Anti- Catholicism

[MiserereNobis]

Hello LDS friends,

 

There are currently two threads on the great and abominable church (church of Satan) where the Catholic church has been put forward as a candidate.  I have stated that this does not personally bother me, as I find such claims laughable and not supported by any real evidence.  I also think they are very clearly based on the historical Protestant bias that underlies America.  Any in-depth of study of Catholic (European) history would show that our ideas about the Catholic Church's atrocities are not based in fact.  I'm not saying that there weren't atrocities -- I'm saying that we fill-in-the-blanks when it comes to things like inquisitions, crusades, etc, and most of our filling-in is simply false.  We also have a similar bias when it comes to Medieval times ("Dark Ages"?  Really??).

 

I appreciate the LDS folk who have come to the Catholic Church's defense and have offered a more tenable view.

 

Anyways, my point here is not to defend the details but to point out a double standard that I see.  My experience with Mormons, both on this board and in person, has shown a completely understandable sensitivity to anti-Mormonism.  When someone attack the LDS church, especially if they are disgruntled ex-Mormon, the criticism is deflected by calling the criticizer an anti-Mormon.

 

I'm fairly certain that if someone called the LDS church the church of satan, the mother of harlots, the whore of Bablyon, the great and abominable church, etc, etc, that person would be labeled an anti-Mormon and their motives and methods impugned.  If that person were in a position of leadership in another church then their bias would be clearly pointed out -- after all, they have a very strong reason to show that the LDS church is false.

 

Is there a double-standard among LDS members who call the Catholic Church the great and abominable church?  Especially if those people are leaders (McConkie, Talmage, etc)?  Is it ok to be anti-another religion but not anti-Mormon?  Is it acceptable to listen to ex-Catholics' claims (Martin Luther, for example) but not ex-Mormon claims?

[TheSkepticChristian]

The great abominable church is Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity. 

 

Don't worry, the Catholic Church has Pope Francis. Right now the Catholic church is enjoying a great religious leader.

[mfbukowski]

Hello LDS friends,

There are currently two threads on the great and abominable church (church of Satan) where the Catholic church has been put forward as a candidate. I have stated that this does not personally bother me, as I find such claims laughable and not supported by any real evidence. I also think they are very clearly based on the historical Protestant bias that underlies America. Any in-depth of study of Catholic (European) history would show that our ideas about the Catholic Church's atrocities are not based in fact. I'm not saying that there weren't atrocities -- I'm saying that we fill-in-the-blanks when it comes to things like inquisitions, crusades, etc, and most of our filling-in is simply false. We also have a similar bias when it comes to Medieval times ("Dark Ages"? Really??).

I appreciate the LDS folk who have come to the Catholic Church's defense and have offered a more tenable view.

Anyways, my point here is not to defend the details but to point out a double standard that I see. My experience with Mormons, both on this board and in person, has shown a completely understandable sensitivity to anti-Mormonism. When someone attack the LDS church, especially if they are disgruntled ex-Mormon, the criticism is deflected by calling the criticizer an anti-Mormon.

I'm fairly certain that if someone called the LDS church the church of satan, the mother of harlots, the whore of Bablyon, the great and abominable church, etc, etc, that person would be labeled an anti-Mormon and their motives and methods impugned. If that person were in a position of leadership in another church then their bias would be clearly pointed out -- after all, they have a very strong reason to show that the LDS church is false.

Is there a double-standard among LDS members who call the Catholic Church the great and abominable church? Especially if those people are leaders (McConkie, Talmage, etc)? Is it ok to be anti-another religion but not anti-Mormon? Is it acceptable to listen to ex-Catholics' claims (Martin Luther, for example) but not ex-Mormon claims?

there definitely is a double standard. It grows out of a Protestant culture in which all the founders of our church were raised.

So I do not believe in the Catholic Church it is wonderful that it kept alive the memory of Christ's message and dispersed it through the world.

[thesometimesaint]

While we are a Restoration church I believe, with good reason, that the Apostasy was over and done long before the Catholic church came into existence.

[bluebell]

I agree it's a double standard.

I do not agree that evangelical Christianity is the GABC. I know too many Christ like evangelical Christians.

[SmileyMcGee]

Of course there's a double standard. But people in general either won't see their own hypocrisy or couldn't care less, especially people who think (often with certainty) that the universe literally revolves around their own beliefs.

I guess a related question would be why do you or anyone else on this board think that anyone's beliefs should be respected? I'm a fan of respecting people's right to believe what they want and to express what they believe, but I don't expect any belief to be respected or to be above criticism, including my own.

Edited October 17, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[mfbukowski]

there definitely is a double standard. It grows out of a Protestant culture in which all the founders of our church were raised.

So I do not believe in the Catholic Church it is wonderful that it kept alive the memory of Christ's message and dispersed it through the world.

This garbled mess comes out of replying on a phone through voice recognition software and not checking the outcome too well!  Lesson learned!

 

The last sentence is supposed to say:

"Though I do not believe in the Catholic Church any longer, it is wonderful that it kept alive the memory of Christ's message and dispersed it through the world."

[mfbukowski]

Of course there's a double standard. But people in general either won't see their own hypocrisy or couldn't care less, especially people who think (often with certainty) that the universe literally revolves around their own beliefs.

I guess a related question would be why do you or anyone else on this board think that your beliefs should be respected?

Guess I am in an editing mode

 

Should that last sentence read:

"I guess a related question would be why do you or anyone else on this board think that your anyone's beliefs should be respected?"

 

Surely you don't mean that no one should respect miserere's beliefs, do you?

[mfbukowski]

The other aspect of this is that we really DO believe in Mormonism around here for the most part, and there  are definite reasons for our decisions to be Mormons- we think that church is the best around for us.

 

That means the others have something wrong with them that we do not like.  We know what those things are, and we freely express our opinions on what those things are, and frankly wonder why everyone does not see the world the same way we do.

 

Or at least that is the way I see things, for better or for worse.

 

So though I respect other's beliefs, frankly I think they are wrong and cannot figure out why anyone would believe that when of course I have already firmly worked out my own views.

 

It's like buying a new house and changing nothing.  No questioning about why the living room is pink.

 

We tend to want things the way we like them, not the way others like them, and religion is no different. "

 

I have chosen what I like, and everyone else is wrong.  Sure I respect their right to be wrong, but that's their business"   I think that tends to be the attitude.

 

"How odd that they believe thus and so!"   Sometimes that can be understood as an "anti" position when that is not intended.

 

And I think that works for all points of view.  Democrats can't understand how Republicans think either.   Religion and politics are the major dividing points of mankind I think.

[Teancum]

The other aspect of this is that we really DO believe in Mormonism around here for the most part, and there are definite reasons for our decisions to be Mormons- we think that church is the best around for us.

That means the others have something wrong with them that we do not like. We know what those things are, and we freely express our opinions on what those things are, and frankly wonder why everyone does not see the world the same way we do.

Or at least that is the way I see things, for better or for worse.

So though I respect other's beliefs, frankly I think they are wrong and cannot figure out why anyone would believe that when of course I have already firmly worked out my own views.

It's like buying a new house and changing nothing. No questioning about why the living room is pink.

We tend to want things the way we like them, not the way others like them, and religion is no different. "

I have chosen what I like, and everyone else is wrong. Sure I respect their right to be wrong, but that's their business" I think that tends to be the attitude.

"How odd that they believe thus and so!" Sometimes that can be understood as an "anti" position when that is not intended.

And I think that works for all points of view. Democrats can't understand how Republicans think either. Religion and politics are the major dividing points of mankind I think.

How in depth do you think most Mormoms have explored in any depth other religious traditions?

Do you really wonder why all other non LDS don't see things the way you do? I can never recall thing this way when I was a more solid LDS believer.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Teancum

[SmileyMcGee]

Guess I am in an editing mode

Should that last sentence read:

"I guess a related question would be why do you or anyone else on this board think that your anyone's beliefs should be respected?"

Surely you don't mean that no one should respect miserere's beliefs, do you?

Yes. Thank you, Scott but really thank you, my grammar ain't the goodest Edited October 17, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[why me]

Of course, catholic history is problematic. First we have the religious wars between protestants and catholics that cost thousands of lives, then we have the Inquisition, the corruption of popes and the clergy. Also, we have the forced colonialization of the religion on pagan peoples etc. And we have the power struggles between the popes and anti-popes. These all and more speaks to an apostacy and the need for a restoration.

 

I heard that the abominable church was communism. So, much was said about it and speculated about. And this is what happens when such a thing is unclear and without specifics.

[mfbukowski]

How in depth do you think most Mormoms have explored in any depth other religious traditions?

Do you really wonder why all other non LDS don't see things the way you do? I can never recall thing this way when I was a more solid LDS believer.

Yep, I do believe that. If I had not found the church, I would have invented it.

I developed most of the beliefs before I found the church

[mfbukowski]

Yes. Thank you, Scott but really thank you, my grammar ain't the goodest

I know you have a good heart and the other just didn't sound like you!

[mfbukowski]

Also Protstants are a priori believers in the apostasy.

If Catholicism was right, no reformation would be necessary. They are raised believing Catholicism is wrong and no one questions it.

[Spammer]

"Of course, catholic history is problematic. First we have the religious wars between protestants and catholics that cost thousands of lives, then we have the Inquisition, the corruption of popes and the clergy. Also, we have the forced colonialization of the religion on pagan peoples etc. And we have the power struggles between the popes and anti-popes. These all and more speaks to an apostacy and the need for a restoration."

 

Assuming all of this is true and it is evidence of apostasy (it isn't), it only speaks to the fall of Western Christianity - Rome and its Protestant offshoots.  Rome was only one of the five centers of the ancient Catholic church.  None of the evidences typically trotted out by anti-Catholics about Rome speak to the experience of the the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, or Constantinople and their offshoots. At best, it only indicates that the Western wing of the Catholic church was in need of reform. 

Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer

[why me]

"Of course, catholic history is problematic. First we have the religious wars between protestants and catholics that cost thousands of lives, then we have the Inquisition, the corruption of popes and the clergy. Also, we have the forced colonialization of the religion on pagan peoples etc. And we have the power struggles between the popes and anti-popes. These all and more speaks to an apostacy and the need for a restoration."

 

Assuming all of this is true and it is evidence of apostasy (it isn't), it only speaks to the fall of Western Christianity - Rome and its Protestant offshoots.  Rome was only one of the five centers of the ancient Catholic church.  None of the evidences typically trotted out by anti-Catholics about Rome speak to the experience of the the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, or Constantinople and their offshoots. At best, it only indicates that the Western wing of the Catholic church was in need of reform. 

It is all true what I  wrote. The thread is about the catholic church. I just gave a brief outline of some of its history. The question that needs to be asked is: was christianity in need of a restoration in 1820? Maybe so. To be critical of catholic history is not anti-catholicism. And the catholic church did have some corruptible history prior to 1820. It has been the power broker of europe for centuries, losing its grip after the reformation. Which is why we had the religious wars.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

 

I don't think that heavenly father was pleased by such wars and the corruption inside the christian churches.

[SmileyMcGee]

I know you have a good heart and the other just didn't sound like you!

I appreciate your pointing out my need to clarify. I edited my post for clarity. Edited October 17, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[CV75]

Is there a double-standard among LDS members who call the Catholic Church the great and abominable church?  Especially if those people are leaders (McConkie, Talmage, etc)?  Is it ok to be anti-another religion but not anti-Mormon?  Is it acceptable to listen to ex-Catholics' claims (Martin Luther, for example) but not ex-Mormon claims?

I think this would be a double standard more for living members than dead ones, and for those who can dish it out and not take it.

 

I do not think it is a good use of time nor part of a sincere search for truth to give more than a passing accommodation to any “ex-” claims, especially if they are “anti” in nature. It is far better to go the source.

 

To me, in order to be “anti-” one would have to do more than just talk trash about a church because of his experience, but actively seek its failure. I think most godly religious people are not intent on overthrowing another faith, but with the building up of the best of their own.

[Spammer]

It is all true what I wrote. The thread is about the catholic church. I just gave a brief outline of some of its history. The question that needs to be asked is: was christianity in need of a restoration in 1820? Maybe so. To be critical of catholic history is not anti-catholicism. And the catholic church did have some corruptible history prior to 1820. It has been the power broker of europe for centuries, losing its grip after the reformation. Which is why we had the religious wars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion

I don't think that heavenly father was pleased by such wars and the corruption inside the christian churches.

No, God is not pleased by wars and corruption, but the presence of bad behavior by some church leaders is not evidence of the total apostasy of that church, even if the behavior leads to wars. If the current LDS prophet were to fall, or the prophet and some of the apostles, or only some of the apostles, would that mean the LDS church was in apostasy? I don't think so. What if it was just a series of bishops from a single ward, say the Salt Lake 1st Ward, and that bishop in turn was involved in the corruption of other bishops in a region and climbed into bed with the state or federal government, but not every bishop in the church? Would that indicate the Apostasy of the LDS church? Of course not. The last of these scenarios is similar to what happened in the Roman church and in Constantinople, in an era long before the US when separation of church and state was unthinkable.

You indicated that the presence of corruption in the Roman church is evidence of the fall of the ancient church and the need for a restoration. My point was only that 1) the presence of problems that were unique to the Roman church is not evidence of a general Apostasy of the entire ancient church, since the other four centers of the ancient church did not participate in Rome's actions and are still with us today. Those who believe corruption in Roman Catholicism is evidence of the apostasy of the ancient church commit the categorical error of taking only a part (the Church of Rome) and assuming it comprises the whole; and 2) even if the heavily mythologized version of Catholic history that you described and that Protestants and Mormons (most Americans, for that matter) believe is true (which it isn't), that is still not evidence of the total fall of Roman Catholicism. It is only evidence of the fall of the individuals who perpetrate the kinds of crimes you mentioned.

The same as in the LDS church, just because one bishop (e.g., the Bishop of Rome) is corrupt has no bearing on whether the other bishops have priesthood authority or whether predecessor or successor bishops to that office have priesthood authority. The same as in Mormonism today, the body of doctrine is preserved by the collection of authorized priesthood bearers who are tasked with local administration and collectively preserve the doctrine, and the loss of priesthood authority by one bishop has no effect on the authority of other bishops. However, the main difference is that in Mormonism there is a prophet who receives revelation from God and in the Roman church the pope (Bishop of Rome) appoints other bishops and is granted infallibility when speaking about faith and morals under very specific, rarely used criteria. The deposit of the apostolic doctrine in the Roman church resides in Magisterium of the church, not in the hands of an individual pope alone. So the real issue is if a prophet or pope falls, does that indicate an Apostasy of that prophet or pope's church? In accordance with its model for priesthood authority and the preservation of the apostolic teaching, the answer to the question for the Roman church is no. The only true source of apostasy is whether a church deviates from the apostolic teaching.

So, tying all of this back into the OP, it seems that anti-Catholicism is related to the need to provide empirical evidence that backs up the claim that the ancient Christian church fell and needed to be restored. But such attempts only reveal 1) a lack of historical understanding of the nature of the ancient church and 2) mistaken views on the nature of authority and the preservation of doctrine in the Roman model.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Spammer

[carbon dioxide]

Is there a double-standard among LDS members who call the Catholic Church the great and abominable church?  Especially if those people are leaders (McConkie, Talmage, etc)?  Is it ok to be anti-another religion but not anti-Mormon?  Is it acceptable to listen to ex-Catholics' claims (Martin Luther, for example) but not ex-Mormon claims?

 

"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or 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." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, [1966], p. 760)

[Ham Clam]

MiserereNobis,

Have you watched the videos from Utah Valley University's Mormons and Catholic Religious Studies Conference that came out in May?

Here's a link to the YouTube recordings.

Interesting stuff.

[SmileyMcGee]

"The titles church of the devil and great and abominable church are used to identify all churches or 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." (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 2nd edition, [1966], p. 760)

This just lumps the Catholic Church in with every other organization, that thinks differently than the LDS church, under the umbrella of abominable and satanic. It also isn't necessaily consistent with the BOM. When referring to the church of the devil, it is said in the BOM that there are two churches only, of God and of the devil. When referring to the great and abominable, the BOM states that it is abominable above all other "churches." If the great and abominable is abominable above all other churches (plural), then there must be at least three churches. Since the church of the devil is one of two churches it cannot be equated with the great and abominable. I think the BOM is referring to a specific church when using the term great and abominable, instead of using the term as a category for opposing beliefs.

Regardless, this quote still implies that the Catholic Church is a fabrication of satan. Point being, if the pope made a similar comment about the LDS church, members would likely label the pope an anti mormon.

Edited October 17, 2015 by SmileyMcGee

[Stargazer]

The great abominable church is Christianity, especially Evangelical Christianity. 

 

Don't worry, the Catholic Church has Pope Francis. Right now the Catholic church is enjoying a great religious leader.

Well, some Catholics may differ with you about the current Pope, you know.

And you're wrong about what constitutes the great and abominable. It's any Church that is not the true Church of Jesus Christ. Including the Hinduism, Islam, Buddhism, Atheism, and any other -sim.

[Alan]

While we are a Restoration church I believe, with good reason, that the Apostasy was over and done long before the Catholic church came into existence.

I don't.

The Catholic Church helped bring about the apostacy, as Nephi clearly indicates.

In my view the Catholic Church came into being around 325AD, and finally succeeded in defeating what was left of the original church by 570AD.

Edited October 17, 2015 by Alan