- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
amateurparent wrote:
When I started reading about the history of the cross in LDS culture, I was stunned. It really rocked me back in my heels a bit and I had to catch my balance. All those years of childhood and adulthood that I had passively listened while being told the cross was wrong in its symbolism. I had nodded my head, and assumed my leaders were correct.
Since Christmas, I have worn a tiny James Avery “Latin” cross. It is about 1/2 inch long. I love the fact that the cross is empty. Christ is not there. He is risen. The symbolism of the empty cross has become meaningful to me. It makes me sad that such a symbol is controversial in LDS circles.
AP, I’m glad you brought this up because I think it is illustrative of the the need for personal space in spirituality; for you, me, and everyone else. I like your symbol of the empty cross. I’ve heard it before and I’m glad it has become meaningful for you. Although I also like the symbol of the cross, I must confess to you that the symbol of the empty cross doesn’t do anything for me, personally. There’s nothing wrong with it, it’s just that I don’t believe in the resurrection, so the symbol doesn’t match my beliefs. Because of that, what I pull from the symbol of the cross is altogether different from the symbol you see in it. With that in mind, I think it is worthwhile to understand that people will see it differently, and to accept that they do. Probably the best part for me of having experienced a faith crisis, if there can be said to be a “best part”, has been the realization that spirituality belongs to the individual. I hope you go on wearing your cross and finding joy in it.Joni wrote:I hadn’t considered that perhaps the Mormon Church is preparatory to the version of the gospel we will live in the Celestial Kingdom, the same way that the Mosaic Law was preparatory to Christianity.Maybe the Mormon Church is 2% of the way there. Other Christian churches are 1% of the way there. We look at them and say ‘well we have twice as much truth as you’ but from God’s perspective, we are only a tiny bit closer.
I can prove from orthodox sources that the LDS church does not have all truth. We do not yet have the priesthood power of the resurrection for example. There are entire books of scripture that we are missing, sealed portions of the BOM etc. However, even in acknowledging this deficiency most LDS do so believing that the missing truths are not on this world and that, should they ever come to this planet it would be through the leadership of the LDS church.
What I find fun to contemplate is what if other Christian churches have access to perspectives and truths that we do not have? We do indeed strive to make bad men good and good men better. But what if our best LDS men could be blinded to important things because of their aversion to looking outside the LDS box for solutions?
GB Smith made some good points I was thinking of about the 1950s and when some things really did exist between Catholics and Mormons in Utah. The book abouit David O McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormism is one account (who knows how true) that gives a glimpse about some of these events and times. One thing I have always been inspired by the Book of Mormon is the teaching of opposition in all things. We learn what something is by defining it’s attributes, and sometimes clarifying that definition by comparing to something it is not.
Nephites and Lamanites. Church of God, Church of the Devil.
While at some single point there is a defined group with attributes of good and evil in it to be described…those “groups” go on to morph and change as mortals pass through it and change it.
Soon…Lamanites become righteous and Nephites are wicked. The church of God (tame olive tree) is corrupted and strengthened the by world (wild olive trees). There is an apostasy and falling away from the faithful, and a restoration through the gentiles.
There is an internal struggle inside all of us to find good and evil, to find God and push off the devil. Defining good and evil requires opposition.
Good vs evil is the concept to learn. That can be captured on 2 chalk boards. It can be seen in the catholic church and the mormon church, at different stages, at different moments in time. It is characteristics of churches that are good and evil…not the churches themselves.
IMO, The Great and Abominable Church was always intendedto be the Catholic Church by Joseph. Everything since has been backpedaling and repositioning in response to changing social norms. Anti-Catholic (and anti-immigrant) sentiment was starting to heat up in the early 1800s due to a large influx of Irish Catholic immigrants. An entire political movement sprung up in response (nativism). It’s inclusion in the Book of Mormon in 1829 would have meshed perfectly with the politics and social climate of the day in the northeastern United States.
Obviously we won’t make many friends by talking about the Catholic Church that way… I tell people it’s Scientology.
marty wrote:IMO, The Great and Abominable Church was always
intendedto be the Catholic Church by Joseph. Everything since has been backpedaling and repositioning in response to changing social norms. Anti-Catholic (and anti-immigrant) sentiment was starting to heat up in the early 1800s due to a large influx of Irish Catholic immigrants. An entire political movement sprung up in response (nativism). It’s inclusion in the Book of Mormon in 1829 would have meshed perfectly with the politics and social climate of the day in the northeastern United States.
Obviously we won’t make many friends by talking about the Catholic Church that way… I tell people it’s Scientology.
Do you have evidence that Joseph thought Catholicism was the great and abominable? That’s a new idea to me, from what I have read of him he didn’t seem to mention Catholicism. I thought this idea came on much later as others have indicated.
DarkJedi wrote:Do you have evidence that Joseph thought Catholicism was the great and abominable? That’s a new idea to me, from what I have read of him he didn’t seem to mention Catholicism. I thought this idea came on much later as others have indicated.
I likewise had assumed JS to be referring to the Catholic Church. I know that there was distrust for the Catholics at the time and this distrust may have delayed introduction of a “priesthood.” However, when I try to find relevant quotes from early church leaders they seem to condemn all other churches pretty evenly. From what I understand the term “Sectarian” was used as a shorthand disparaging label for all that was believed to be wrong with Christianity. “Creedalism” was a hiss and a byword. The word “Gentile” did not have quite the same negativity attached to it. Jews, Native Americans, and Mormons seem to be the non-gentiles – while everyone not thought to be of the house of Israel were considered gentiles. Gentiles could be friendly to the Mormon cause or proselyted for Mormon converts. The BoM and D&C use the word Gentile to mean nations or peoples without the Gospel of Mormonism. Yet even this much less pejorative word still divided the world into an “us” camp and a “them” camp. Perhaps a synonym might be “ignorant masses.”
DarkJedi wrote:
Do you have evidence that Joseph thought Catholicism was the great and abominable? That’s a new idea to me, from what I have read of him he didn’t seem to mention Catholicism.No evidence, but I subscribe to the theory that for most things in the Book of Mormon, the simplest answer for its existence is simply to look at what life was like being a Smith in the northeastern United States.
That said, anti-Catholicism is hardly something new, or unique to the early 1800s, so it could definitely be something else.
I think it was not mentioned explicitly in the early years and by the early leaders simply because it was assumed to be understood. I wouldn’t call moving away from that view as back-pedaling. I would call it an alteration to become more in line with what the Book of Mormon actually says – an evolution of understanding, if you will.
Our lesson on Sunday was interesting, since the overall conclusion was that the Catholic Church functioned as the G&AC within Christianity for many centuries, but that term now is understood more broadly – and one member even said that members of the LDS Church can be part of the G&AC, not just when they are obviously apostate but when they are living in opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ (which, I believe, can apply to ultra-conservative, uber-orthodox members, as well – and the man who made the comment would agree, I think).
It was a fascinating discussion, frankly.
I would compare it to talk in the 1950s of Russia as the evil empire and enemy to our American way of thinking…and lots of comments about Russians that were overcharged with ideals at the message being made at the time. Since then, we are not back-pedaling on Russian-hating. We may still not like Putin. But…things have changed, the threats are no there like they were before to the same degree, and we’ve become more enlightened.
In short…things changed. We see it differently now.
It would be hard to take direct quotes from JS or early prophets in their time and demand those statements hold true for all situations and contexts, or else call them false prophets.
It is why we need modern prophets for application in our times, as we gain more light and knowledge and the world stage evolves revealing different issues to be tackled. Add on top of that the notion that prophets can be wrong, and the interpretations in BRM Mormon Doctrine (although supported by many at the time it was written) are just outdated interpretations, and I am glad we progress as a church and stop calling others names.
Us vs Them mentalities sow bad seeds.
I don’t disagree that people of the time may have considered Catholicism as the G&AC. Protestantism was created as a direct result of similar beliefs. However, there is some evidence people, and particularly Joseph, thought it was not only Catholicism. In the most common First Vision account (the canonized one) Joseph talks about “an unusual excitement on the subject of religion” and specifically mentions the Methodist, Presbyterian and Baptist churches. Historical accounts also suggest there may have been some evangelizing in that area during the time of which Joseph speaks. In upstate New York (and the rest of the northeast for that matter), the Methodists were quite successful – those picturesque white churches in the quaint New England village fall foliage pictures are almost all Methodist. Further, when Joseph recounts the vision he refers to the churches in the plural and was told “…that I must join none of them, for they were allwrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creedswere an abomination in his sight….” Catholicism was not the only church around with creeds during this time. The Givenses also allude to this idea. They point out that in revelations before the church was organized there was a church of God referred to. Looking at this from a positive point of view, there was apparently a church of God existing, I think much in the same way most Protestants see themselves as all being part of the same church of God. This concept has nothing to do with brick and mortar churches or even different sects – it presumably encompasses all who believe. From that point of view, most of us are part of the church of God as opposed to the G&AC, and belonging to any particular church does not seem to affect that either way – it’s more of a personal thing. Such being the case, a Catholic could be part of the church of God and a Methodist could be a member of the G&AC.
I don’t see why we would assume later that the G&AC was Catholicism and openly say so when it was not specifically mentioned earlier even if it was assumed.
Good points, DJ. In my opinion, clearly mormons had taken hold of the interpretation that it was referring to the catholic church. I certainly thought so. But the point is…it doesn’t “require” that interpretation to be the only one, even if it was a popular one.
Interestingly, a “restoration” meant a return to what the Catholic Church was supposed to have been, in theory – The Kingdom of God on Earth run by a human-staffed religious organization. Joseph wasn’t a fan of the actual Catholic Church, I think it is safe to say, but the obvious and wholesale rejection was of Protestantism and its creeds as having failed completely to return to the purity of early Christianity.
Old-Timer wrote:Interestingly, a “restoration” meant a return to what the Catholic Church was supposed to have been, in theory – The Kingdom of God on Earth run by a human-staffed religious organization.
Joseph wasn’t a fan of the actual Catholic Church, I think it is safe to say, but the obvious and wholesale rejection was of Protestantism and its creeds as having failed completely to return to the purity of early Christianity.
Agreed, Ray. That’s why there needed to be a “restoration” as opposed to a new Protestant group – there needed to be a fresh start. I’ve examined Mormonism compared to Catholicism a bit – the similarities, especially to old Catholicism, are striking.
I did mean to point out in my previous post that amid the evangelical movement of Joseph’s time, Catholicism was like a bench player. They don’t tend to evangelize like some of the other mentioned denominations, and they were probably being evangelized against. It is likely they weren’t mentioned by Joseph because of that and because most Catholics were immigrants who were born Catholic and kept their own traditions without being concerned about what the Protestants were doing. I may in some spare time research the history of Catholicism in the Rochester area (there is presently a diocese there) and try to determine the strength – or lack thereof – of Catholicism in the early/mid 1800s. Currently Catholicism is in decline in all of upstate NY, as I suspect is the case in many other places in the US. There is not currently a parish in Palmyra itself, and I don’t know if there ever was.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.