Wearing a cross as LDS

[Saint Bonaventure]

If I'm understanding, LDS:

• Aren't iconoclasts who see the need to destroy a cross.
• Aren't like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who see it as an idol or pagan symbol.
• Object to the cross as putting emphasis on Jesus' death.

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

If I'm understanding, LDS:

• Aren't iconoclasts who see the need to destroy a cross.
• Aren't like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who see it as an idol or pagan symbol.
• Object to the cross as putting emphasis on Jesus' death.

I wouldn't say that we object to the cross, because that sounds like we disapprove of the cross, and I don't think that's true (though I admit there are some members who wrongly see crosses as a part of other religious denominations and feel like they have to reject them for some reason as a sign of loyalty or something to their church.  I find those members a little embarrassing if I'm being honest). 

It is just not a symbol that most of us choose to use to represent our faith in Christ.

[Saint Bonaventure]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wouldn't say that we object to the cross, because that sounds like we disapprove of the cross, and I don't think that's true (though I admit there are some members who wrongly see crosses as a part of other religious denominations and feel like they have to reject them for some reason as a sign of loyalty or something to their church.  I find those members a little embarrassing if I'm being honest). 

It is just not a symbol that most of us choose to use to represent our faith in Christ.

Fair enough. I'm imagining my LDS family visiting a Catholic Church, and am hoping they aren't secretly horrified, or worried that they were being assaulted by evil or something. 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Fair enough. I'm imagining my LDS family visiting a Catholic Church, and am hoping they aren't secretly horrified, or worried that they were being assaulted by evil or something. 

There has been some antiCatholicism in the Church in the past, but it is quite rare now in my experience.

The crucifix (as opposed to a simple cross) can get an emotional response still depending on the style, but way less than it did in my youth. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

There has been some antiCatholicism in the Church in the past, but it is quite rare now in my experience.

The crucifix (as opposed to a simple cross) can get an emotional response still depending on the style, but way less than it did in my youth. 

The "Abominable Church" and "Church of the Devil" stuff is still quoted in Catholic apologetics materials. There's been real damage there, and I know Catholics have said plenty of damaging things about LDS folks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints too.

I've had this conversation with my LDS family. At one point, I said something like, "If I'm in the Church of the Devil, isn't that like an absolute for going to hell? I mean, the Church of the Devil!" And "you all wouldn't really work with Catholics on charitable causes if you thought we were in cahoots with Satan." My family member responded something to the effect of he didn't believe the Church of the Devil stuff was doctrine/taught anymore/encouraged and that good Catholic people will be in the second heaven (or something like that).

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The "Abominable Church" and "Church of the Devil" stuff is still quoted in Catholic apologetics materials. There's been real damage there, and I know Catholics have said plenty of damaging things about LDS folks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints too.

I could almost say "guilty as charged", because there's certain verses in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, where the prophet Nephi is shown a number of things about the future, and verbiage does seem to describe the kind of elaborate ceremonial vestments worn by Catholic clerics -- though the same seems to apply to the vestments worn by clerics in Orthodox churches and a few Protestants (e.g. the Church of England). The relevant verses are 1 Nephi 13:4-9:

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his first edition of his (somewhat) controversial 1958 book, Mormon Doctrine, specifically identified the "abominable church" in the verses above with the Catholic Church. President David O. McKay, who wasn't best pleased with the book in general, and I believe he took particular exception to that characterization of the Catholic Church, insisted McConkie make a number of changes. The book, which is now (thankfully) out of print, now has this to say about the titles "church of the devil" and "great and abominable church": 

"The titles ... are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature -- whether political, philosophical, educational, ecomonic, social, fraternal, civic, or reglious -- 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."

Which is a far better, and more accurate, understanding of those verses in 1 Nephi. In my humble opinion.

You may question my equivocating terms in reference to the book Mormon Doctrine (e.g. "somewhat controversial" and "thankfully out of print"). It's because while McConkie's book does have some redeeming qualities vis-a-vis describing the gospel as taught by the Latter-day Saints, I trust it no further than I can verify it. My preferred re-titling of the book is: McConkie's Doctrine.

You might find this article by Donald Westbrook on Catholic-Mormon Relations to be of interest. It appeared in the publication Religious Educator Vol. 13 No. 1  in 2012: Catholic-Mormon Relations

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've had this conversation with my LDS family. At one point, I said something like, "If I'm in the Church of the Devil, isn't that like an absolute for going to hell? I mean, the Church of the Devil!" And "you all wouldn't really work with Catholics on charitable causes if you thought we were in cahoots with Satan." My family member responded something to the effect of he didn't believe the Church of the Devil stuff was doctrine/taught anymore/encouraged and that good Catholic people will be in the second heaven (or something like that).

Plenty of Catholics, and even some Popes, will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, I believe. And not despite being Catholic, but because of their righteousness and valiance in the testimony of Christ. I've searched the scriptures diligently, and nowhere have I found membership in the Catholic church to be a mortal sin.  

Some other Catholics and Popes, I'm afraid, will find themselves in the Telestial Kingdom ("Level 3" or "Below Stairs"), along with the rest of the world's unrepentant evil persons, including not just a few Mormons.

I should like to express my personal opinion of the Catholic church (and this includes the Orthodox churches as well). I feel a great deal of respect for the Catholic church, and for many of its leaders over the millennia. Despite doctrinal and authoritative differences between the RCC and the LDS, the fact that the Catholic church persisted in transmitting the tenets of the gospel of Jesus Christ over all these centuries makes me love as well as respect those churches. The fact that there was still a Christian church in existence after all that time and all those upheavals is no small feat. And if the adherents and leaders of those Christian churches had not diligently stayed true to the Master, Jesus Christ, how much more difficult would the Lord have found it to restore the Church of Jesus Christ, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, with all its power and authority in our days?

Can we Latter-day Saints, with all our advantages with respect to the Restoration, look down with disfavor upon such luminaries as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and others, who did so much to advance the Christian cause in their times? No! For despite being wrong on some subjects, they were right in many others, and provided profoundly important intellectual and spiritual foundations for the truths of the Gospel. Will God not be highly pleased with these men, who did the best they could under difficult conditions? Disagree with some of their conclusions and teachings, if you will, but I believe that many of them will be found worthy of exaltation, and will hear the Lord say to them, "Well done thou good and faithful servant!" 

We'll still have to see to it that their proxy ordinances are taken care of in the temple, of course. But that may be all they lack.

Edited April 6, 2022 by Stargazer

[latterdaytemplar]

I personally wear the Cross about every day, whether on a necklace, a ring, a ball cap, or on my Masonic Knights Templar uniform.

The Church used to use the Cross quite often for its first few decades. Early settlers in Utah even tried to pass a bill that would allow for a large Cross to be erected on top of Ensign Peak; the bill did not pass due to opposition from Jewish residents. For a time later on, the Cross was widely identified in the USA as a purely Catholic symbol (like the Crucifix), which led most American Protestant organizations to stop using it; the Church followed suit for the same reasons and did not start using it again when the Protestants did.

A good resource on this is Banishing the Cross: The Emergence of a Mormon Taboo by Michael G. Reed.

Edited April 6, 2022 by latterdaytemplar
spelling error corrected; hyperlink added; bit about Ensign Peak added

[latterdaytemplar]

On 4/5/2022 at 8:18 AM, Tacenda said:

You just don't see it at all in Utah among the LDS.

There are a few of us Latter-day Saints in Utah who wear the Cross. 🙂

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, latterdaytemplar said:

There are a few of us Latter-day Saints in Utah who wear the Cross. 🙂

I'll bet money you don't live in Davis County!

[latterdaytemplar]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'll bet money you don't live in Davis County!

Correct, I am in Washington County; but I did pass through Davis County twice this past Saturday, if that at all counts. 😁

Edited April 6, 2022 by latterdaytemplar
second part of conjoined sentence added

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, latterdaytemplar said:

Correct, I am in Washington County; but I did pass through Davis County twice this past Saturday, if that at all counts. 😁

Oh, I should have read that below your picture, right there in front of my eyes. I must say I'm totally jealous that you live in that beautiful area!

[latterdaytemplar]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

Oh, I should have read that below your picture, right there in front of my eyes.

Ah, no worries. If it's any consolation, I also forgot that that can be seen here lol.

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I must say I'm totally jealous that you live in that beautiful area!

It is certainly beautiful here, but towns here are growing far too quickly; while driving around up around SLC and Ogden this past weekend, my wife and I talked about possibly moving somewhere up there, possibly even further north like Cache County, or even in southern Idaho.

Plus, I've always been far more partial to greenery than to red rock, myself.

[latterdaytemplar]

43 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

My preferred re-titling of the book is: McConkie's Doctrine.

I've personally thought about this before too, and would take it a step further by retitling it McConkie's Personal Opinions on and Interpretations of Doctrine. Of course, that might not have sold as much among non-members.

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

The "Abominable Church" and "Church of the Devil" stuff is still quoted in Catholic apologetics materials. There's been real damage there, and I know Catholics have said plenty of damaging things about LDS folks and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints too.

I've had this conversation with my LDS family. At one point, I said something like, "If I'm in the Church of the Devil, isn't that like an absolute for going to hell? I mean, the Church of the Devil!" And "you all wouldn't really work with Catholics on charitable causes if you thought we were in cahoots with Satan." My family member responded something to the effect of he didn't believe the Church of the Devil stuff was doctrine/taught anymore/encouraged and that good Catholic people will be in the second heaven (or something like that).

The church has been trying to get people to stop making that connection for decades.  It's mostly winning that battle but it seems like there will always be some holdouts.

If you are interested, the church published an article in their magazine (which most active members read) on the verses in the Book of Mormon that have lead people to try to assign the Catholic church to these roles and it outlines why the Catholic church cannot be either of those things.  It was written by an LDS scholar (Steven Robinson) and though it's kind of long (for a magazine), it's really good. It was published in 1988 so a while ago.  You can find the entire article here but below are some relevant points.

Quote

 

In the historical sense, though, only one entity can be the great and abominable church. Well-intentioned churches would thus not qualify as the mother of abominations described in 1 Nephi 13. They do not slay the saints of God nor seek to control civil governments nor pursue wealth, luxury, and sexual immorality.

In either the apocalyptic sense or the historical sense, individual orientation to the Church of the Lamb or to the great and abominable church is not by membership but by loyalty. Just as there are Latter-day Saints who belong to the great and abominable church because of their loyalty to Satan and his life-style, so there are members of other churches who belong to the Lamb because of their loyalty to him and his life-style. Membership is based more on who has your heart than on who has your records.

Some Latter-day Saints have erred in believing that some specific denomination, to the exclusion of all others, has since the beginning of time been the great and abominable church. This is dangerous, for many will then want to know which it is, and an antagonistic relationship with that denomination will inevitably follow.

Some, for example, have argued that elements of Judaism in the first century were reflected traits of Babylon. After all, Jewish leaders persecuted the Church and spilled the blood of the Saints. They crucified the Messiah and joined religion together with civil government. We should recognize, however, that it was this kind of argument—that the Jews were the beast, the anti-christ—that led directly to the Holocaust in this century and that still fans the moral insanity of some present-day groups. Has Satan’s hand ever been more clearly discernible in any human undertaking than in the Holocaust?

The irony is that while Jerusalem in A.D. 30 might have been one manifestation of Babylon (see Rev. 11:8), Judaism cannot be the great and abominable church Nephi and John describe. First, the Jews did not enjoy dominion over all the nations of the earth. Second, Nephi says that the scriptures were complete when they came forth from the mouth of a Jew, but that the great and abominable church, which had its formation among the Gentiles, excised them. (1 Ne. 13:24–26.) Third, it does not seem to be the fate of the Jews to be utterly consumed by the nations of the earth—quite the opposite, in fact.

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

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

By the time of Constantine, the Apostles had been dead for centuries. Furthermore, the early Orthodox church can hardly be accused of immorality. It had, in fact, gone to the extremes of asceticism. In some areas of the world Orthodoxy replaced an earlier, already corrupt form of Christianity. And during much of the period, members of the Orthodox Church were not in a position to persecute anyone, as they were being thrown to the lions themselves. The Catholic church of the fourth century was the result of the Apostasy—its end product—not the cause. To find the real culprits, we need to look at a much earlier period in church history than the fourth century after Christ. Satan had his ministers in the world long before then, and we must remember that Babylon was already there to oppose Zion in the days of Cain, Nimrod, Pharaoh, and Herod.

Actually, no single known historical church, denomination, or set of believers meets all the requirements for the great and abominable church: it must have formed among the Gentiles; it must have edited and controlled the distribution of the scriptures; it must have slain the Saints of God, including the Apostles and prophets; it must be in league with civil governments and use their police power to enforce its religious views; it must have dominion over all the earth; it must pursue great wealth and sexual immorality; and it must last until close to the end of the world. No single denomination or system of beliefs fits the entire description. Rather, the role of Babylon has been played by many different agencies, ideologies, and churches in many different times.

 

 

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 4/6/2022 at 11:55 AM, Stargazer said:

I could almost say "guilty as charged", because there's certain verses in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi, where the prophet Nephi is shown a number of things about the future, and verbiage does seem to describe the kind of elaborate ceremonial vestments worn by Catholic clerics -- though the same seems to apply to the vestments worn by clerics in Orthodox churches and a few Protestants (e.g. the Church of England). The relevant verses are 1 Nephi 13:4-9:

4 And it came to pass that I saw among the nations of the Gentiles the formation of a great church.
5 And the angel said unto me: Behold the formation of a church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity.
6 And it came to pass that I beheld this great and abominable church; and I saw the devil that he was the founder of it.
7 And I also saw gold, and silver, and silks, and scarlets, and fine-twined linen, and all manner of precious clothing; and I saw many harlots.
8 And the angel spake unto me, saying: Behold the gold, and the silver, and the silks, and the scarlets, and the fine-twined linen, and the precious clothing, and the harlots, are the desires of this great and abominable church.
9 And also for the praise of the world do they destroy the saints of God, and bring them down into captivity.

Elder Bruce R. McConkie, in his first edition of his (somewhat) controversial 1958 book, Mormon Doctrine, specifically identified the "abominable church" in the verses above with the Catholic Church. President David O. McKay, who wasn't best pleased with the book in general, and I believe he took particular exception to that characterization of the Catholic Church, insisted McConkie make a number of changes. The book, which is now (thankfully) out of print, now has this to say about the titles "church of the devil" and "great and abominable church": 

I looked up the "abominable church" and "church of the devil" citations in Catholic apologetics, and it is this Mormon Doctrine book that is always quoted, and a couple of times an LDS Apostle named Pratt.

I'll add that, for Catholic readers, "Doctrine" has a specific meaning--doctrines are teachings of the Church, and are not just the opinions of some theologian or historian. Many Catholics will probably ascribe that level of authority to a book with "doctrine" in the title.

 

On 4/6/2022 at 11:55 AM, Stargazer said:

Quote

 

"The titles ... are used to identify all churches or organizations of whatever name or nature -- whether political, philosophical, educational, ecomonic, social, fraternal, civic, or reglious -- 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."

Which is a far better, and more accurate, understanding of those verses in 1 Nephi. In my humble opinion.

You may question my equivocating terms in reference to the book Mormon Doctrine (e.g. "somewhat controversial" and "thankfully out of print"). It's because while McConkie's book does have some redeeming qualities vis-a-vis describing the gospel as taught by the Latter-day Saints, I trust it no further than I can verify it. My preferred re-titling of the book is: McConkie's Doctrine.

You might find this article by Donald Westbrook on Catholic-Mormon Relations to be of interest. It appeared in the publication Religious Educator Vol. 13 No. 1  in 2012: Catholic-Mormon Relations

 

Thank you, I'll check out the article over lunch or something.

Quote

 

Plenty of Catholics, and even some Popes, will be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom, I believe. And not despite being Catholic, but because of their righteousness and valiance in the testimony of Christ. I've searched the scriptures diligently, and nowhere have I found membership in the Catholic church to be a mortal sin.  

Some other Catholics and Popes, I'm afraid, will find themselves in the Telestial Kingdom ("Level 3" or "Below Stairs"), along with the rest of the world's unrepentant evil persons, including not just a few Mormons.

 

Catholics don't declare anybody to be in hell, not even people like Nero, Trajan, or George Steinbrenner. Popes are sinners like anyone else, and I don't know of any Catholics who are proud of Steven VI, Sergius III, or John X. 

Quote

 

I should like to express my personal opinion of the Catholic church (and this includes the Orthodox churches as well). I feel a great deal of respect for the Catholic church, and for many of its leaders over the millennia. Despite doctrinal and authoritative differences between the RCC and the LDS, the fact that the Catholic church persisted in transmitting the tenets of the gospel of Jesus Christ over all these centuries makes me love as well as respect those churches. The fact that there was still a Christian church in existence after all that time and all those upheavals is no small feat. And if the adherents and leaders of those Christian churches had not diligently stayed true to the Master, Jesus Christ, how much more difficult would the Lord have found it to restore the Church of Jesus Christ, through the Prophet Joseph Smith, with all its power and authority in our days?

Can we Latter-day Saints, with all our advantages with respect to the Restoration, look down with disfavor upon such luminaries as St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, and others, who did so much to advance the Christian cause in their times? No! For despite being wrong on some subjects, they were right in many others, and provided profoundly important intellectual and spiritual foundations for the truths of the Gospel. Will God not be highly pleased with these men, who did the best they could under difficult conditions? Disagree with some of their conclusions and teachings, if you will, but I believe that many of them will be found worthy of exaltation, and will hear the Lord say to them, "Well done thou good and faithful servant!" 

We'll still have to see to it that their proxy ordinances are taken care of in the temple, of course. But that may be all they lack.

 

Thank you so much for sharing this. 

 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

doctrines are teachings of the Church, and are not just the opinions of some theologian or historian.

They are for us too.  It has always baffled me he didn’t change the title given his respect for leadership and authority.

[Saint Bonaventure]

I did a little searching and found some paintings by LDS artists that depict the Lord's crucifixion. The painting below would be welcome in the gathering space of any Catholic Church I've been in.

So there seems to be a difference for LDS if a cross or crucifix is made of canvas and paint, and maybe is framed, instead of being made of plaster, wood, metal, etc. 

Edited April 8, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure

[Bernard Gui]

What does wearing a cross tell us about a person?

[Calm]

That they wear a cross

It is more about what wearing a cross tells them about themselves. They may then share that publicly when asked about it. 

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

That they wear a cross

It is more about what wearing a cross tells them about themselves. They may then share that publicly when asked about it. 

Calm, did you get my private message?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Calm, did you get my private message?

I did but got interrupted and then forgot…as I do. I got the second one, just responded. Thanks for thinking of me. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by Calm

[Stargazer]

On 4/7/2022 at 11:03 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I looked up the "abominable church" and "church of the devil" citations in Catholic apologetics, and it is this Mormon Doctrine book that is always quoted, and a couple of times an LDS Apostle named Pratt.

Parley P. Pratt was quite strong in his opinions. I don't think he had a very positive feeling towards Protestant denominations, either. Hard to blame him, when he spent a good deal of his life after joining the LDS church dealing with the same kind of persecution that Joseph Smith had to deal with.  

On 4/7/2022 at 11:03 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

I'll add that, for Catholic readers, "Doctrine" has a specific meaning--doctrines are teachings of the Church, and are not just the opinions of some theologian or historian. Many Catholics will probably ascribe that level of authority to a book with "doctrine" in the title.

From an etymological point of view, the word "doctrine" comes from "teaching". Wikipedia says:

Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is "catechism".

And so I can see why Catholic readers might consider a book such as "Mormon Doctrine" to be an official explication of the official teachings of the Latter-day Saints. But it isn't. Even in its first edition, Elder McConkie wrote in the preface: "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."

Many written works authored by LDS authors state quite clearly that their work is theirs and not to be described as official church doctrine. There seems to be a few books that could be considered official doctrine. Jesus the Christ by Elder James E. Talmage is certainly a candidate. It's available in both print, audio, and e-format, as well as freely available to read online on the church's website.

Quote

Catholics don't declare anybody to be in hell, not even people like Nero, Trajan, or George Steinbrenner. Popes are sinners like anyone else, and I don't know of any Catholics who are proud of Steven VI, Sergius III, or John X. 

Not even George Steinbrenner? Amazing! What about Billy Martin? LOL!

We don't declare anybody to be in hell, either. 

But there's a difference between the Catholic and LDS hells. Not the same place at all. If John X found himself in the LDS "hell" he would likely not be particularly unhappy about it. I hesitate to get into a big discussion here about the details of LDS doctrine regarding the ultimate disposition of the dead, as it is definitely off-topic. 

Having barely heard of John X, I thought to look him up, and in reality he may very well have been a better Pope than he is made out to be. And his negative reputation may have been due more to the concerted efforts of old-time smear campaigners than to his actual sins.

"[I]n recent times, his pontificate has been re-evaluated, and he is now seen as a man who attempted to stand against the aristocratic domination of the papacy, who promoted a unified Italy under an imperial ruler, only to be murdered for his efforts."

"According to Ferdinand Gregorovius (not known for his sympathies towards the Papacy), John X was the foremost statesman of his age. He wrote:
    ”John X, however, the man whose sins are known only by report, whose great qualities are conspicuous in history, stands forth amid the darkness of the time as one of the most memorable figures among the Popes. The acts of the history of the Church praise his activity, and his relations with every country of Christendom. And since he confirmed the strict rule of Cluny, they extol him further as one of the reformers of monasticism."

[Saint Bonaventure]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Parley P. Pratt was quite strong in his opinions. I don't think he had a very positive feeling towards Protestant denominations, either. Hard to blame him, when he spent a good deal of his life after joining the LDS church dealing with the same kind of persecution that Joseph Smith had to deal with.  

Indeed.

 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

From an etymological point of view, the word "doctrine" comes from "teaching". Wikipedia says:

Doctrine (from Latin: doctrina, meaning "teaching, instruction") is a codification of beliefs or a body of teachings or instructions, taught principles or positions, as the essence of teachings in a given branch of knowledge or in a belief system. The etymological Greek analogue is "catechism".

And so I can see why Catholic readers might consider a book such as "Mormon Doctrine" to be an official explication of the official teachings of the Latter-day Saints. But it isn't. Even in its first edition, Elder McConkie wrote in the preface: "For the work itself, I assume sole and full responsibility."

Many written works authored by LDS authors state quite clearly that their work is theirs and not to be described as official church doctrine. There seems to be a few books that could be considered official doctrine. Jesus the Christ by Elder James E. Talmage is certainly a candidate. It's available in both print, audio, and e-format, as well as freely available to read online on the church's website.

The nuances of source materials do not always make it into apologetics works (or into media coverage of religion, in general). 

Thanks for the Talmage reference. If Talmage's work is a good entry point for LDS Christology, I'll check it out.

 

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Not even George Steinbrenner? Amazing! What about Billy Martin? LOL!

We don't declare anybody to be in hell, either. 

But there's a difference between the Catholic and LDS hells. Not the same place at all. If John X found himself in the LDS "hell" he would likely not be particularly unhappy about it. I hesitate to get into a big discussion here about the details of LDS doctrine regarding the ultimate disposition of the dead, as it is definitely off-topic. 

Having barely heard of John X, I thought to look him up, and in reality he may very well have been a better Pope than he is made out to be. And his negative reputation may have been due more to the concerted efforts of old-time smear campaigners than to his actual sins.

"[I]n recent times, his pontificate has been re-evaluated, and he is now seen as a man who attempted to stand against the aristocratic domination of the papacy, who promoted a unified Italy under an imperial ruler, only to be murdered for his efforts."

"According to Ferdinand Gregorovius (not known for his sympathies towards the Papacy), John X was the foremost statesman of his age. He wrote:
    ”John X, however, the man whose sins are known only by report, whose great qualities are conspicuous in history, stands forth amid the darkness of the time as one of the most memorable figures among the Popes. The acts of the history of the Church praise his activity, and his relations with every country of Christendom. And since he confirmed the strict rule of Cluny, they extol him further as one of the reformers of monasticism."

John X's situation probably requires more nuance than does Steinbrenner's. Billy Martin may be the closest thing the Yankees have to a Saint!

Seriously, though, John X's intermingling with the Count of Tusculum--his own family, I believe--has layers upon layers, and those folks are cited as examples of lay nobility having too much influence over Church affairs.

 

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for the Talmage reference. If Talmage's work is a good entry point for LDS Christology, I'll check it out.

Besides the scriptures, this is the book that I very carefully read from cover to cover in preparation for my service as a full-time missionary (I served in Germany from 1972-74). I then re-read it in the German language while serving -- a practice which helped me greatly in my quest to obtain fluency in the language.

It's a good question, however, whether it's a good entry point for LDS Christology. It's definitely thorough (over 700 printed pages) and is pretty much the closest thing to a work with the LDS equivalent to a papal imprimatur, since it was published by the church itself. Talmage wrote it entirely in longhand while sitting in the Salt Lake Temple, and as he finished each chapter it was passed to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve for their review. 

I think that a minimal entry point might be The Living Christ, a short declaration about the Church's view of Christ. It is found as a sub-page of the Jesus Christ page on the church's website, HERE. This is where the free, online text of Jesus the Christ is found, along with other items.

Perhaps others here might have a better suggestion for a good entry point to LDS Christology. @JLHPROF @Robert F. Smith ??

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

28 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Besides the scriptures, this is the book that I very carefully read from cover to cover in preparation for my service as a full-time missionary (I served in Germany from 1972-74). I then re-read it in the German language while serving -- a practice which helped me greatly in my quest to obtain fluency in the language.

It's a good question, however, whether it's a good entry point for LDS Christology. It's definitely thorough (over 700 printed pages) and is pretty much the closest thing to a work with the LDS equivalent to a papal imprimatur, since it was published by the church itself. Talmage wrote it entirely in longhand while sitting in the Salt Lake Temple, and as he finished each chapter it was passed to the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve for their review. 

I think that a minimal entry point might be The Living Christ, a short declaration about the Church's view of Christ. It is found as a sub-page of the Jesus Christ page on the church's website, HERE. This is where the free, online text of Jesus the Christ is found, along with other items.

Perhaps others here might have a better suggestion for a good entry point to LDS Christology. @JLHPROF @Robert F. Smith ??

No, I concur.