Anti- Catholicism

[RevTestament]

I was speaking in general terms, not specifically about you.  It's a hypothesis I've encountered many times. 

Again, you attribute more power to Western bishops, especially the pope, than they really had.

Well, he had plenty of power by the Middle ages, as he proved to the world with his gold tiaras of 3 crowns  - one for his lordship over other bishops, one for his temporal power, and one for his spiritual lordship.

 

 

 

We Nicene Christians believe it's possible for men to become like Christ.  We call it theosis.

I call it "the Way." The problem in my eyes is that beginning with the Nicene Creed, Nicene Christianity erases "the way."

[Spammer]

Well, he had plenty of power by the Middle ages, as he proved to the world with his gold tiaras of 3 crowns - one for his lordship over other bishops, one for his temporal power, and one for his spiritual lordship.

I call it "the Way." The problem in my eyes is that beginning with the Nicene Creed, Nicene Christianity erases "the way."

Ok, but my point all along has been that Nicene Christianity (and the demise of the Nestorian churches of the East within the borders of the old Empire) was not enforced on Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman pontiffs didn't have any power until Charlemagne and by then Nicene Christianity was already dominant. The notion of an all-powerful Roman Catholic Church that ruined Christianity, even in the West, is a Protestant myth belied by historical fact. Assuming Nicene Christianity is Christianity's ruination, the only role Rome played in Nicene Christianity's eventual victory by the 8th Century was via papal influence at church councils, missionary work and the establishment of monasteries. Of course, there's no evidence besides interpretation of ambiguous NT passages and subjective testimony that an Apostasy ever happened, so I naturally believe that the victory of Nicene Christianity was the action of the Holy Spirit. I am Orthodox, after all.

Edited October 24, 2015 by Spammer

[RevTestament]

Ok, but my point all along has been that Nicene Christianity (and the demise of the Nestorian churches of the East within the borders of the old Empire) was not enforced on Christianity by the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman pontiffs didn't have any power until Charlemagne and by then Nicene Christianity was already dominant. The notion of an all-powerful Roman Catholic Church that ruined Christianity, even in the West, is a Protestant myth belied by historical fact. Assuming Nicene Christianity is Christianity's ruination, the only role Rome played in Nicene Christianity's eventual victory by the 8th Century was via papal influence at church councils, missionary work and the establishment of monasteries. Of course, there's no evidence besides interpretation of ambiguous NT passages and subjective testimony that an Apostasy ever happened, so I naturally believe that the victory of Nicene Christianity was the action of the Holy Spirit. I am Orthodox, after all.

What you see as a victory, I see as God allowing them to have their strong delusion because they loved not the truth of the scriptures, but replaced it with their own ideas. I believe you cannot become like Christ following these creeds, since in many ways they are the antithesis of the truths of Christ. Christ is called our brother or our fellow by the scriptures. Nicene Christianity turns him into a non-begotten tri-part of God for all eternity before this world rather than our humble brother who led the way to the holiest of all. It also makes him the immutable Son forevermore. If so, how can He receive his inheritance as our Father per Isaiah 9:6?

 

P.S. the "all-powerful Roman Catholic Church" is really not a myth, it just happened later than Constantine. I don't believe the LDS General Authorities have ever indicated that the RCC was the direct cause of Nicene Christianity. Although many critics allege Joseph Smith included the verses regarding the Great Abominable church to "his book" if so, he was strangely quiet on the issue. I don't recall him ever discussing those verses. If he did, the church doesn't seem to know it, since they don't allege the GAC is the RCC.

[Yirgacheffe]

I thought surely this was a misrepresentation of what Elder Ballard said, but I listened to the whole thing.  At about 58:50, he talks about how most people in the world don't know where they come from, why they are here, and where they are going. He then says:

 

 

 

 

Obviously, he was trying to say that the First Vision gives us a proper understanding of the nature of the Godhead, but the way he said it was unfortunate. 

I listened to it twice now and I don't see that as the only point he was trying to make, if that was the case he could have continued the most don't know where they come from, why they're here and where they're going by simply adding they don't know God, the Savior and The Holy Ghost.  But instead he singled out Catholics as not knowing, while he may have been reinforcing that the LDS church has a proper understanding he was also making a deliberate point about Catholics in that speech.

[saemo]

Constantine was a supporter of Ariansim,

I don't believe there is much evidence for this until considerably after the Council of Nicea.

and was baptized by an Arian Bishop.

Not until his deathbed. He didn't rule as a baptised Christian, but as a pontifex maximus like his predecessors.

Therefore, what would any alleged non-attendee supporters of Arianism fear, from Constantine?Um he killed Licinius the same year the council was held. They may have feared he was just buttering up the Christians to win them over to his side against Licinius, and now with Licinius dead, he may strike against the Christians of the East? Not too unreasonable a fear given the treacherous history of imperial politics.

"Hey, I just killed your enemy Licinius guys, so I am your hero and deliverer you can trust - and did I say I am sole emperor now? Come to my council, and I will prove I really am a nice guy????" (Hmmm, maybe not).

It was common then, and is now, for councils to not have all Bishops in attendance. The West sent legates, who represented the entire Western Church. The West had already excommunicated Arius, who fled to the East, and found support from an Arian Bishop, who also was the Bishop for Constantine's court. Arius had fled to the East, long before the Council.

Which brings up the generally neglected fact that Arian thought was much more prevalent in the East than in the Western church. Again I am not advocating Arianism, but it was about the only force against the imperial creedal machine, which ruled by threat of excommunication for one's belief rather than any sin.

There is no evidence of an "imperial credal machine", and is in my informed opinion, a conspiracy theory. What does it matter when Constantine was baptized? The person who baptized him wasn't just some random guy, but a trusted advisor. Constantine, by his own actions, had no vested interest in Arianism or Orthodoxy. The conflict of Arianism vs Orthodoxy only mattered to Constantine insofar as it hindered of helped his desire for postwar peace and stability of his empire. If Arius had his way, it would have been Arianism, and there is no evidence that Constantine would have objected if it were so.

Arius was a Bishop, who was censored by the Church, which was at time about 700 years before the Great Schism. That he sought to continue teaching and advocating heresy in another region of the world, and then proclaimed a heretic a second time, are facts that should help alleviate the common conspiracy theories found in Mormonism. He was proclaimed a heretic by the West and the East. What more do you want?

If the same happened to a Mormon today, only anti-Mormons would be saying it was a political maneuver for the benefit of law or governors.

Edited October 24, 2015 by saemo

[Spammer]

"Um he killed Licinius the same year the council was held. They may have feared he was just buttering up the Christians to win them over to his side against Licinius, and now with Licinius dead, he may strike against the Christians of the East? Not too unreasonable a fear given the treacherous history of imperial politics.
"Hey, I just killed your enemy Licinius guys, so I am your hero and deliverer you can trust - and did I say I am sole emperor now? Come to my council, and I will prove I really am a nice guy????" (Hmmm, maybe not)."

 

The Church had survived three centuries of violent persecution at imperial hands prior to Constantine, producing many martyrs and confessors of the faith whom we venerate as exemplars today.  So, you'd like us to believe that even though the Church had no fear of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, or Diocletian (the last of whom initiated the most violent and systematic of all the persecutions and which had only ended twelve years before the council), they were afraid of what Constantine might do?

 

That's a complete non-sequitur.  There was no "imperial creedal machine". 

[RevTestament]

"Um he killed Licinius the same year the council was held. They may have feared he was just buttering up the Christians to win them over to his side against Licinius, and now with Licinius dead, he may strike against the Christians of the East? Not too unreasonable a fear given the treacherous history of imperial politics.

"Hey, I just killed your enemy Licinius guys, so I am your hero and deliverer you can trust - and did I say I am sole emperor now? Come to my council, and I will prove I really am a nice guy????" (Hmmm, maybe not)."

 

The Church had survived three centuries of violent persecution at imperial hands prior to Constantine, producing many martyrs and confessors of the faith whom we venerate as exemplars today.  So, you'd like us to believe that even though the Church had no fear of Nero, Domitian, Trajan, or Diocletian (the last of whom initiated the most violent and systematic of all the persecutions and which had only ended twelve years before the council), they were afraid of what Constantine might do?

 

That's a complete non-sequitur.  There was no "imperial creedal machine". 

 

If I were those bishops, I would have concern about what Constantine was doing. Either he had peaceful intentions towards the church in order to solidify his power or not. If not, the perfect way to "get rid" of your enemy would be to invite all the leaders to a feast and execute them - it has certainly been done before. By JCC's own admission

"Constantine, by his own actions, had no vested interest in Arianism or Orthodoxy." His actions showed he ruled pretty much like all the prior emperors. He got rid of his competition. Not only did he kill his brother-in-law Licinius after alleging he was planning a coup, but he killed his nephew too. Then a few months later he called a council inviting all the bishops in the empire - that would be enough to cause me concern. Then the next year he killed his own wife, Fausta, and son, Crispus, and history doesn't supply a real answer here at all. The dude was basically a scary emperor. You allege Christians had no fear of Nero? I think otherwise. They may have been willing to die for Christ if necessary, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try to avoid it. Showing up at this emperor's "party" was inherently dangerous for a Christian. Who is to say he wasn't going to turn and eliminate the Christian "threat" to the Roman way of life permanently by killing all the Christian leaders in one fell-swoop? Even when he built his new capitol, he erected a huge statue of Apollo. After he allegedly became Christian he continued to put Sol Invictus on his coinage. His actions show his interest in Christianity was to help him conquer and reunite the empire under his sole rule. He never did away with the imperial cult and ruled as pontifex maximus. To a true Christian these things would be a large warning sign about him. As it ended up, he did maintain peace with Christians in order to solidify his popularity. But if courting the Christians had proved too unpopular, I think he would have swung the other way. But it seems as long as he remained at the top of the heap, he had no problem allowing the Christians to have their God, if he was recognized as the 13th apostle, and could continue to have his imperial cult, etc.

 

The true "problem" with Constantine is that he was used as a model by later church leaders (admittedly RCC) on which to proclaim their rule over the people. The RCC just sucked up everything Roman into itself - the office of pontifex maximus, the Roman Curia, the structure of diocese, even the holy Roman water used in the Roman rites.

 

The "imperial creedal machine" is my own terminology for this. The creeds continued to evolve as a statement of belief, and if anyone dissented from it, they were labeled anathema, excommunicated, and then later persecuted as heretics. Rather than winning people over with truth and the Holy Spirit as you allege, it became a means by which to prevent dissent through use of fear and force - basically just like the Roman emperors. Except for instead of overt worship of pagan gods, they just did the bidding of the Roman gods with a "Christian facade." I for one believe Christ would never have ruled like the Roman pontiffs. They were blatantly corrupt and power hungry. Now, you will say to yourself, that they went astray while your church did not. But, for me, the Nicene Creed was the first step in the process of going astray. It is a man-made decree to God - not from God. It failed to include the Holy Spirit in its statement of homoousious. The Holy Spirit wasn't officially included until the Council of Constantinople. Oops! Medieval theology just went from there with a patchwork of additional doctrines evermore intricate and complex with pages upon pages written about it. The mystery is not so complex. The mystery was revealed by Christ who followed the Father even to the cross. The mystery is that Christ revealed the Father to us.

• John 5:19

  19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

• John 16:25

  25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

• Zechariah 12:10

  10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

The mystery is that He was raised again, Acts 13, to the glory of the Father. The mystery is revealed in scripture and not in creeds....sorry my friend.

You cannot find "the way" by following creeds.... only by following Christ.

• John 14:6

  6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Peace unto you.

[Spammer]

If I were those bishops, I would have concern about what Constantine was doing. Either he had peaceful intentions towards the church in order to solidify his power or not. If not, the perfect way to "get rid" of your enemy would be to invite all the leaders to a feast and execute them - it has certainly been done before. By JCC's own admission

"Constantine, by his own actions, had no vested interest in Arianism or Orthodoxy." His actions showed he ruled pretty much like all the prior emperors. He got rid of his competition. Not only did he kill his brother-in-law Licinius after alleging he was planning a coup, but he killed his nephew too. Then a few months later he called a council inviting all the bishops in the empire - that would be enough to cause me concern. Then the next year he killed his own wife, Fausta, and son, Crispus, and history doesn't supply a real answer here at all. The dude was basically a scary emperor. You allege Christians had no fear of Nero? I think otherwise. They may have been willing to die for Christ if necessary, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't try to avoid it. Showing up at this emperor's "party" was inherently dangerous for a Christian. Who is to say he wasn't going to turn and eliminate the Christian "threat" to the Roman way of life permanently by killing all the Christian leaders in one fell-swoop? Even when he built his new capitol, he erected a huge statue of Apollo. After he allegedly became Christian he continued to put Sol Invictus on his coinage. His actions show his interest in Christianity was to help him conquer and reunite the empire under his sole rule. He never did away with the imperial cult and ruled as pontifex maximus. To a true Christian these things would be a large warning sign about him. As it ended up, he did maintain peace with Christians in order to solidify his popularity. But if courting the Christians had proved too unpopular, I think he would have swung the other way. But it seems as long as he remained at the top of the heap, he had no problem allowing the Christians to have their God, if he was recognized as the 13th apostle, and could continue to have his imperial cult, etc.

The true "problem" with Constantine is that he was used as a model by later church leaders (admittedly RCC) on which to proclaim their rule over the people. The RCC just sucked up everything Roman into itself - the office of pontifex maximus, the Roman Curia, the structure of diocese, even the holy Roman water used in the Roman rites.

The "imperial creedal machine" is my own terminology for this. The creeds continued to evolve as a statement of belief, and if anyone dissented from it, they were labeled anathema, excommunicated, and then later persecuted as heretics. Rather than winning people over with truth and the Holy Spirit as you allege, it became a means by which to prevent dissent through use of fear and force - basically just like the Roman emperors. Except for instead of overt worship of pagan gods, they just did the bidding of the Roman gods with a "Christian facade." I for one believe Christ would never have ruled like the Roman pontiffs. They were blatantly corrupt and power hungry. Now, you will say to yourself, that they went astray while your church did not. But, for me, the Nicene Creed was the first step in the process of going astray. It is a man-made decree to God - not from God. It failed to include the Holy Spirit in its statement of homoousious. The Holy Spirit wasn't officially included until the Council of Constantinople. Oops! Medieval theology just went from there with a patchwork of additional doctrines evermore intricate and complex with pages upon pages written about it. The mystery is not so complex. The mystery was revealed by Christ who followed the Father even to the cross. The mystery is that Christ revealed the Father to us.

• John 5:19

  19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

• John 16:25

  25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

• Zechariah 12:10

  10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

The mystery is that He was raised again, Acts 13, to the glory of the Father. The mystery is revealed in scripture and not in creeds....sorry my friend.

You cannot find "the way" by following creeds.... only by following Christ.

• John 14:6

  6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Peace unto you.</p>

The point is that there is no reason to suppose that after three centuries of violent persecution and failed attempts by emperors to bend the church to do their bidding, that, despite his motivations, Constantine would fare any better if he were to make the attempt.

[saemo]

RevTestament said:By JCC's own admission

"Constantine, by his own actions, had no vested interest in Arianism or Orthodoxy."

Who's JCC?

To clarify my statement here. In context of Constantine's conversion to Christianity, he most definitely had an interest in Christianity. He promoted Christianity. What I mean is, there isn't any evidence to show that he had a vested interest in which Christology should be viewed as correct.

Regarding the safety of Christians....Constantine's conversion to Christianity was known by everyone, and has already been pointed out the Edict of Milan was already more than a decade out. The Edict made Chiristianity a legal religion. While the persecutions prior to the edict were under laws that made Christianity illegal. Under law, finally, after 300 years, Christians no longer needed to fear.

St. Helena, the Emperors mother, is historically viewed as having a great influence on her son's love of Christ. Constantine was at the time of the Council, a supporter and promoter of Christianity. The year following the Council, is when St. Helena left on her pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Palestine, which was supported by her son who had given her unlimited acess to the imperial treasure, for her endeavor to locate holy relics of Christianity.

By this I mean to show that Emperor Constantine did not view Christians as an enemy of the state, as his predecessors did. Christians knew this. No Bishop in his right mind would show up to a Council where the invitation came from Diocletian. Speculation that Bishops had something to fear from Constantine, is not logical.

Edited October 25, 2015 by saemo

[jkwilliams]

I listened to it twice now and I don't see that as the only point he was trying to make, if that was the case he could have continued the most don't know where they come from, why they're here and where they're going by simply adding they don't know God, the Savior and The Holy Ghost. But instead he singled out Catholics as not knowing, while he may have been reinforcing that the LDS church has a proper understanding he was also making a deliberate point about Catholics in that speech.

Yes, it was weird. Was giving him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I shouldn't have.

[RevTestament]

RevTestament said:By JCC's own admission

"Constantine, by his own actions, had no vested interest in Arianism or Orthodoxy."

Who's JCC?

To clarify my statement here. In context of Constantine's conversion to Christianity, he most definitely had an interest in Christianity. He promoted Christianity. What I mean is, there isn't any evidence to show that he had a vested interest in which Christology should be viewed as correct.

Sorry Saemo - honest mistake about the name.

Yeah, I think the vested interest he had in Christianity was that it would help him rule the eastern part of the empire where it was much more prevalent.

Regarding the safety of Christians....Constantine's conversion to Christianity was known by everyone, and has already been pointed out the Edict of Milan was already more than a decade out. The Edict made Chiristianity a legal religion. While the persecutions prior to the edict were under laws that made Christianity illegal. Under law, finally, after 300 years, Christians no longer needed to fear.

That is of course one interpretation.  As I have pointed out though, by and large Constantine didn't act very Christian. What kind of Christian would erect a huge statue of Apollo in his new "Christian" capitol? And he never got baptized - except allegedly on his death bed, which I am willing to believe. Is that too humbling for the emperor? It seems his only interest in Christianity is that it would help him conquer the empire.

 

 

St. Helena, the Emperors mother, is historically viewed as having a great influence on her son's love of Christ. Constantine was at the time of the Council, a supporter and promoter of Christianity. The year following the Council, is when St. Helena left on her pilgrimage to Jerusalem and Palestine, which was supported by her son who had given her unlimited acess to the imperial treasure, for her endeavor to locate holy relics of Christianity.

 

Many scholars believe reports that it was Helen who convinced Constantine to kill his wife and son. Eusebius even spoke highly of Crispus in his first history until Constantine murdered him, and then Eusebius simply removed Crispus from his next edition. I strongly pose that you are ignoring the huge warning signs about what kind of man Constantine truly was. He was basically like the former emperors, and did not hesitate to take all the glory for himself rather than God.

And it is because of Helena that "Christianity" came to believe that Sinai was in the peninsula instead of in the vicinity of Midian. HaHa on that one. She was just another perverter of the truth.

 

By this I mean to show that Emperor Constantine did not view Christians as an enemy of the state, as his predecessors did. Christians knew this. No Bishop in his right mind would show up to a Council where the invitation came from Diocletian. Speculation that Bishops had something to fear from Constantine, is not logical.

Sure it is. The man didn't get baptized, and took the office of Pontifex Maximus just like his predecessors - even after allegedly having his vision "by this sign thou shalt conquer." My foot. His making Christianity legal could be looked at as just a ploy in light of his many other suspicious acts. You can go ahead and believe him that he was the "13th apostle," but me, I will let his actions speak for him, and relegate him to his place as one of the perverters of Christianity. It was because of him that Christianity became a state religion which persecuted dissenters. You apparently see that as a victory. I see that as a removal of our God-given free agency.

Edited October 25, 2015 by RevTestament

[MiserereNobis]

 

The true "problem" with Constantine is that he was used as a model by later church leaders (admittedly RCC) on which to proclaim their rule over the people. The RCC just sucked up everything Roman into itself - the office of pontifex maximus, the Roman Curia, the structure of diocese, even the holy Roman water used in the Roman rites.

 

It is no surprise that every religion evolves with the structures of its times.  The title "Pontifex Maximus" is an informal title (it is not in the official list of Papal titles published each year).  Other than the fact that the Pope is a leader, the title has nothing to do with the imperial use of the same title.  It's like the word "president."  Pointing out the two is rather silly word play.  You might as well attack the word Pope, since it originated in ancient Greece... those Greek pagans!

 

The Roman Curia and the structure of diocese were very effective organization tools for a huge empire.  Why not use them?  Surely the LDS church uses current political organization structures, such as state/country boundaries?  Again, saying that this shows some sort of conspiracy is silly.

 

And of course, evil pagan water... wait, water has been used in almost every religion.  Baptisms, annointings... there's even a vocabulary word for its use: ablution.

 

Now, if you're going to fault the Roman Church for being Roman, let's not forget the LDS church is about American as can be.  The Book of Mormon: American.  Garden of Eden: in America.  New Jerusalem/Zion: in America.

 

Again, every religion uses the culture of its times.  To point that out as some sort of fault is silly.

 

 

The "imperial creedal machine" is my own terminology for this.

 

And it is quote derogatory of the world's largest Christian Church.  I doubt historians will use it anytime soon

 

 

The creeds continued to evolve as a statement of belief, and if anyone dissented from it, they were labeled anathema, excommunicated, and then later persecuted as heretics. Rather than winning people over with truth and the Holy Spirit as you allege, it became a means by which to prevent dissent through use of fear and force - basically just like the Roman emperors. Except for instead of overt worship of pagan gods, they just did the bidding of the Roman gods with a "Christian facade."

 

I'm glad you are posting so people who have said that there is little or no anti-Catholicism can see it first hand.

 

You talk in SUCH HUGE GENERALITIES.  The Roman Church never won anyone over with truth or the Holy Spirit?  There were no true believers in the Creeds, just people who were afraid of being persecuted?  All the good the Roman Church accomplished (of which you seem to be blissfully ignorant) was really motivated by fear of the Popes?  Every person who disagreed with the Church was persecuted?

 

Doesn't the LDS church excommunicate vocal dissenters?  I imagine all those LDS people just bear testimony because they are afraid of excommunication...

 

And finally, I can imagine how insulting it is to all those Saints and faithful and lived their lives for God and Christ to be told that they were just really doing the bidding of the Roman gods.  Basically you've just said that Catholics don't worship Christ, but pagan gods.  You are on a roll!

 

 

I for one believe Christ would never have ruled like the Roman pontiffs.

 

Obviously, but then again you aren't Catholic

 

 

They were blatantly corrupt and power hungry.

 

Every single one of the 266?

 

 

Now, you will say to yourself, that they went astray while your church did not. But, for me, the Nicene Creed was the first step in the process of going astray. It is a man-made decree to God - not from God. It failed to include the Holy Spirit in its statement of homoousious. The Holy Spirit wasn't officially included until the Council of Constantinople. Oops!

 

Development of doctrinal statements is nothing new.  That's one reason why there is a Church to begin with -- to authoritatively declare dogma and decide between disputes.

 

 

The mystery is not so complex. The mystery was revealed by Christ who followed the Father even to the cross. The mystery is that Christ revealed the Father to us.

 

In my experience, some LDS like to say that mystery is negative thing, and that Christianity, God, the atonement, etc, are so simple as to not be mysterious.  Yet, if pressed, they, too, come to a point where they say "I don't know."  If you don't think there are mysteries in LDS theology, then I suggest you study a bit more and try to explain things like "how did God organize matter" or "what is an unorganized intelligence" or "what is refined matter and how is that spirit" or "what is the power of the priesthood" or "what exactly happens at resurrection" or "what exactly happens at exaltation" or... (on and on)

 

 

The mystery is revealed in scripture and not in creeds

 

Do you believe in the Articles of Faith?  Do they help you understand Mormon theology?  Do you refer to them when answering questions about what Mormons believe?

 

 

....sorry my friend.

 

Please don't be condescending.  Your tone and content has certainly not been friendly.

 

 

You cannot find "the way" by following creeds.... only by following Christ.

 

No Catholic would disagree with that.  Yet things like scriptures, Tradition (including Creeds), and the Magesterium (official Church authority) certainly help us follow Christ.  I, for one, need all the help I can get and am grateful for these helps.

 

 

Peace unto you.

 

et cum spiritu tuo

 

Edited October 25, 2015 by MiserereNobis

[Calm]

"I'm glad you are posting so people who have said that there is little or no anti-Catholicism can see it first hand."

And this is likely the only reason he is still posting. If our good Catholic friends didn't appear to think this was an opportunity for instruction, based on past experience his first posts would have gotten the thread locked down.

Anyone who thinks there is little anti-Catholicism should hang out on some Evangelical boards and get very familiar with the content. While not so obvious and much less common in my experience, there are hints of it in some LDS's beliefs about the Catholic faith. Much of it is based on misunderstanding what actual Catholic beliefs are, it becomes antiCatholicism imo when those who hold these misunderstandings refused to be corrected when given correction...and for those it tends to shift from hints to full blown attacks.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Calm

[saemo]

Sorry Saemo - honest mistake about the name.

Yeah, I think the vested interest he had in Christianity was that it would help him rule the eastern part of the empire where it was much more prevalent.

That is of course one interpretation. As I have pointed out though, by and large Constantine didn't act very Christian. What kind of Christian would erect a huge statue of Apollo in his new "Christian" capitol? And he never got baptized - except allegedly on his death bed, which I am willing to believe. Is that too humbling for the emperor? It seems his only interest in Christianity is that it would help him conquer the empire.

Many scholars believe reports that it was Helen who convinced Constantine to kill his wife and son. Eusebius even spoke highly of Crispus in his first history until Constantine murdered him, and then Eusebius simply removed Crispus from his next edition. I strongly pose that you are ignoring the huge warning signs about what kind of man Constantine truly was. He was basically like the former emperors, and did not hesitate to take all the glory for himself rather than God.

And it is because of Helena that "Christianity" came to believe that Sinai was in the peninsula instead of in the vicinity of Midian. HaHa on that one. She was just another perverter of the truth.

Sure it is. The man didn't get baptized, and took the office of Pontifex Maximus just like his predecessors - even after allegedly having his vision "by this sign thou shalt conquer." My foot. His making Christianity legal could be looked at as just a ploy in light of his many other suspicious acts. You can go ahead and believe him that he was the "13th apostle," but me, I will let his actions speak for him, and relegate him to his place as one of the perverters of Christianity. It was because of him that Christianity became a state religion which persecuted dissenters. You apparently see that as a victory. I see that as a removal of our God-given free agency.

Dunno, I interact with and teach Catholic converts, and am a convert myself. We're all over the map. One thing we're counseled, as teachers and sponsors, is to look for change in people, not perfection. Constantine did some very un-Roman things, as far as paganism goes. A change took place under his rule, that favored Christianity. He did not make paganism illegal, but supported both pagans and Christians. Public persona and personal life are two different things. It is unknown if his personal religious views were Christian, from a young age, or a conversion that occurred over many years of his adult life. Either way, he wasn't out to persecute Christians.

I find it untenable, historically speaking, to be so cynical. The Christian influence on western civilization is acknowledged as beginning with Constantine, otherwise, we'd all be paying regular homage to Jupiter.

Also, in context of society of the time, emperors and other high ranking officials not only the right, but duty, to rule and make laws. An emperor was completely within his rights to act and speak for the state, including executions. For his time, he did nothing illegal, and even Christians today support various states in execution of the law, and in some cases, people.

We evolve over time, both as a society and our understanding of the Gospel. Both individuals and societies grow in understanding, because this is how God wills it. God is the judge of individuals. But speaking historically, Constantine was the first Christian ruler. That he also supported pagan practices of his subjects, does not indicate that he was not a Christian.

Edited October 25, 2015 by saemo

[MiserereNobis]

"I'm glad you are posting so people who have said that there is little or no anti-Catholicism can see it first hand."

And this is likely the only reason he is still posting. If our good Catholic friends didn't appear to think this was an opportunity for instruction, based on past experience his first posts would have gotten the thread locked down.

 

 

 

I hope it remains unlocked just so that Catholic beliefs can be clarified.  Obviously people don't have to agree with those beliefs, but it's best to know what they are, I think (it's one reason why I'm here -- I find LDS beliefs fascinating).

 

Anyone who thinks there is little anti-Catholicism should hang out on some Evangelical boards and get very familiar with the content. While not so obvious and much less common in my experience, there are hints of it in some LDS's beliefs about the Catholic faith. Much of it is based on misunderstanding what actual Catholic beliefs are, it becomes antiCatholicism imo when those who hold these misunderstandings refused to be corrected when given correction...and for those it tends to shift from hints to full blown attacks.

 

Yes, us Catholics and Mormons suffer from the same tactics of the anti-crowd.  It's interesting that Evangelicals tend to dislike both of us so much.  Perhaps they are perturbed by our claims to priesthood authority.

[saemo]

"I'm glad you are posting so people who have said that there is little or no anti-Catholicism can see it first hand."

And this is likely the only reason he is still posting. If our good Catholic friends didn't appear to think this was an opportunity for instruction, based on past experience his first posts would have gotten the thread locked down.

Anyone who thinks there is little anti-Catholicism should hang out on some Evangelical boards and get very familiar with the content. While not so obvious and much less common in my experience, there are hints of it in some LDS's beliefs about the Catholic faith. Much of it is based on misunderstanding what actual Catholic beliefs are, it becomes antiCatholicism imo when those who hold these misunderstandings refused to be corrected when given correction...and for those it tends to shift from hints to full blown attacks.

Frankly, I don't know how LDS can get around it. Either you believe Joseph Smith and LDS scripture, that calls our creeds corrupt and our professing them as also corrupt, or you don't. Edited October 25, 2015 by saemo

[Kenngo1969]

I may be anti-Catholicism in a certain sense because I believe certain beliefs might be mistaken, but I'm certainly not anti-Catholic.

[RevTestament]

It is no surprise that every religion evolves with the structures of its times.  The title "Pontifex Maximus" is an informal title (it is not in the official list of Papal titles published each year).  Other than the fact that the Pope is a leader, the title has nothing to do with the imperial use of the same title.  It's like the word "president."  Pointing out the two is rather silly word play.  You might as well attack the word Pope, since it originated in ancient Greece... those Greek pagans!

Pontifex Maximus has recently gotten played down by the church, but it is not just a matter of word play. It was an office. The Bishop of Rome would never have thought about taking the office so long as the emperors did, but after Emperor Gratian gave up the title, guess who took it? You say it "is not in the official list of Papal titles" but any visitor to the Vatican can see it all over the place - the medieval pontiffs actually had an investiture ceremony in receiving the title - so it is not just "silly word play." And by the way the word "Pope" didn't really originate in ancient Greece but came from the Egyptian Papa which began to be used for bishops. Hence, Catholics still call their priests "father."

 

 

 

The Roman Curia and the structure of diocese were very effective organization tools for a huge empire.  Why not use them?  Surely the LDS church uses current political organization structures, such as state/country boundaries?  Again, saying that this shows some sort of conspiracy is silly.

 

And of course, evil pagan water... wait, water has been used in almost every religion.  Baptisms, annointings... there's even a vocabulary word for its use: ablution.

LDS do use the word "president" but our GAs are not modeled after secular government, but the government of the church set up in the NT complete with quorums of 70 Elders, etc.

The issue with "Holy water" is that it is the salted form from the Roman pagan rites with vestal virgins etc. John the Baptist and Jesus' disciples never used "salted Holy water" for baptism. The "living water" of the Jordan river seems to have been the favored source.

 

Now, if you're going to fault the Roman Church for being Roman, let's not forget the LDS church is about American as can be.  The Book of Mormon: American.  Garden of Eden: in America.  New Jerusalem/Zion: in America.

The LDS church was not modeled after the Federal government.  The Roman Church actively changed the form of existing church governance which was essentially non-hierarchical.

The Garden of Eden was not in America. "Paradise" was where Adam was at, and where he will return.

(I realize you can probably find some LDS quote otherwise, but I will not change my belief.)

 

And it is quote derogatory of the world's largest Christian Church.  I doubt historians will use it anytime soon

I just made it up, so I doubt they will. My point is that the creeds are made up, and are a large source of the falsehoods of orthodoxy as I see it. Obviously, that is my opinion, which orthodox are not going to agree with by and large, since they make up the foundations of their belief systems. I just invite them to see that, and perhaps reexamine the evolution of the creeds as compared to the scriptures.

 

I'm glad you are posting so people who have said that there is little or no anti-Catholicism can see it first hand.

Y'know my beliefs are "anti-catholic" but that is only because I see the creeds as blocking the true way. I am not hostile or virulent or hateful. I just invite orthodox to reexamine their beliefs. I actually happened to attend a Catholic school and have had Catholic friends, etc, and in many ways I find modern Catholics to be more open to various beliefs and truths than evangelicals. So am I "anti-evangelical?" Well, yes I oppose their belief system as well, but not their belief in Christ. I do not hate Evangelicals, Catholics, Unitarians, etc, but view them all as the children of our Heavenly Father. I just believe they have been led astray. You are of course welcome to show I am wrong.

 

You talk in SUCH HUGE GENERALITIES.  The Roman Church never won anyone over with truth or the Holy Spirit?  There were no true believers in the Creeds, just people who were afraid of being persecuted?  All the good the Roman Church accomplished (of which you seem to be blissfully ignorant) was really motivated by fear of the Popes?  Every person who disagreed with the Church was persecuted?

yes, obviously I am speaking in generalities.

 

Doesn't the LDS church excommunicate vocal dissenters?  I imagine all those LDS people just bear testimony because they are afraid of excommunication...

I imagine there are some, perhaps myself included. I don't always agree with every statement of a GA. But my purpose is not to point out every fault of the church, because I believe in the truths of the church. If what I believe is true, it will be made known soon enough. Some recent vocal dissenters who have been excommunicated have been discussed on this very board. The difference is they don't have to run for their lives. They don't have to fear being tortured or killed for their beliefs. That is strictly forbidden by the Lord.

• Alma 1:21

  21 Now there was a strict law among the people of the church, that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves.

 

And finally, I can imagine how insulting it is to all those Saints and faithful and lived their lives for God and Christ to be told that they were just really doing the bidding of the Roman gods.  Basically you've just said that Catholics don't worship Christ, but pagan gods.  You are on a roll!

 

Well if they were persecuting other professors  of Christ, they were doing the devil's bidding.  Obviously, not all church goers were satanic etc. Nor do I profess that Catholicism is "anti-Christ" as many Protestants have done. I just believe their traditions went astray. Obviously, all the modern churches cannot be the authorized and true professors of Christ.

 

 

Every single one of the 266?

 I will qualify my generality to the medieval papacy. The church was obviously later forced to reform with the vast numbers of people leaving it for the Protestant churches.

 

 

 

Development of doctrinal statements is nothing new.  That's one reason why there is a Church to begin with -- to authoritatively declare dogma and decide between disputes.

 

Is it valid authority for bishops to decide dogma or receive revelation? Doesn't the word bishop refer to being a judge? The Israelites had judges - most were not prophets.

Where does the NT give authority to judges to promulgate new law? Where does it give such authority to a minority of leaders? I believe things in the early church were done by common consent - even the nomination of new apostles.

 

In my experience, some LDS like to say that mystery is negative thing, and that Christianity, God, the atonement, etc, are so simple as to not be mysterious.  Yet, if pressed, they, too, come to a point where they say "I don't know."  If you don't think there are mysteries in LDS theology, then I suggest you study a bit more and try to explain things like "how did God organize matter" or "what is an unorganized intelligence" or "what is refined matter and how is that spirit" or "what is the power of the priesthood" or "what exactly happens at resurrection" or "what exactly happens at exaltation" or... (on and on)

In the end all mysteries will be revealed. The nature of the Godhead isn't really that mysterious, although I believe the Holy Spirit's identity is retained by the Father.

Do you believe in the Articles of Faith?  Do they help you understand Mormon theology?  Do you refer to them when answering questions about what Mormons believe?

Um, not really. They were created by Joseph Smith in a letter to summarize known gospel points. I believe them to be accurate statements of the gospel principles, or I would say otherwise. I don't believe the Creeds to be accurate summations of gospel principles. I believe they introduced new and false ideas. For instance, the scriptures tell us of the true essence of Christ's begotten nature. I categorically refute the creedal presentation that Christ was begotten as the Son before all ages/worlds. Scripture tells us otherwise.

 

 

Please don't be condescending.  Your tone and content has certainly not been friendly.

I was calling Spammer "friend." I don't believe I was being condescending to him. Maybe he felt so, but I don't know that, and I doubt you know his feelings unless he says so, and I don't really accept you speaking for him. Despite my strong disagreement with the creeds, I do respect the Eastern Orthodox church, although I have heard them speak of my church in a not very nice way, and I doubt many of them would be willing to call me friend or brother in the gospel.

No Catholic would disagree with that.  Yet things like scriptures, Tradition (including Creeds), and the Magesterium (official Church authority) certainly help us follow Christ.  I, for one, need all the help I can get and am grateful for these helps.

Again, it is my strong belief that those creeds are not helps, but hinderances. If you want helps, read the scriptures and pray for understanding.

Luke 11:

 9 And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

 10 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Peace

Edited October 26, 2015 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

Dunno, I interact with and teach Catholic converts, and am a convert myself. We're all over the map. One thing we're counseled, as teachers and sponsors, is to look for change in people, not perfection. Constantine did some very un-Roman things, as far as paganism goes. A change took place under his rule, that favored Christianity. He did not make paganism illegal, but supported both pagans and Christians. Public persona and personal life are two different things. It is unknown if his personal religious views were Christian, from a young age, or a conversion that occurred over many years of his adult life. Either way, he wasn't out to persecute Christians.

I find it untenable, historically speaking, to be so cynical. The Christian influence on western civilization is acknowledged as beginning with Constantine, otherwise, we'd all be paying regular homage to Jupiter.

While I acknowledge that Constantine ended up not being a Christian persecutor, and so was different from his predecessors in that regard, my point is that in many ways, he was like his predecessors. He obviously liked being popular and being portrayed as the deliverer of the people. Hind sight is 20/20, but I believe at the time of the Nicene Council, there were a number of things about Constantine that would be good cause for caution on the part of Christians. I am not going to repeat them so as  to not beat a dead horse.

But, I don't feel Christianity owes any debt to Constantine. On the contrary. "Orthodoxy" may owe its "debt" to Constantine but Christianity would have survived without him in the eastern churches, and in the Arian Teutonic tribes, etc.

 

 

Also, in context of society of the time, emperors and other high ranking officials not only the right, but duty, to rule and make laws. An emperor was completely within his rights to act and speak for the state, including executions. For his time, he did nothing illegal, and even Christians today support various states in execution of the law, and in some cases, people.

We evolve over time, both as a society and our understanding of the Gospel. Both individuals and societies grow in understanding, because this is how God wills it. God is the judge of individuals. But speaking historically, Constantine was the first Christian ruler. That he also supported pagan practices of his subjects, does not indicate that he was not a Christian.

The dude broke one of the 10 commandments by building a huge idol of Apollo in Constantinople. There is also good evidence he broke the commandment not to kill.  What were Fausta's and Cripus' crimes deserving death? History has no good answer. Rulers are allowed to kill if one has broken the law, but otherwise it is murder. But you see Constantine was above the law, because essentially he was the law. It is fairly evident I am not going to change your mind about Constantine. I have given many reasons, however, why I don't believe he was a true Christian, and there are more.

[RevTestament]

"I'm glad you are posting so people who have said that there is little or no anti-Catholicism can see it first hand."

And this is likely the only reason he is still posting. If our good Catholic friends didn't appear to think this was an opportunity for instruction, based on past experience his first posts would have gotten the thread locked down.

 

I am not posting to keep "anti-catholicism" alive... There is a difference between being anti-doctrine, and being anti-follower. It can sometimes seem a fine line, but I just remember but for the grace of God there might I go as well. Indeed, I have been in Protestant churches. People are people. I usually find Calvinists to be the least tolerant of Christians, and I tend to dislike "them" more than their counterparts or Catholics even though they are staunchly "anti-Catholic"

The point is I hold strong beliefs about the falsehoods of the creeds. There is not really a "fence-sitter" position to take regarding them in my view. They are either wrong or not. If they are wrong, then they are misleading, and leading people away from the true precepts of Christ. That doesn't mean the people who have grown up saying those creeds every Sunday are abominable. On the contrary, they have little way of knowing better. It is my hope that some will take an honest look at them, and maybe why they feel a need to defend "creeds." Shouldn't they be defending scripture? If the creeds are of scripture, then they need no defense.

 

If the Mods feel a need to lock this thread, obviously that is there prerogative. I have stated some of my positions, and have tried to do so respectfully. Since the creeds go to the heart of orthodoxy, traditional Christians can be expected to be defensive about them, just as LDS are defensive about attacks on our beliefs, and try to show how they are wrong. So orthodoxy, bring your strong reasons, let us see how they compare with scripture.

 

Anyone who thinks there is little anti-Catholicism should hang out on some Evangelical boards and get very familiar with the content. While not so obvious and much less common in my experience, there are hints of it in some LDS's beliefs about the Catholic faith. Much of it is based on misunderstanding what actual Catholic beliefs are, it becomes antiCatholicism imo when those who hold these misunderstandings refused to be corrected when given correction...and for those it tends to shift from hints to full blown attacks.

Many Catholics accuse me of "misunderstanding" Catholic beliefs. Some have even charged that "the church has never killed a person." Obviously, I disagree with that. That is like the Levites and Jews saying they did not kill Christ. So if you feel I need correction, please be specific. I researched this area for a matter of years, and I believe I am very accurate. But I am only human.

[Calm]

"That is like the Levites and Jews saying they did not kill Christ"

What Jews and Levites are you talking about?

[MiserereNobis]

So orthodoxy, bring your strong reasons, let us see how they compare with scripture.

 

This is a strange statement from a Mormon, since Mormons believe in doctrines that aren't found in the Bible.  Catholics, also, are not sola scriptura, so your desire to compare our doctrines to scripture only don't make much sense

 

That is like the Levites and Jews saying they did not kill Christ.

 

Not much more to say to you now!

[RevTestament]

"That is like the Levites and Jews saying they did not kill Christ"

What Jews and Levites are you talking about?

The ones Judas went to to betray Jesus.

[RevTestament]

This is a strange statement from a Mormon, since Mormons believe in doctrines that aren't found in the Bible. 

Like?

 

Catholics, also, are not sola scriptura, so your desire to compare our doctrines to scripture only don't make much sense

 

 

Not much more to say to you now!

• Matthew 25:40

  40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

[carbon dioxide]

If it weren't for the Catholic Church, Joseph Smith would not have had the Bible that had the verse that inspired him to pray.  There would not have been protestants, so he would not have been raised as one.  Therefore, he would not have known about the Christian God he prayed to.  The Catholic Church must know something about God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost, then, even if from the LDS point-of-view it's not completely accurate.

 

Disagree with us, but give us credit for making the Western world Christian.  A restoration probably would have been more difficult had Joseph Smith been a pagan...

Probably so but its impossible to know how the world would be if events played out differently on any subject.   Just think how the 20th century would have been different if the western powers treated Germany better after WW1.