Anti- Catholicism

[saemo]

Of course, that is a conclusion a Mormon comes to. A Catholic comes to a different conclusion. And views things like, asserting the Catholic Chutch is the church of Satan, as something Satan would dance with joy to hear you say it.

Edited October 18, 2015 by saemo

[theplains]

"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)

 

That's a fair definition.  From what I have read, "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" is said

to be the only true church of Christ.  This would put all other churches and religions in the other camp.

 

Regards,

Jim

[Spammer]

They were members of the church of Christ. This was led by apostles, then by the remaining priesthood quorums and individuals until these numbers dwindled to the point there were effectively none left. The church was then under Aaronic administration (bishops, priests and deacons) with no ability to bestow the holy ghost. Revelation was rare and false doctrines, doctrinal disputes and usurption of power or position became the order of the day. Into this chaotic situation stepped Constantine.

Those who complied became the Catholic Church. The remainder continued in what was left of the church of Christ until the end. An example of this is the Celtic Church.

So, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, all of whom died between 75-160 years before 325, were all members of the primitive church that was restored by Joseph Smith?

[halconero]

Actually this has not at least been my personal experience when I here my ward and stake members talking about other religions and their doctrine. I see that here to some extent as well but not as much since people who post on boards such as these tend to interact with people from other faiths and learn from it.

Ah. Personal anecdotes > Scientific Study.

Fair enough.

[Teancum]

Ah. Personal anecdotes > Scientific Study.

Fair enough.

Hmmmm well let's see, did you provide a scientific study or just make an assertion. Did I claim my comment was scientific or did I qualify it be noting it was personal experience?

[halconero]

An assertion that Mormons were found (a turn of phrase usually associated with scientific study. Sorry for not being explicit enough) to be among the most knowledgeable of other religions.

But to satisfy the curious:

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

[why me]

Of course, that is a conclusion a Mormon comes to. A Catholic comes to a different conclusion. And views things like, asserting the Catholic Chutch is the church of Satan, as something Satan would dance with joy to hear you say it.

On the other hand back in the good ol' days of catholic answers, the mormons were led by the devil and joseph smith was of the devil. What to do? At least, it seems that with the new pope, catholic answers is maybe cleaning up its act. At least the lds church has clarified its meaning. Who do you think leads the lds church? God or the devil? Be honest since I know you from another site.

Edited October 18, 2015 by why me

[MiserereNobis]

On the other hand back in the good ol' days of catholic answers, the mormons were led by the devil and joseph smith was of the devil.

 

This is my point exactly.  Mormons would look at those statements on Catholic Answers and say how anti-Mormon and terrible they are.  But... the LDS church said the same things about Catholics.  This is why I pointed out the double standard of saying anti-Mormonism is not fair, but yet there exists anti-Catholicism.

 

At least the lds church has clarified its meaning.

 

Yet there are LDS folk (even on this board) who still believe it.

[thesometimesaint]

This is my point exactly.  Mormons would look at those statements on Catholic Answers and say how anti-Mormon and terrible they are.  But... the LDS church said the same things about Catholics.  This is why I pointed out the double standard of saying anti-Mormonism is not fair, but yet there exists anti-Catholicism.

 

 

 

Yet there are LDS folk (even on this board) who still believe it.

 

If there are any in either camp. They are wrong. There is a big difference between disagreeing and being disagreeable.

[Stargazer]

So, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, all of whom died between 75-160 years before 325, were all members of the primitive church that was restored by Joseph Smith?

Probably not all of them. The last Apostle who was active in the ministry (the others being dead) was John, and so any priesthood holders he ordained may have been given keys to ordain further Melchizedek priesthood holders, but unless he had ordained further apostles, those keys would have died with him (except we believe he didn't die). I understand that Polycarp was the last bishop ordained by John, and Polycarp ordained Eusebius, so both Polycarp and Eusebius would have been authorized holders of the Melchizedek priesthood, with Polycarp able to ordain others, but Eusebius not. Though Eusebius would probably have performed ordinations he didn't have the authority to perform.

In any event, by 325 there would have been few authorized priesthood holders left, even though there would have been plenty of men who believed that they were.

Or so I believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Probably not all of them. The last Apostle who was active in the ministry (the others being dead) was John, and so any priesthood holders he ordained may have been given keys to ordain further Melchizedek priesthood holders, but unless he had ordained further apostles, those keys would have died with him (except we believe he didn't die). I understand that Polycarp was the last bishop ordained by John, and Polycarp ordained Eusebius, so both Polycarp and Eusebius would have been authorized holders of the Melchizedek priesthood, with Polycarp able to ordain others, but Eusebius not. Though Eusebius would probably have performed ordinations he didn't have the authority to perform.

In any event, by 325 there would have been few authorized priesthood holders left, even though there would have been plenty of men who believed that they were.

Or so I believe.

 

I believe it was all over but the shouting by no later than 150 CE.

[why me]

This is my point exactly.  Mormons would look at those statements on Catholic Answers and say how anti-Mormon and terrible they are.  But... the LDS church said the same things about Catholics.  This is why I pointed out the double standard of saying anti-Mormonism is not fair, but yet there exists anti-Catholicism.

 

 

 

Yet there are LDS folk (even on this board) who still believe it.

But there is a difference. The catholics on catholic answers are still saying it. I think that the mormons are not saying anticatholic remarks here. In fact, I never was taught that the abominable church was the catholic church. I do remember communism being mentioned in class. But no one ever knew for sure what exactly it was. And when Bruce published the  first edition of mormon doctrine, it was criticized by the lds church for not being doctrine. So, what to do?

[Calm]

 I think that the mormons are not saying anticatholic remarks here.

 

Don't think you've been paying attention.

 

Some have, imo.

[Spammer]

Probably not all of them. The last Apostle who was active in the ministry (the others being dead) was John, and so any priesthood holders he ordained may have been given keys to ordain further Melchizedek priesthood holders, but unless he had ordained further apostles, those keys would have died with him (except we believe he didn't die). I understand that Polycarp was the last bishop ordained by John, and Polycarp ordained Eusebius, so both Polycarp and Eusebius would have been authorized holders of the Melchizedek priesthood, with Polycarp able to ordain others, but Eusebius not. Though Eusebius would probably have performed ordinations he didn't have the authority to perform.

In any event, by 325 there would have been few authorized priesthood holders left, even though there would have been plenty of men who believed that they were.

Or so I believe.

You probably guessed this was coming. All of the church fathers I mentioned to Alan were clearly in the Catholic tradition, including Polycarp and his friend Ignatius of Antioch.

Edited October 19, 2015 by Spammer

[Teancum]

An assertion that Mormons were found (a turn of phrase usually associated with scientific study. Sorry for not being explicit enough) to be among the most knowledgeable of other religions.

But to satisfy the curious:

http://www.pewforum.org/2010/09/28/u-s-religious-knowledge-survey/

Very good. Thanks. Not trying to be difficult about it.

[Five Solas]

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

...

Yes, we LDS have a double standard--but it's the Protestants' fault.  Without such pernicious influence, this never would have hatched and therefore we are free of the blame.  Good stuff & very persuasive, mfbukowski.

;0)

 

--Erik

[mfbukowski]

Yes, we LDS have a double standard--but it's the Protestants' fault.  Without such pernicious influence, this never would have hatched and therefore we are free of the blame.  Good stuff & very persuasive, mfbukowski.

;0)

 

--Erik

So Protestants are pro-Catholic so they left the church, right?

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

Your slavish admiration for Pope Francis is (yet again) noted.

 

But if you actually bother to read 1st Nephi for what it says, you'll discover that the GAC can't be any one religious body or movement. Because it is rather plainly clear that it is part of a paradigm in which there are "two churches only."

 

So if EV Protestantism is the GAC, then absolutely everyone else must be part of the Church of the Lamb of God.

 

Is that really what you think?

[SmileyMcGee]

Your slavish admiration for Pope Francis is (yet again) noted.

But if you actually bother to read 1st Nephi for what it says, you'll discover that the GAC can't be any one religious body or movement. Because it is rather plainly clear that it is part of a paradigm in which there are "two churches only."

So if EV Protestantism is the GAC, then absolutely everyone else must be part of the Church of the Lamb of God.

Is that really what you think?

It's not part of the two churches paradigm... thats logically impossible based on a reading of 1st Nephi. It may be a subset of the church of the devil but it is not synonymous.

[Five Solas]

So Protestants are pro-Catholic so they left the church, right?

Point to some incontrovertible historical fact & pretend it substantiates the implication you made.  That trick always works 'round here...

;0)

 

Actually my favorite recent bit of LDS blame-shifting on the board (which actually connects with the topic of this thread) was here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/66109-same-sex-marriage-vs-convenience-abortion-a-question-of-priority-and-societal-harm/?p=1209540997

 

Therein the buck was passed to the Roman Catholic Church for the LDS Church's disproportionate response to SSM.  However, that one proved a bit rich even for other LDS (see the immediately following post). 

 

No worries, mfbukowski, I'm just giving you a hard time.  Please enjoy your evening and carry on.

 

--Erik

[Yirgacheffe]

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?

Which threads are those?

[Scott Lloyd]

Well to see it here on this board. I agree with you by the way that it should be relegated to the dust bin. I don't agree that it was not taught fairly consistently at one point by a number of LDS leaders nor was it taught as speculation any more than the efforts to explain the preisthood ban were.

I have a lifelong background in Mormonism at least as rich as yours, and I don't recall the equating of the great and abomination church with Catholicism as ever being a settled or authoritative point. Your insistence that it was may be more a function of your own myopia than of reality.

[Alan]

So, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyon, Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, Origen, and Clement of Alexandria, all of whom died between 75-160 years before 325, were all members of the primitive church that was restored by Joseph Smith?

I think they were probably members of an ailing church of Christ, although there were counterfeits and desenters from an early time. Even at the time of Paul's ministry.

[Alan]

I believe it was all over but the shouting by no later than 150 CE.

Depends where.

There were certainly areas of the world where that is true. But there were areas where they hung on for much longer. The last place was probably the British Isles, though other remote places could also have benefitted from their isolation.

[thesometimesaint]

In 150 CE the people of the British Isles were still controlled by the Romans. The Romans of that era weren't noted for their Christianity.