The Church Of Satan

[MiserereNobis]

Your point is a very poor one, and based solely on a speculative discussion here, where only a very small group of interested parties bother to comment -- and in which there is no unity of opinion among the Mormons themselves.

 

 

It is not based solely on discussion here.  There have been posted quotes from LDS leaders and apostles, past and present, opining this view.  Many people have said they grew up with the idea that the Roman Church is the church of satan and/or the great and abominable church.  I think if LDS leaders have taught it, and LDS faithful have believed it, it is worthy of discussion.

 

I think the Roman Church attracts the most attention because of the doctrine of the apostasy.  Since the Catholic Church (West and East) was Christianity prior to the protestant revolt, the great apostasy logically points to Her.  Protestants get more of a pass because they said they were attempting to reform, fix, whatever you want to call it, perceived problems in the Church.  Also, I have heard some LDS say that, due to claims of priesthood authority, it is either the Catholics or the Mormons, which makes total sense.

 

I'm not saying that Mormons go around all the time maligning the Roman Church or other religions.  I'm just saying that at the times when they do, or when they read those prophesies in the Book of Mormon and align them with the Roman Church, they should realize what they are doing.

 

By the way, those protestant churches that attack the LDS most vigorously also attack the Catholics.  I've even seen the Catholic Church on a list of cults, once.  So we're both in good company

[thesometimesaint]

It is not based solely on discussion here.  There have been posted quotes from LDS leaders and apostles, past and present, opining this view.  Many people have said they grew up with the idea that the Roman Church is the church of satan and/or the great and abominable church.  I think if LDS leaders have taught it, and LDS faithful have believed it, it is worthy of discussion.

 

I think the Roman Church attracts the most attention because of the doctrine of the apostasy.  Since the Catholic Church (West and East) was Christianity prior to the protestant revolt, the great apostasy logically points to Her.  Protestants get more of a pass because they said they were attempting to reform, fix, whatever you want to call it, perceived problems in the Church.  Also, I have heard some LDS say that, due to claims of priesthood authority, it is either the Catholics or the Mormons, which makes total sense.

 

I'm not saying that Mormons go around all the time maligning the Roman Church or other religions.  I'm just saying that at the times when they do, or when they read those prophesies in the Book of Mormon and align them with the Roman Church, they should realize what they are doing.

 

By the way, those protestant churches that attack the LDS most vigorously also attack the Catholics.  I've even seen the Catholic Church on a list of cults, once.  So we're both in good company

 

Sure some members including some in the leadership taught it. Some may have even believed it. I never have. However just because some taught/believed it doesn't make it true or LDS doctrine.

 

We don't have a tradition based doctrine in the Catholic sense of the word.

 

Protestants are always out to lunch.

[Robert F. Smith]

It is not based solely on discussion here.  There have been posted quotes from LDS leaders and apostles, past and present, opining this view.  Many people have said they grew up with the idea that the Roman Church is the church of satan and/or the great and abominable church.  I think if LDS leaders have taught it, and LDS faithful have believed it, it is worthy of discussion.

 

I think the Roman Church attracts the most attention because of the doctrine of the apostasy.  Since the Catholic Church (West and East) was Christianity prior to the protestant revolt, the great apostasy logically points to Her.  Protestants get more of a pass because they said they were attempting to reform, fix, whatever you want to call it, perceived problems in the Church.  Also, I have heard some LDS say that, due to claims of priesthood authority, it is either the Catholics or the Mormons, which makes total sense.

 

I'm not saying that Mormons go around all the time maligning the Roman Church or other religions.  I'm just saying that at the times when they do, or when they read those prophesies in the Book of Mormon and align them with the Roman Church, they should realize what they are doing.

 

By the way, those protestant churches that attack the LDS most vigorously also attack the Catholics.  I've even seen the Catholic Church on a list of cults, once.  So we're both in good company

Most of what you say here is true, but your main point is poorly directed simply because it does not constitute a major concern of Mormons or Mormonism.  Indeed, the Mormon circles I move in find much more in common with Roman Catholicism (and Eastern Orthodoxy) than with Protestantism.  And, yes, both Mormons and Catholics were hated and persecuted in the 19th century.

 

Yes, it is worthy of discussion, as long as one does not begin creating tendentious straw-man versions of what Mormons in fact do and believe.

[hagoth7]

So in light of your post, here's a very interesting speculative question: What covenants and doctrines not now found in the pages of the Bible are there that might have been viewed by secular Roman rulers as having the potential to undermine the stability of the Roman Empire?

That's actually one of the projects I've been working on recently - which is part of the reason I hinted in that direction. The answer is interesting enough...and the evidence supporting that answer is reasonably solid and compelling.  But I hesitate to comment further while it's still the roughest of drafts. Instead, I intend to post the full findings later, when the project is fleshed out and a bit more polished. (It is essentially intended as a faith-promoting corollary to a more secular piece I wrote several years back called "Odin's Toga.")

Edited October 22, 2015 by hagoth7

[Bobbieaware]

That's actually one of the projects I've been working on recently - which is part of the reason I hinted in that direction. The answer is interesting enough...and the evidence supporting that answer is reasonably solid and compelling.  But I hesitate to comment further while it's still the roughest of drafts. Instead, I intend to post the full findings later, when the project is fleshed out and a bit more polished. (It is essentially intended as a faith-promoting corollary to a more secular piece I wrote several years back called "Odin's Toga.")

I don't want to miss your article. So if you can remember to do so, please private message me to let me know when it's published.

[hagoth7]

I don't want to miss your article. So if you can remember to do so, please private message me to let me know when it's published.

OK, I've made note of your request. (Now let's see if I actually remember to follow up.)

[Robert F. Smith]

As a believer in dogmatic creeds (and part of McConkie's great and abominable church, ha!), I'd like to respectfully point out that the Articles of Faith are, by any definition, a creed.  The word creed comes from the Latin "credo" which means "I believe."  It is the traditional beginning of the statements of faith that creeds employ.  The Articles of Faith are statements of belief that also begin with "believe" (we, obviously, instead of I).

 

So, though you don't call it a creed, I don't see how there is anyway of getting around it:  The LDS church has a creed and it is the Articles of Faith.

 

If I remember correctly, don't children have to memorize the Articles of Faith?

Are the Articles canonized scripture?

 

Pax

You are correct, of course, and the Mormons also have catechism, canon law, and high liturgy, even though most Mormons don't realize it (they are not familiar with the terminology).  One could say the same for the Jewish Shma' or the Apostles Creed, both of which seem harmless.  If someone had told the late Elder Bruce R. McConkie that he was a canon  lawyer, he would have done a double take.

 

What I think was being criticized by Jesus in the presence of Joseph Smith were the stifling definitions of the Westminster Confession of Faith, the Nicene Creed, and the like, which made authentic Christianity impossible.

[Robert F. Smith]

As a Catholic, I don't much mind others thinking that I am part of a the great whore of Babylon.  I think it is utterly completely absolutely ridiculous, from historical, theological, and straight up logical points-of-view.  And sheesh, even if you disagree with us, have some gratitude for that fact that without us Western Civilization would not have a Christian foundation!

 

Even if you think our theology is wrong, you've must have some appreciation for the sheer amount of good that has been done by Catholicism in every realm from academics, to art, to caring for the poor.  And think of how many people have found a loving, fruitful, and important relationship with God and Christ through Catholicism.

 

We might be wrong, but it hardly seems like we could be called the church of satan.  This is why such accusations don't bother me -- they seem beyond crazy.

 

Pax

Again, I must agree with most of what you say, but none of that would be true without the Counter Reformation, which itself was a reaction to the Protestant Reformation (Luther in particular).  Only thus can one admire the Roman Catholic Church today and give credit where credit is due.  Indeed, LDS General Authorities often speak with high regard for various Roman Catholic figures -- such as Mother Teresa -- and attend Roman Catholic functions locally and internationally.

[Robert F. Smith]

Elder McConkie died 30 years ago this year. I remember his last talk like it was yesterday. Me calling him uncle is more a term of endearment. He was my best friend's uncle, so we both called him uncle Bruce. Sure he got a few things wrong but was willing to admit it. The other 99% was very helpful for a member's growing knowledge and testimony of the gospel.

Never owned a copy and never used one.  Didn't see how it could be of any use whatever.  Sorry.  

[Robert F. Smith]

Sounds like the "nihil obstat" and the "imprimatur" in Catholicism.  It's really not a bad idea

This sort of thing does take place implicitly -- through comments on the back jacket, sales in the Church bookstore chain (Deseret Book), and the like.