic anymore than a Catholic talking about our polygamous history should be considered an anti-Mormon. 

 

For one thing, I'm not Catholic, so it doesn't offend me, and I didn't say you personally were anti-Catholic. Rather, the church has gone to great lengths to distance itself from these earlier prejudices, and it's strange to me that people like you want to resurrect those teachings.

 

IMO, you could pretty much plug in any religion (Catholic, LDS, Muslim, etc.) and find ways to match it to the description in the Book of Mormon. 

[Maedros]

For one thing, I'm not Catholic, so it doesn't offend me, and I didn't say you personally were anti-Catholic. Rather, the church has gone to great lengths to distance itself from these earlier prejudices, and it's strange to me that people like you want to resurrect those teachings.

 

IMO, you could pretty much plug in any religion (Catholic, LDS, Muslim, etc.) and find ways to match it to the description in the Book of Mormon. 

 

Just to clarify jk: I knew you weren't Catholic and I know you weren't saying that I was anti-Catholic. I just quoted you because it was a good point you made and I wanted to use your comment to state what I said. To continue: the Church of Satan does exist and although it may not be any one church or religion, it is definitely a combination of different belief systems - the church indeed no longer teaches that the RCC is the G&A and I'm not teaching that either but I'm not denying the credibility of the evidence that led to that teaching and this site is the perfect place for us to discuss issues that we can't discuss in an official setting.

[jkwilliams]

Just to clarify jk: I knew you weren't Catholic and I know you weren't saying that I was anti-Catholic. I just quoted you because it was a good point you made and I wanted to use your comment to state what I said. To continue: the Church of Satan does exist and although it may not be any one church or religion, it is definitely a combination of different belief systems - the church indeed no longer teaches that the RCC is the G&A and I'm not teaching that either but I'm not denying the credibility of the evidence that led to that teaching and this site is the perfect place for us to discuss issues that we can't discuss in an official setting.

 

Pretty much everything you said about the Catholic Church could easily apply to the LDS church in the Utah Territory, so I'm saying that the "church of the devil" is in the eye of the beholder.

[Spammer]

Indeed the RCC is not the church of the devil which is so nicely pointed out in the link you sent me and I am not advocating that it is; what I am saying (and pay attention to this) is that: "the formation of a church" as stated in 1 Nephi 13:5 has reference to the Church of Constantine, see below from the link you sent me:

 

 

One commentator explained that the great and abominable church consists of more than one entity:

“Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles (Rome, Constantine); it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures (RCC, there is sufficient evidence of this); it must have slain the Saints of God (a saint is not necessarily an apostle or priesthood holder - we are latter-day saints; it is an indisputable fact that many people were murdered by the Roman Church), including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views (RCC, history has enough evidence); it must have dominion over all the earth (there was a time when it had dominion over all the known world); it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality (RCC: history of the papacy); and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description."

 

The RCC from the time of its formation until about the 18th century fit the description of Nephi's prophecy which is probably why Elder Mckonkie included it in his book; the evidence supporting what I am saying (about the atrocities of the RCC) is overwhelming; so yes it is not the Church of Satan (today) but to the millions who died under its rule, it most definitely was. We both have uncomfortable histories which is a cross that we unfortunately have to bare although we despise the shame of it.

 

If by the Roman Catholic Church you mean the ancient church of Rome, whose bishops are the popes, it was not formed by Constantine. That church was already in existence and recognizably Catholic in the first century, a couple of centuries before Constantine's accession to power. In fact, Constantine didn't form a church; he joined a church that had already been in existence for nearly three centuries.   Also, the Roman Church did not kill the apostles (they were killed by Jewish and Roman authorities); it did not slaughter the saints of God (the Roman church is filled with saints); and it did not ever have dominion over all the earth (at best, it only had temporary dominion over Western Europe, and only between approximately the 12th and 16th centuries). The alleged monolithic, all-controlling, all-encompassing, all-powerful Roman Catholic Church invented by Constantine and in league with the state is a self-serving Protestant myth.  That church never existed.  The actual Roman church, the RCC that exists today, was only one part of the ancient church.  

 

That ancient, universal (catholic) church was originally comprised of four great administrative centers: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, with Constantinople added as a fifth center by Constantine in the early 4th Century.  What you know as the Roman Catholic Church is only the old Church of Rome: the Christianity of the Western, Latin-speaking half of the old Roman Empire, the church subject to the popes.  The sins committed by members of that church (including a few popes), so often cited by Protestants and Mormons as evidence of apostasy, are sins that belong to that church alone.  Arguments in support of this thesis, such as those you've cited, gloss over all of this history.  The argument is flawed since it rests upon a faulty historical supposition - that the Roman Church just is the ancient Christian Church.  But this is not true.  The Christianity of the other four ancient centers of the ancient Church, which comprised the Eastern, Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire (and that half of the Empire didn't fall until 1453), still exists today and that Christianity parted ways with Rome 1000 years ago, long before any of the Roman Church's alleged 'crimes' that Protestants and Mormons love to cite as evidence of the apostasy of the ancient Catholic Church. Those Greek churches comprise the various Orthodox communions. Those churches never accepted the principal of papal supremacy and their history is entirely different from that of the Roman church.  Protestants and Mormons who, lacking historical understanding, point to the sins of popes, inquisitions, and crusades as evidence of the fall of the ancient church, still have to deal with the fact that the Roman church was only one part of the ancient church, not the whole ancient church in its entirety, and the rest of the ancient church still exists to this day and took no part in and shares no responsibility for any of those frequently cited mistakes.  

 

At best, Rome's sins can only be construed as evidence that the Roman part of the ancient Catholic church might have gone astray, not that the entire ancient Catholic church went astray.  However, 1) the usual evidences trotted out in support of that thesis are typically exaggerated and lacking proper context; 2) what church run by humans is free from sins and errors, as jkwilliams pointed out? and 3) sins committed by the handful of wicked popes (out of 266 popes, over 2000 years of history) were sins committed by individuals, not the Church - the Church is perfect, it's the people who aren't, right?  As Pres. Uchtdorf said recently: "And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.  I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes."  Exactly right and well said.  The presence of imperfect leaders, even leaders who commit great sins, has no bearing on whether a church has authority.  

Edited October 14, 2015 by Spammer

[Calm]

Admittedly some of my comments on this topic could be construed to be anti-Catholic but I assure you that its not my intention - I am just trying to discuss the issue that was brought forth about the Church of Satan and the old notion that it was the RCC. Unfortunately this is an uncomfortable topic for Catholics but I trust that you are mature enough to see this as mere discussion. In my opinion the 19th century notion of the RCC as the G&A is based on historical facts and my pointing it out is in line with the topic and it should not make me anti-Catholic anymore than a Catholic talking about our polygamous history should be considered an anti-Mormon.

Knowingly relying on sources that got much of their material from anti-Catholics would make one anti-Catholic. If it is unknowningly, then it is ignorance and being willing to condemn in ignorance makes one an anti-Catholic. Given that Catholics do not believe their faith began in the last century or so but has continued since the time of the Apostles, labeling their historical foundation as the Church of Satan is anti-Catholic and last using overly dramatic phrases such as "millions of skeletons" in one's rhetoric is also anti-Catholic.

Most bigots don't intend to be bigotted...and yet they are.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Calm