Published anti-Catholicism from a Mormon in place of business!

[why_me]

Deseret Book was owned by George Q Cannon, who was a mormon apostle. You are correct in that people will not buy what does not interest them. But in the case of mormon religious books, it goes further than that. Most mormons will not buy what is not “safe”. Publications authored by apostles, publications from Deseret Book, most mormons see these as “safe”. So yes, Deseret Book works at keeping that “safety” in place. That “safety” was in place when George Q Cannon owned the pre-cursor to Deseret Book, based on the fact that he was an apostle. Perhaps the control of what was published was not there, and perhaps that is why the mormon church now owns Deseret Book.

But you cannot ignore who owns Deseret Book. What is “safe” for a mormon is what does not contradict what they learned in Sunday school last week. Deseret Book has published books that made it through this whole process, only to have the book pulled from shelves and future publication barred by the LDS church itself. If Mormon Doctrine, or any other Deseret Book publication fell outside the “safety zone”, it would not be on a Deseret Book shelf. Period.

The “safety zone” is defined by the mormch church. For a mormon, who or what else would? What is inside this safety zone is what has been defined by the mormon church. If a publication is not “safe”, it is not there! How can you reason that anything published by a mormon owned publisher is not endorsed by the mormon church itself. That is just ludicrous to believe it is not.

Dear Rebecca,

I was born catholic. I know for a fact that when I was growing up I would never dream of attending a different church or read a book that was anticatholic. It was a sin to do so. Even today catholics should not read anticatholic literature and they are cautioned not to do so. Why?

Because such books cause doubt because they are designed to cause doubt. This is not just a Mormon ‘thing’ but an universal understanding which the catholic church subscribes to also.

Now about Mormon Doctrine. As our friend Zenius stated when Mormon Doctrine was published the book was not exactly published by the Desseret Book that we know today… And even though faithful saints worked at the publisher I am sure that the book passed under the radar of the First Presidency because of the name of the author.

When published, the First Presidency took a direct interest and had McConkie do some revision, not because of pressure but because of dontrine.

 

[zerinus]

I have already stated that the abominable church expression contained in the book of mormon was speculated on by members. Some said the catholic church, others said communism etc. Much speculation was offered. Point of fact, no revelation was ever given as to what that church was. And even today, no one knows. However, because of that book’s first edition, some members still say the catholic church. But in reality most likely it refers to any organization that fights against the word of god. At least, I have heard this speculation rather recently.

I know that there is a good article about that in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, but I haven’t been able to find it because I can’t remember under what heading it occurs. The Encyclopedia is now available for free on the Internet here.

zerinus

 

[why_me]

I know that there is a good article about that in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism, but I haven’t been able to find it because I can’t remember under what heading it occurs. The Encyclopedia is now available for free on the Internet here.

zerinus

I clicked your link and put into the search Abominable church and got a reply. It is basically just what I said…all those who fight the word or work of god.

 

[zerinus]

I clicked your link and put into the search Abominable church and got a reply. It is basically just what I said…all those who fight the word or work of god.

Yes, thank you. That is the article I was looking for. That article correctly explains the meaning of the “great and abominable church” and “church of the devil” etc as it occurs in the Book of Mormon. It does not refer to the Catholic Church or any other organized church in the world.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

offered. Point of fact, no revelation was ever given as to what that church was. And even today, no one knows

. However, because of that book’s first edition, some members still say the catholic church. But in reality most likely it refers to any organization that fights against the word of god. At least, I have heard this speculation rather recently. **. And it is here that we also have a problem with the first edition of Mormon Doctrine. It was accepted uncritically until the leadership understood the problems in that book.

But Mormon Doctrine is not mormon doctrine.**

It’s utterly AMAZING how mormons will drop their doctrinal guard and make statements like whyme, above!

The mormon church claims DIRECT revelation from their god yet even whyme (and zerinus too) admit “And even today, no one knows.”

No one knows because NO revelation is or will be forthcoming on such a spurious and goofy book.

Of course, zerinus is still looking for that one title from Deseret which backs up his claim vis-a-vis Rebecca J.

Of course, zerinus will never find it but he will come up with excuses on what once passed for mormon doctrine, then, as whyme so ELOQUENTLY puts it,

“Also, as you know, mormons have an unfortunate way of listening to everything to what people in authority say without a questioning or critical mind.”

Sums up the lack of historical foundation and Christian tradition for the mormon church, doesn’t it?

Robert

 

[dosdog]

Yes, thank you. That is the article I was looking for. That article correctly explains the meaning of the “great and abominable church” and “church of the devil” etc as it occurs in the Book of Mormon. It does not refer to the Catholic Church or any other organized church in the world.

zerinus

Orson Pratt - Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil. The Seer, p. 205 (1854)

Orson Pratt - “Baptism is just as essential to salvation, as Faith and Repentance. — Without being immersed in water no man can enter into the fulness of Celestial glory. … But who in this generation have authority to baptize?” Only the Latter-day Saints. “Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’” The Seer, p. 255 (1854)

irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-authority-claims-of-LDS-leaders.html

 

[zerinus]

Orson Pratt - Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil. The Seer, p. 205 (1854)

Orson Pratt - “Baptism is just as essential to salvation, as Faith and Repentance. — Without being immersed in water no man can enter into the fulness of Celestial glory. … But who in this generation have authority to baptize?” Only the Latter-day Saints. “Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’” The Seer, p. 255 (1854)

irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-authority-claims-of-LDS-leaders.html

Those quotes are a century and a half old. In those days it is true some Church leaders had mistakenly understood the “great and abominable church” to refer to the Catholic Church. But since then the Church has moved on. They were wrong; and the Church has since corrected its position on that. As I told you before, if you insist on dredging the past, you can do a much better job of it with the Catholic Church than with the LDS Church. Do you really want me to try? Here are some clues: Google for the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the burning of heretics, the persecution of the Jews during the Middle Ages, the 30 years war, the hunting of the witches, the persecution of Galileo, the burning and murder of Tyndale, . . . That will keep you buisy for now!

zerinus

 

[dosdog]

Those quotes are a century and a half old. In those days it is true some Church leaders had mistakenly understood the “great and abominable church” to refer to the Catholic Church. But since then the Church has moved on. They were wrong; and the Church has since corrected its position on that. As I told you before, if you insist on dredging the past, you can do a much better job of it with the Catholic Church than with the LDS Church. Do you really want me to try? Here are some clues: Google for the Crusaders, the Inquisition, the burning of heretics, the persecution of the Jews during the Middle Ages, the 30 years war, the hunting of the witches, the persecution of Galileo, the burning and murder of Tyndale, . . . That will keep you buisy for now!

zerinus

Inquisition Investigating the popular myth
Cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters’s Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment,
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.

Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.

Myth 2: The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land. Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.

Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood

Myth 4: The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery

Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.

Myth 6: The Crusades were so corrupt and vile that they even had a Children’s Crusade.

Myth 7: Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades

Myth 8: Muslims, who remember the Crusades vividly, have good reason to hate the West

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

 

[dosdog]

"Moreover, notes historian Thomas Madden, “of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions.” Throughout the Middle Ages, Rome and the papal states “were the only places in [western] Europe where the Jews were at all times free from attacks or expulsions.” The Jews were expelled from Crimea in 1016, Paris in 1182, England in 1290, France in 1306, Switzerland in 1348, Hungary in 1349, Provence in 1394, Austria in 1422, Spain in 1492, Lithuania in 1495, and Portugal in 1497, In Italy, however, the Jewish community was under papal protection and was never expelled. Indeed, by the beginning of the fifteenth century, “the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope.”

The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, Rabbi David G. Dalin
amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0895260344/ref=dp_proddesc_0/105-1886218-0658854?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Those quotes are a century and a half old. In those days it is true some

Church leaders had mistakenly understood the “great and abominable church” to refer to the Catholic Church. But since then the Church has moved on. They were wrong; and the Church has since corrected its position on that.

zerinus

Again a demonstration that any mistaken doctrine of mormonism is equivalent to acts of Catholics in historical events.

This young man has no clue on what he believes and why.

His whole point is to justify his pantheology on the coattails of Catholicism.

He doesn’t understand history, but we shouldn’t be surprised, after all, mormonism rewrites history and invents all sort of doctrines and practices based upon unprovable assertions.

The sad thing is, he and other mormon posters, see NO DISCERNABLE difference between Christianity and their sect.
None.

And for that we need to pray for their conversion.

Robert

 

[zerinus]

"Moreover, notes historian Thomas Madden, “of all medieval institutions, the [Catholic] Church stood alone in Europe in its consistent condemnation of Jewish persecutions.” Throughout the Middle Ages, Rome and the papal states “were the only places in [western] Europe where the Jews were at all times free from attacks or expulsions.” The Jews were expelled from Crimea in 1016, Paris in 1182, England in 1290, France in 1306, Switzerland in 1348, Hungary in 1349, Provence in 1394, Austria in 1422, Spain in 1492, Lithuania in 1495, and Portugal in 1497, In Italy, however, the Jewish community was under papal protection and was never expelled. Indeed, by the beginning of the fifteenth century, “the only safe place in Europe to be a Jew was in the lands of the pope.”

The Myth of Hitler’s Pope, Rabbi David G. Dalin
amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0895260344/ref=dp_proddesc_0/105-1886218-0658854?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Inquisition Investigating the popular myth
Cynical sneers that have greeted this report are just further evidence of the lamentable gulf that exists between professional historians and the general public. The truth is that, although this report makes use of previously unavailable material, it merely echoes what numerous scholars have previously learned from other European archives. Among the best recent books on the subject are Edward Peters’s Inquisition (1988) and Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition (1997), but there are others. Simply put, historians have long known that the popular view of the Inquisition is a myth. So what is the truth?

The Inquisition was not born out of desire to crush diversity or oppress people; it was rather an attempt to stop unjust executions. Yes, you read that correctly. Heresy was a crime against the state. Roman law in the Code of Justinian made it a capital offense. Rulers, whose authority was believed to come from God, had no patience for heretics. Neither did common people, who saw them as dangerous outsiders who would bring down divine wrath. When someone was accused of heresy in the early Middle Ages, they were brought to the local lord for judgment,
nationalreview.com/comment/madden200406181026.asp

So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.

Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them. While Muslims can be peaceful, Islam was born in war and grew the same way. From the time of Mohammed, the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the Abode of Islam and the Abode of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under Muslim rule. But, in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered.

Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.

crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Myth 1: The Crusades were wars of unprovoked aggression against a peaceful Muslim world.

Myth 2: The Crusaders wore crosses, but they were really only interested in capturing booty and land. Their pious platitudes were just a cover for rapacious greed.

Myth 3: When the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 they massacred every man, woman, and child in the city until the streets ran ankle deep with the blood

Myth 4: The Crusades were just medieval colonialism dressed up in religious finery

Myth 5: The Crusades were also waged against the Jews.

Myth 6: The Crusades were so corrupt and vile that they even had a Children’s Crusade.

Myth 7: Pope John Paul II apologized for the Crusades

Myth 8: Muslims, who remember the Crusades vividly, have good reason to hate the West

ignatiusinsight.com/features2005/print2005/tmadden_crusades_print.html

Others have different opinions abut these, and I agree with them.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Again a demonstration that any mistaken doctrine of mormonism is equivalent to acts of Catholics in historical events.

This young man has no clue on what he believes and why.

 

[dosdog]

Others have different opinions abut these, and I agree with them.

zerinus

READ MY BLOG - MY Kingdom for some Gold Plates

 

[zerinus]

READ MY BLOG - MY Kingdom for some Gold Plates

You are talking trash as usual. Haven’t a clue.

zerinus

 

[Rbt_Southwell]

Haven’t a clue.

zerinus

He finally admits it.

The Holy Spirit is beginning to turn him!

Robert

 

[swariffin]

Dear dosdog, thank you for the reference. But, the site you point out about the amish is no longer connected.

 

[dosdog]

Dear dosdog, thank you for the reference. But, the site you point out about the amish is no longer connected.

University of Virginia
The Amish
religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/amish.html

 

[why_me]

Orson Pratt - Roman Catholic church never had authority, it was founded by the Devil. Protestant reformers did not restore the church, their authority came from the Catholics who only had authority from the Devil. The Seer, p. 205 (1854)

Orson Pratt - “Baptism is just as essential to salvation, as Faith and Repentance. — Without being immersed in water no man can enter into the fulness of Celestial glory. … But who in this generation have authority to baptize?” Only the Latter-day Saints. “Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the ‘whore of Babylon’” The Seer, p. 255 (1854)

irr.org/mit/WDIST/wdist-authority-claims-of-LDS-leaders.html

First, I would need to see these quotations in context. However, as I have stated much was said and much was given as opinion. The problem comes when an individual puts such ideas into a book and calls it Mormon Doctrine. As I have stated before this was the problem with the book. Opinions are not doctrine but they are opinions. LDS church leaders are normal people from all walks of life. They live among the people as neighbors and friends. And yes, they do have opinions.

And here we have the difference. The pope lives in the Vatican. To get to see the Pope one must have an invitation. The pope is locked away from the people and sees a select few in which he can have a conversation with and share ideas away from the media . Nothing wrong with that but there is a difference between lds leaders and catholic leaders as to where they live and among who they live.

Mormons regardless of what their calling in the lds church are people living with the people around them and yes, they also have opinions that may not be doctrinal.

 

[dosdog]

First, I would need to see these quotations in context. However, as I have stated much was said and much was given as opinion. The problem comes when an individual puts such ideas into a book and calls it Mormon Doctrine. As I have stated before this was the problem with the book. Opinions are not doctrine but they are opinions. LDS church leaders are normal people from all walks of life. They live among the people as neighbors and friends. And yes, they do have opinions.

And here we have the difference. The pope lives in the Vatican. To get to see the Pope one must have an invitation. The pope is locked away from the people and sees a select few in which he can have a conversation with and share ideas away from the media . Nothing wrong with that but there is a difference between lds leaders and catholic leaders as to where they live and among who they live.

Mormons regardless of what their calling in the lds church are people living with the people around them and yes, they also have opinions that may not be doctrinal.

BENEDICT XVI.TV - VIDEO - speeches, events, clips - FREE DOWNLOAD
benedictxvi.tv/

VATICAN RADIO - OFFICIAL WEB SITE
radiovaticano.org/en1/indice.asp?RedaSel=43&CategSel=16

Vatican Television Center - Index
vatican.va/news_services/television/index.htm

 

[vashsunglasses]

My children have been participating in some plays at a childrens’ theater for the last year. The owner is a bit batty, though extremely talented,

The owner is Mormon. I have more than enough experience with Mormons since my husband was an ex-Mormon Catholic convert. In general all my posts are here in the the non-Catholic forum about Mormonism anyhow.

So last night was the last performance of the kids’ current play. We’d gotten there early and she came up and handed everyone sitting in the audience a copy of her latest newsletter and said it was “Hot off the press”.

I came across the usual pro-Mormon ramblings. This time she “reviewed” the so-called anti-Mormon movie “September Dawn” (without seeing the movie obviously ) I just chuckled to myself until I came to the next section and the pit of my stomach fell to the floor and I could not believe my eyes.

"The Catholic Church says we must have a priest talk to God for us. Or get some saint to intercede for us.

Baloney! God is the father of our spirits, &, as with all proper fathers, we can talk to him.

Speaking of the Catholic Church, perhaps we can thank it for keeping Christianity alive in the Dark Ages, albeit in a twisted & corrupted manner.

Remember the Emperor Constantine started the Catholic Church to make his subjects more manageable.

After the death & resurrection of Jesus Christ, the apostles, & others, went thru the Mediterrean area preaching Christianity. But by the time a couple of hundred years had passed it was totally corrupted, taking on the trappings of idol worship.

There were three basics of idol worship: use of alcohol & drugs, animal sacrifice, which always metamorphosed into human sacrifice, & temple prostitiution…"



The play was just starting, but I promptly got up, yanked off my kids’ costumes and threw them to the floor, and pulled them out the door and left.

My oldest was a main character.

It made quite the scene, but I wonder if I shouldn’t have done more? I feel today I should have stood up and interrupted the entire play and asked for a show of hands who was Catholic and draw their attention to what was written in this newsletter? I should have called her out on the carpet.

She ended up chasing me out the door, but I was already in my car. She stopped the whole play and called my husband who was home with the other kids.

She had no clue what prompted me to do what I did. So my husband called me on my cell very worried until I READ to him what was printed in this newsletter that she handed to me and everyone else sitting in the audience. He was LIVID.

He called back and talked to the stage manager since the owner was continuing on with the play apparently. The stage manager was shocked and said he hadn’t read that. He apologized,but he wasn’t the one who wrote it.

The owner did call back and my husband let her have it. He gave her an education and she did concede that she was ignorant about what she said about Catholicism and what she published was wrong and she did apologize.

We’re never going back. I feel bad for my kids that loved doing those plays. I explained to them why it was unacceptable for us to continue to associate with such a person and/or business.

Any comments?

Well I’m new around these parts but I feel that I may legitimately share my feelings on this issue. I’m sorry to say this, but I don’t think you handled the situation correctly at all.

What I’m seeing is a mother who became so enraged at a printout that she ruined a play that her children had worked very hard on. How would you feel if you were in their place and your mother interrupted the play, humiliated you by stripping you of your costume in front of everybody, and then dragged you out of the room?!

So, what do I think you should have done? I think that perhaps you should have waited for the play to finish, gone home without a fuss so that your children aren’t dragged into the middle of an adult matter, and then called the lady and the owner and whoever else and complained in a loving and Christian manner.