Is this what Mormons teach their members?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Harpazo
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Harpazo

Guest
Glory to Jesus Christ,

I have apparently gotten on this gentleman’s bad once for calling him out on his falsehoods. I called him out on several inaccuracies that he had in regards to Church history and he ended up devoted a whole article to me! Lucky me, eh?

I’m sure he is a nice man, but a basic understanding of Church history and the desire to project the facts do not seem to be high on his list of priorities. In this latest article of his, the LDS Examiner makes several patently false statements. While I am no longer a Catholic, his claims are laughable and I think need to be corrected.

Since he has been making these claims over and over, ad nauseum, it leads me to ask the question: Do LDS teach their members that the Roman Church started in 325, there was a female Pope, etc.? Is the man delusional and obstinate or do Mormons really base their religion on anti-Catholicism?

In Christ,
Andrew
 
Yes, they really teach that. I heard about “Pope Joan” in several LDS religion classes, including the Book of Mormon course at BYU, where the professor taught that the Great and Abominable Church in the Book of Mormon is the Catholic Church (this was 1976, before the LDS decided to cultivate an image of tolerance). Then he went on a tirade about bad popes, including the story of Pope Joan (who never really existed). This was the first I had ever heard of Pope Joan. The whole class was laughing hysterically. Afterwards, the students were all laughing and discussing how stupid Catholics must be. And how we are all drunks and bow down to worship statues.
 
This is not the case with most Mormons that I have interacted with, both on the internet and in real life (I went to a Catholic university at that).

I’ve read his articles before, and they generally have some sort of negative tone, whether or not its related to traditional Christianity. 325 AD is typically the date I see fundamentalists giving for the “creation” of Catholicism, so he’s probably just repeating that. As far as female Pope, obviously that’s never happened, and I believe he’s referring to this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

That either-or statement is also funny (Mormon vs. Catholic), and I don’t agree with the Catholic theologian, since of course there’s the Orthodox Church as well, which I believe also has a strong claim to be the true Church of Jesus Christ.

He is not typical of the Mormons I have interacted with.
 
PaulDupre said:
Yes, they really teach that. I heard about “Pope Joan” in several LDS religion classes, including the Book of Mormon course at BYU, where the professor taught that the Great and Abominable Church in the Book of Mormon is the Catholic Church (this was 1976, before the LDS decided to cultivate an image of tolerance). Then he went on a tirade about bad popes, including the story of Pope Joan (who never really existed). This was the first I had ever heard of Pope Joan. The whole class was laughing hysterically. Afterwards, the students were all laughing and discussing how stupid Catholics must be.
Click to expand...
I didn’t even realize this “Pope Joan” existed until I just googled “female Pope”.
 
PaulDupre said:
Pope Joan never did exist. It is a fanciful story that first appeared more than 500 years after the events supposedly occured.
Click to expand...
True. Sorry I meant that I didn’t even know about the story until just now. It’s pretty funny that he referenced it.
 
Harpazo said:
Glory to Jesus Christ,

I have apparently gotten on this gentleman’s bad once for calling him out on his falsehoods. I called him out on several inaccuracies that he had in regards to Church history and he ended up devoted a whole article to me! Lucky me, eh?

I’m sure he is a nice man, but a basic understanding of Church history and the desire to project the facts do not seem to be high on his list of priorities. In this latest article of his, the LDS Examiner makes several patently false statements. While I am no longer a Catholic, his claims are laughable and I think need to be corrected.

Since he has been making these claims over and over, ad nauseum, it leads me to ask the question: Do LDS teach their members that the Roman Church started in 325, there was a female Pope, etc.? Is the man delusional and obstinate or do Mormons really base their religion on anti-Catholicism?

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
Remember the peeping stone and don’t give mormonism another thought.
 
PaulDupre said:
Yes, they really teach that. I heard about “Pope Joan” in several LDS religion classes, including the Book of Mormon course at BYU, where the professor taught that the Great and Abominable Church in the Book of Mormon is the Catholic Church (this was 1976, before the LDS decided to cultivate an image of tolerance). Then he went on a tirade about bad popes, including the story of Pope Joan (who never really existed). This was the first I had ever heard of Pope Joan. The whole class was laughing hysterically. Afterwards, the students were all laughing and discussing how stupid Catholics must be. And how we are all drunks and bow down to worship statues.
Click to expand...
I have only two words to add. Peeping stone. 😃

Who could follow that religion? Do they just ignore its origins?
 
kalt said:
I have only two words to add. Peeping stone. 😃

Who could follow that religion? Do they just ignore its origins?
Click to expand...
I have found that from other discussions on this board, many mormons ignore, or gloss over many parts of their history.

Like many other aspects of their church, they tend to “cherry pick” out the good stuff and ingore or twist the bad stuff.
 
To answer the original poster of this thread, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has never taught what you have said this person believes.

It is not in anyway the official doctrine of the church.
 
twopekinguys said:
I have found that from other discussions on this board, many mormons ignore, or gloss over many parts of their history.

Like many other aspects of their church, they tend to “cherry pick” out the good stuff and ingore or twist the bad stuff.
Click to expand...
I think that most people cherry pick history. I remember studying US history in High School and certainly the text books cherry picked history. And most faiths do cherry pick their history too. Who brings up a negative twist in their faith’s history? The mormons are no different than most groups, organizations or faiths when it comes to stressing the positive.
 
kalt said:
I have only two words to add. Peeping stone. 😃

Who could follow that religion? Do they just ignore its origins?
Click to expand...
Lets be honest here. What if I would say: Who could follow christianity? Burning bush, Jonah the Whale, Noah’s Ark…Lot’s wife being turned to salt…

Peep stones are mild in this respect.
 
why_me said:
Lets be honest here. What if I would say: Who could follow christianity? Burning bush, Jonah the Whale, Noah’s Ark…Lot’s wife being turned to salt…

Peep stones are mild in this respect.
Click to expand...
Here is the difference between those stories and Joe’s “peep stones”: The peep stones, if I understand the various articles I’ve read on them, were used to translate the text of what would become the BOM. Given that, the believability of the “peep stones” is rather central to Mormonism in the way that believing that Lot’s wife was turned into salt or what have you is not all that central to Christianity.
 
The origins of mormonism, which are clearly disproovable via historical evidence such as the non-existance of the so called american hebrew civilisations, are one aspect amongst others (their heretical view on God) which differentiates mormonism from orthodox christianity, which is not disproovable via historical evidence.

In my view mormonism needs to propogate a view of exclusivity through internal activities and by the demonisation or dispensation of exterior forces. This is shown through the anti-catholicism which was undeniably evident in its past (Im pretty sure the contemporary Mormon church dissaproves of such actions).

Other actions which serve to re-inforce the faith include the emphasis on church service which from my analysis serves as a self policing agent to ensure conformism to mormon orthodoxy.

Anyway the need to self enforce an internal superiority-complex explains the so called instructors tyrade against the Catholic Church. If such actions are ubiquitous amongst the mormon establishment is not my call to say.
 
Harpazo said:
Glory to Jesus Christ,

I have apparently gotten on this gentleman’s bad once for calling him out on his falsehoods. I called him out on several inaccuracies that he had in regards to Church history and he ended up devoted a whole article to me! Lucky me, eh?

I’m sure he is a nice man, but a basic understanding of Church history and the desire to project the facts do not seem to be high on his list of priorities. In this latest article of his, the LDS Examiner makes several patently false statements. While I am no longer a Catholic, his claims are laughable and I think need to be corrected.

Since he has been making these claims over and over, ad nauseum, it leads me to ask the question: Do LDS teach their members that the Roman Church started in 325, there was a female Pope, etc.? Is the man delusional and obstinate or do Mormons really base their religion on anti-Catholicism?

In Christ,
Andrew
Click to expand...
The LDS Church does not officially (or unofficially) teach that the Catholic Church started in 325, or that there was a female Pope. It does, however, officially teach that there was an Apostasy of the early Christian Church; and that neither the Pope nor any other person of any other church today possesses the Priesthood and Apostolic authority that the original Church possessed with the soul exception of the LDS Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top