Your Notre Dame Mormon on The Church of the Devil

[PaulDupre]

I am afraid if you google it you will find many quotes by early lds leaders that portray Catholicism in the vilest terms. They certainly understood Nephi to refer to the Catholic Church.

In the Mormon temple endowment ceremony, the fall of Adam and Eve is portrayed. After the fall, Elohim scolds Lucifer. Note what the Mormon Lucifer says:

ELOHIM: I will place enmity between thee and the seed of the woman. Thou mayest have power to bruise his heal, but he shall have power to crush thy head.

LUCIFER:: Then with that enmity I will take the treasure of the earth, and with gold and silver I will buy up armies and navies, Popes and priests, and reign with blood and horror on the earth!

Later in the endowment, there is indeed a Christian clergyman portrayed as a dim-witted employee of Satan.

I’m not buying NDM’s assertion that Mormons no longer consider the Catholic and Protestant churches as “the whore and her harlot daughters”. They’re just trying to hide it from potential converts now.

Paul

 

[frnate]

*“And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God… *(1 Nephi 14:10)

I think we can clear this all up if we can get you to answer honestly.

Which church do those of the LDS believe to be the “church of the Lamb of God?”

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[IAMLDS]

At what point were the following phrases removed from the Nicean Creed and why?

As for those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’ and ‘before being begotten he was not,’ and who declare that he was made from nothing, or that the Son of God is of a different substance [hupostasis] or being [ousia], that is, created, or subject to change and alteration—such persons the Catholic Church condemns."

 

[christianley]

At what point were the following phrases removed from the Nicean Creed and why?

As for those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’ and ‘before being begotten he was not,’ and who declare that he was made from nothing, or that the Son of God is of a different substance [hupostasis] or being [ousia], that is, created, or subject to change and alteration—such persons the Catholic Church condemns."

Those phrases were never in the Nicene Creed. Those phrases were in the later Athanasian Creed. We repeat the Nicene Creed on Sunday, not the Athanasian Creed.

 

[NotreDameMormon]

I think we can clear this all up if we can get you to answer honestly.

Which church do those of the LDS believe to be the “church of the Lamb of God?”

I believe I have answered that question honestly, and all this latest discussion is blurring three important distinctions that have been cited in actual LDS authority here, namely, the LDS Church does not believe the Catholic Church is the church of the devil, LDS people have incorrectly taught that it is, and the Church of the Lamb of God is comprised of *all *those who serve Christ.

The LDS Church has clearly taught that while all other religions and churches have good in them, are tools God uses, and further God’s work (Church of the Lamb of God), only one is His endorsed organization and that is the LDS Church, the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

There are two different claims there and they are repeatedly blurred in many posts here.

 

[frnate]

I believe I have answered that question honestly, and all this latest discussion is blurring three important distinctions that have been cited in actual LDS authority here, namely, the LDS Church does not believe the Catholic Church is the church of the devil, LDS people have incorrectly taught that it is, and the Church of the Lamb of God is comprised of *all *those who serve Christ.

The LDS Church has clearly taught that while all other religions and churches have good in them, are tools God uses, and further God’s work (Church of the Lamb of God), only one is His endorsed organization and that is the LDS Church, the restored Church of Jesus Christ.

There are two different claims there and they are repeatedly blurred in many posts here.

I stand corrected. Thanks!

So, is it the LDS position that Jesus, even though He is all-knowing and all-powerful, was unable to choose men who would or could faithfully pass on what He had taught them? The best Jesus could do was gather a bunch of ninnies who were too stupid to even sort of pass on to MORE ninnies what Christ Himself taught them, and who would then fail miserably just shortly after He hightailed it back to heaven? Thus the TRUE Gospel languished in a sort of limbo, if you will, until the 19th century? This must be true because the group styling itself as the Church prior to the 19th century (i.e. Catholicism or even Protestantism for that matter) has NEVER believed nor taught anything even resembling the doctrines and especially the theology of the “endorsed organization…the restored Church of Jesus Christ.” The historical record makes untenable the LDS position of the necessity for a restoration of the true church. In fact, the Church had officially repudiated most of what the LDS now teaches more than a millennia before Joseph Smith came along.

Peace,
+Nathan

 

[IAMLDS]

Those phrases were never in the Nicene Creed. Those phrases were in the later Athanasian Creed. We repeat the Nicene Creed on Sunday, not the Athanasian Creed.

We should note well the name that Athanasius employs here for the entity for which the Council claimed to be able to speak: the Catholic Church. The Nicene Creed itself, as issued in embryonic form by the Council, originally included this significant additional paragraph which has not been retained in the official version as professed today: “As for those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’ and ‘before being begotten he was not,’ and who declare that he was made from nothing, or that the Son of God is of a different substance [hupostasis] or being [ousia], that is, created, or subject to change and alteration—such persons the Catholic Church condemns.” This first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church ratified the proper name by which the true Church of Christ already had come to be known.

This came from an article titled “The Church of Nicaea and Constantinople” by K.D. Whitehead and is found on the Catholic Answers website. So those statements I fist mentioned were a part of the Nicean Creed. When and why were they removed?

 

[christianley]

We should note well the name that Athanasius employs here for the entity for which the Council claimed to be able to speak: the Catholic Church. The Nicene Creed itself, as issued in embryonic form by the Council, originally included this significant additional paragraph which has not been retained in the official version as professed today: “As for those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’ and ‘before being begotten he was not,’ and who declare that he was made from nothing, or that the Son of God is of a different substance [hupostasis] or being [ousia], that is, created, or subject to change and alteration—such persons the Catholic Church condemns.” This first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church ratified the proper name by which the true Church of Christ already had come to be known.

This came from an article titled “The Church of Nicaea and Constantinople” by K.D. Whitehead and is found on the Catholic Answers website. So those statements I fist mentioned were a part of the Nicean Creed. When and why were they removed?

So add it back into your Nicene Creed. What difference does it make? They are not part of the statement of belief. They just explained what the consequences are of not accepting the Nicene Creed as formulated. That paragraph is more like an explanation or footnote to the Creed than part of the Creed itself.

 

[ABalch]

We should note well the name that Athanasius employs here for the entity for which the Council claimed to be able to speak: the Catholic Church. The Nicene Creed itself, as issued in embryonic form by the Council, originally included this significant additional paragraph which has not been retained in the official version as professed today: “As for those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not’ and ‘before being begotten he was not,’ and who declare that he was made from nothing, or that the Son of God is of a different substance [hupostasis] or being [ousia], that is, created, or subject to change and alteration—such persons the Catholic Church condemns.” This first ecumenical council of the Catholic Church ratified the proper name by which the true Church of Christ already had come to be known.

This came from an article titled “The Church of Nicaea and Constantinople” by K.D. Whitehead and is found on the Catholic Answers website. So those statements I fist mentioned were a part of the Nicean Creed. When and why were they removed?

IAMLDS, what is your arguemnt?

Are you trying to say that this portion was cut off of the Nicene creed because of a heresy? If so, I think you are misinterpreting what the heresy was. The statement you alluded to being removed from the “embryonic” form of the Nicene Creed was addressing heresy, just as the whole of the Nicene Creed was addressing heresy. I am going to take a stab in the dark here, but the portion that was removed from the end of the Nicene Creed, as some have already said, is a statement of the consequences of people continuing to profess the heresy that Jesus did not always exist, and that he was a different substance or being that the Father are defying the Catholic Church. I would find it surprising if you can turn this around to try to say that the Nicene Creed was the heresy, and those saying God the Father and Jesus were different substance and being, and that God existed before Jeusus, and that Jesus did not come into existence until God begat him when he was conceived in Mary’s womb, which were all heresies that were addressed by the Nicence Creed.

 

[IAMLDS]

Was the Creed ever read in Mass with those last few statements? That’s all I want to know.

Did the Catholic Church consider Luther’s seperation based on doctrinal differences and his ultimate refusal to recognize the authority of Rome to be heretical? Were desciples of Luther ever condemned by the Catholic Church for following Luther?

Recommend a good book that discusses these issues and I’ll give it a read.

 

[Belcanto]

There are two books that I can think of off the top of my head:

Reformation, by Diarmaid MacCulloch (Anglican):
amazon.com/gp/reader/014303538X/ref=sib_dp_top_sup/104-3577537-1172747?ie=UTF8&p=random#reader-link

The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Volume 4: Reformation of Church and Dogma (1300-1700), by
Jaroslav Pelian (Lutheran at the time he wrote it, later converted
to Eastern Orthodoxy):
amazon.com/Christian-Tradition-Development-Reformation-1300-1700/dp/0226653773/sr=1-3/qid=1161220962/ref=sr_1_3/104-3577537-1172747?ie=UTF8&s=books

Both books give an excellent treatment of the issues surrounding
the reformation. MacCulloch’s book is by far the most comprehensive treatment I’ve seen. You should be able to find them (at least the MacCulloch) at your local Borders or Barnes and Noble. I hope this helps.

Pax Tecum,
Jay

 

[majick275]

Was the Creed ever read in Mass with those last few statements? That’s all I want to know.

Did the Catholic Church consider Luther’s seperation based on doctrinal differences and his ultimate refusal to recognize the authority of Rome to be heretical? Were desciples of Luther ever condemned by the Catholic Church for following Luther?

Recommend a good book that discusses these issues and I’ll give it a read.

not universally. unsure whether or not some individual churches ever incorporated those lines in the profession of faith. what is your point here?

YES!

YES!

 

[NotreDameMormon]

In the Mormon temple endowment ceremony, the fall of Adam and Eve is portrayed. After the fall, Elohim scolds Lucifer. Note what the Mormon Lucifer says.

You failed to inlcude all the words of the quote didn’t you, Paul? Lucifer says “I will buy up…false popes and priests who oppress,…”

And the word “pope” was later cut out, for obvious reason.

 

[PaulDupre]

You failed to inlcude all the words of the quote didn’t you, Paul? Lucifer says “I will buy up…false popes and priests who oppress,…”

And the word “pope” was later cut out, for obvious reason.

No. that’s the post-1990 version of the endowment. When I went to the temple (I left the Morg in 1986), the endowment was as I quoted it. What is the “obvious reason” the word “Popes” was removed? Was it because converts from Catholicism were insulted and left the Morg? Must hang on to as many tithe-payers as possible! Don’t worry about the principles of “the restored gospel”. It’s all about the numbers and the yearly revenue. Change whatever doctrine needs to be changed in order to hold onto as many cultists as possible.
Sheesh.
Paul

 

[PaulDupre]

BTW, why did the LDS Church delete about 1/3 of the endowment ceremony? And why is it that all of the parts removed were the controversial parts - the parts insulting and revulsive to Christians - the parts that were the most blatantly Masonic? The blood oaths, the throat-slittting and disembowelment, and the blatantly sexists parts where Eve is blamed for the fall and the women promise to obey their husbands as if their husbands were God?

Answers?

Paul

 

[NotreDameMormon]

BTW, why did the LDS Church delete about 1/3 of the endowment ceremony?

As much as I understand, the process in nothing new. The Church of Jesus Christ (now and originally) has had to continually sharpen the doctrine of Christ as better and clearer understanding is obtained (by revelation, experience, etc). The Church is not without cultural and historical influences that often need to be shed to more accurately live and teach the Gospel as the Lord intends it to be taught and lived. Such is the history of the Catholic Church, no?

 

[christianley]

As much as I understand, the process in nothing new. The Church of Jesus Christ (now and originally) has had to continually sharpen the doctrine of Christ as better and clearer understanding is obtained (by revelation, experience, etc). The Church is not without cultural and historical influences that often need to be shed to more accurately live and teach the Gospel as the Lord intends it to be taught and lived. Such is the history of the Catholic Church, no?

That’s the ticket! You know all those troublesome passages in the Bible about gay sex, eating Christ’s body and drinking Christ’s blood, divorce, etc. There are cultural and historical influences that shaped all of those passages and many more! Let’s just take those troublesome things out of the scriptures! Thou shalt not commit adultery was a fine thing back in those days, but with birth control and wonder drugs for genital diseases they are no longer relevant! Which of course leads to those unnecessary things about birth control and masturbation in the catechism. Our poor repressed ancestors shouldn’t keep influencing us!

It’s either revelation or it isn’t. Supposedly, the temple ceremonies were revealed by God. Of course we shouldn’t be surprised. God told Joseph several things that were printed in the Book of Commandments and then changed his mind by the time they were reprinted in the Doctrine and Covenants. But none of this should surprise us:

utlm.org/onlinebooks/changecontents.htm

 

[NotreDameMormon]

That’s the ticket! You know all those troublesome passages in the Bible about gay sex, eating Christ’s body and drinking Christ’s blood, divorce, etc. There are cultural and historical influences that shaped all of those passages and many more! Let’s just take those troublesome things out of the scriptures!

You know all those troublesome passages about Noah walking with God and talking with God face to face, Moses seeing God’s face, or Christ being created in the express image of His Father…

You know what I am really saying. The Nicene Creed is a perfect example of the Church sharpening doctrine and casting off cultural or historical influences and obscurities.

 

[majick275]

how so?

I don’t find any of the biblical accounts of Noah or Moses or Christ that you refernced problematic in any way. (from a Catholic perspective)

I’m not sure waht you are saying about the Nicene Creed. Certainly it falls under the Joseph Smith statement about all their creeds area an abomination but what are YOU claiming about it?

sharpening doctrine? I don’t see it as development of doctrine so much as just stating doctrine.

casting off cultural/historical influences? how? it’s a different issue than the first that you mention but this is a very old profession of faith that is still in use as a profession of the same beliefs that Catholics have always had regardless of culture and the creed itself would appear to dispel the notion of history being abandoned.

obscurities? the very reason for having a professsion of faith is so that everyone knows ands grees that yes, this what we believe as Catholics. It hasn’t changed any beliefs and it really hasn’t “developed” much either. This pretty basic Catholicism 101. (the creed)

To be Catholic is easily defined. (as opposed to easily done )

You believe in what the Nicene creed says, you believe in obeying the ten commandments, living the beatitudes, participating in the sacraments, the bible as the word of God, the Catholic church as the institution established by Jesus to preserve and teach the word of God and administer the sacraments, worshipping God at mass on sundays and holy days of obligation, supporting the financial needs of the church, sharing your substance with the poor, sharing the Gospel with others, receiving holy eucharist every easter (as a minimum). This hasn’t changed since the days of the Apostles.

 

[IAMLDS]

I feel Majick and Christianley’s offense to the statements LDS attribute to God concerning the professor’s of the other religions was a case of the pot calling the kettle black. The creed was a reaction to internal strife: one party acting as representatives of God used language similar to the langauge in Joseph Smith’s history.

I also find this interesting:

Deny the trinitarian formula as believed by the Catholic Church and you are cursed.

Deny certain doctrine and authority of the Catholic Church, but if you were part of a church that performed it’s ordinances according to the trinitarian formula, and you want to become Catholic, then the Catholic Church will in many circumstances recognize the validity of those ordinances and accept you into the fold.

We definitely have a different view on baptism and priesthood.