The Catholic Church and the LDS Church

[jinc1019]

As someone who grew up Catholic, one of the things that has really stood out to me was that the Book of Mormon is pretty anti-Catholic in the sense that it prophesizes about its going astray very early on and talks about how awful it will become (all in the first 14 chapters of Nephi).

What I find very interesting is how much in common the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have. Both believe to be the one true Church established by Christ himself, both have leaders who claim that, in certain situations, the Holy Spirit watches over them and guides them to truth, and both have a priesthood.

Obviously there are many differences...but the similarities are really striking because both ultimately claim to be Christ's true church.

Although I am not Catholic any longer (I don't have a denominational home despite being a professing Christian), I do wonder...Why do Mormons believe that Catholic holy orders are invalid? If Christ established that priesthood, shouldn't they also have valid priests?

From what I read, Mormons seem to think it's no longer valid but I can't figure out why. Any help on this would be great!

[estradling75]

Because we believe it went astray and lost the Priesthood authority that God had given the apostles

[jinc1019]

Because we believe it went astray and lost the Priesthood authority that God had given the apostles

But based on what? Was this revealed to Smith? That the priesthood was lost?

[estradling75]

On the First Vision of Joseph Smith and the priesthood being restored. No need to restore something if it is not lost

[jinc1019]

Fair enough...Question answered.

[Just_A_Guy]

As someone who grew up Catholic, one of the things that has really stood out to me was that the Book of Mormon is pretty anti-Catholic in the sense that it prophesizes about its going astray very early on and talks about how awful it will become (all in the first 14 chapters of Nephi).

A matter of interpretation. Early commentators read the Catholic Church into these passages. Modern commentators, not so much--and of course, any Mormon worth his salt knows that we have the Catholics to thank for preserving the Bible as we know it.

Although I am not Catholic any longer (I don't have a denominational home despite being a professing Christian), I do wonder...Why do Mormons believe that Catholic holy orders are invalid? If Christ established that priesthood, shouldn't they also have valid priests?

From what I read, Mormons seem to think it's no longer valid but I can't figure out why. Any help on this would be great!

Mormonism talks about something called "priesthood keys". You can have lots and lots of men ordained to the priesthood, but they can only use that priesthood (one function of which, is to ordain new priests) to the extent that they are authorized by those who hold the keys. We believe that ultimately, the "keys" lie with the twelve apostles collectively. If one apostle dies, he is replaced and the group--and the keys--carry on.

But if the entire group of apostles dies without picking more apostles as their successors, the keys are gone. The remaining priesthood holders might theoretically be able to carry on at a local level for a while, but since no one has the "keys" these priesthood holders lack the authority to govern the church as a whole, re-constitute the group of apostles, or even to ordain new people to the priesthood. Eradicate the priesthood keys, and the priesthood's fate is sealed--until the keys are restored.

That's what we think happened with Catholicism: the early Church, in the absence of the Apostles, had to choose between waiting for a restoration and risk losing everything they'd gained in the first century CE if that restoration didn't come; or deciding that the local leaders in a given area (say, Rome) would thenceforth be given control of the entire operation. They faced a hard choice, and ultimately did the latter. It may have been a well-intentioned decision; but it was--we believe--the wrong one.

[skippy740]

Those passages in 1st Nephi talk specifically about "The Church of the Devil".

1 Nephi 14:10

10 And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth.

WHO belongs to the Church of the Devil? According to the scripture, it's everyone else who is not a member of the Church of the Lamb of God.

1 Nephi 14:15

15 And it came to pass that I beheld that the wrath of God was poured out upon that great and abominable church, insomuch that there were wars and rumors of wars among all the nations and kindreds of the earth.

Wars are a result of belonging to the Church of the Devil.

Mormon 8:32

32 Yea, it shall come in a day when there shall be churches built up that shall say: Come unto me, and for your money you shall be forgiven of your sins.

We can read in history about this practice that was done by members of the Catholic Church.

Is the Church of the Devil a specific church? I would say not. I believe that it encompasses those who are not on the side of God, regardless of their faith or denomination. The scriptures just happen to discuss various events that were caused by members of a particular faith, which faith happened to be the predominant faith of those times.

We'll let the Lord judge who is on the Lord's side.

[bytebear]

Historically, Mormons believe the Church was established with a First Presidency (Peter, James, John) and 12 apostles. We know that after an apostle died he was replaced with another, so there was always a quorum of 12.

After the times of the Bible, the apostles were scattered and killed. The bishops of the church took over the duties of the church. That's how the Orthodox and Catholic churches split off. Competing bishops.

Mormons believe the Apostles held the keys of the priesthood and to the church. When the bishops took over, that authority was lost. It would be restored through Joseph Smith, who was given those keys from Peter, James and John (as angels). See Joseph Smith History in the Pearl of Great Price for details.

I might also consider reading The Great Apostasy by James E. Talmage. It's online for free.

[jinc1019]

A matter of interpretation. Early commentators read the Catholic Church into these passages. Modern commentators, not so much--and of course, any Mormon worth his salt knows that we have the Catholics to thank for preserving the Bible as we know it.

Mormonism talks about something called "priesthood keys". You can have lots and lots of men ordained to the priesthood, but they can only use that priesthood (one function of which, is to ordain new priests) to the extent that they are authorized by those who hold the keys. We believe that ultimately, the "keys" lie with the twelve apostles collectively. If one apostle dies, he is replaced and the group--and the keys--carry on.

But if the entire group of apostles dies without picking more apostles as their successors, the keys are gone. The remaining priesthood holders might theoretically be able to carry on at a local level for a while, but since no one has the "keys" these priesthood holders lack the authority to govern the church as a whole, re-constitute the group of apostles, or even to ordain new people to the priesthood. Eradicate the priesthood keys, and the priesthood's fate is sealed--until the keys are restored.

That's what we think happened with Catholicism: the early Church, in the absence of the Apostles, had to choose between waiting for a restoration and risk losing everything they'd gained in the first century CE if that restoration didn't come; or deciding that the local leaders in a given area (say, Rome) would thenceforth be given control of the entire operation. They faced a hard choice, and ultimately did the latter. It may have been a well-intentioned decision; but it was--we believe--the wrong one.

Very good explanation. Thank you!

[jinc1019]

Those passages in 1st Nephi talk specifically about "The Church of the Devil".

1 Nephi 14:10

WHO belongs to the Church of the Devil? According to the scripture, it's everyone else who is not a member of the Church of the Lamb of God.

1 Nephi 14:15

Wars are a result of belonging to the Church of the Devil.

Mormon 8:32

We can read in history about this practice that was done by members of the Catholic Church.

Is the Church of the Devil a specific church? I would say not. I believe that it encompasses those who are not on the side of God, regardless of their faith or denomination. The scriptures just happen to discuss various events that were caused by members of a particular faith, which faith happened to be the predominant faith of those times.

We'll let the Lord judge who is on the Lord's side.

Very interesting to see this. Honestly, I was expecting a completely different answer. Having grown up Catholic, the passages just SOUNDED like something Evangelicals would point to and say "this is the Catholic Church." Shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion obviously.

[Guest]

Very interesting to see this. Honestly, I was expecting a completely different answer. Having grown up Catholic, the passages just SOUNDED like something Evangelicals would point to and say "this is the Catholic Church." Shouldn't have jumped to that conclusion obviously.

There are some Mormons who think it is the Catholic Church too. But no, that's not what the LDS Church teaches.

[apexviper]

As someone who grew up Catholic, one of the things that has really stood out to me was that the Book of Mormon is pretty anti-Catholic in the sense that it prophesizes about its going astray very early on and talks about how awful it will become (all in the first 14 chapters of Nephi).

What I find very interesting is how much in common the Catholic Church and the LDS Church have. Both believe to be the one true Church established by Christ himself, both have leaders who claim that, in certain situations, the Holy Spirit watches over them and guides them to truth, and both have a priesthood.

Obviously there are many differences...but the similarities are really striking because both ultimately claim to be Christ's true church.

Although I am not Catholic any longer (I don't have a denominational home despite being a professing Christian), I do wonder...Why do Mormons believe that Catholic holy orders are invalid? If Christ established that priesthood, shouldn't they also have valid priests?

From what I read, Mormons seem to think it's no longer valid but I can't figure out why. Any help on this would be great!

Quite simple: it goes back to the Great Apostasy. No ordinance performed by anyone not LDS is considered valid. After the Ascension, the Apostles were taken off the earth because they too were persecuted in many ways, even until death. When they were gone, so were the priesthood keys, the presiding priesthood authority. And that's the thing, even if they did bestow the priesthood to people, such as Timotheous being ordained a Bishop, the Apostles never gave the presiding keys over the kingdom to anyone.

With the priesthood gone, nobody had the authority to perform any ordinance or make any changes period. After Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son he was instructed about the golden plates. During his first visit with Moroni at the hill Cumorrah, Moroni informed Joseph that the Priesthood would be restored.

John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood and Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood through Joseph Smith.

[jinc1019]

Quite simple: it goes back to the Great Apostasy. No ordinance performed by anyone not LDS is considered valid. After the Ascension, the Apostles were taken off the earth because they too were persecuted in many ways, even until death. When they were gone, so were the priesthood keys, the presiding priesthood authority. And that's the thing, even if they did bestow the priesthood to people, such as Timotheous being ordained a Bishop, the Apostles never gave the presiding keys over the kingdom to anyone.

With the priesthood gone, nobody had the authority to perform any ordinance or make any changes period. After Joseph Smith saw the Father and Son he was instructed about the golden plates. During his first visit with Moroni at the hill Cumorrah, Moroni informed Joseph that the Priesthood would be restored.

John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood and Peter, James, and John restored the Melchizedek Priesthood through Joseph Smith.

I find all of this very interesting, especially the idea that the "keys" were not passed down to the bishops, who were themselves often appointed directly by apostles (although certainly not always).

[bytebear]

I find all of this very interesting, especially the idea that the "keys" were not passed down to the bishops, who were themselves often appointed directly by apostles (although certainly not always).

We believe the apostles held all the keys, and authority over the entire church. Bishops were given a subset of keys, and authority only over their local flock. They, for example, did not have authority to ordain new apostles. Even today, Mormon bishops can't start ordaining new bishops and can't just decide to start a new congregation or split one off. It all goes through the proper priesthood chain of authority.

[apexviper]

I find all of this very interesting, especially the idea that the "keys" were not passed down to the bishops, who were themselves often appointed directly by apostles (although certainly not always).

The person before me is correct. Bishops hold keys, yes, but only over a certain area. They hold specific keys. Apostles hold ALL Pesthood keys.

I know it is very bold to say any ordinance done by someone is invalid. I'm not looking down on nonmembers. I know the love and intentions are there which is great; no matter how well someone's intention is, an unauthorized ordinance is not recognized by Heavenly Father.

[apexviper]

We believe the apostles held all the keys, and authority over the entire church. Bishops were given a subset of keys, and authority only over their local flock. They, for example, did not have authority to ordain new apostles. Even today, Mormon bishops can't start ordaining new bishops and can't just decide to start a new congregation or split one off. It all goes through the proper priesthood chain of authority.

I learned a lot about keys on the mission. In my last ward was the previous stake president and he talked about when he was called as stake president. Keep in mind he was still a Bishop when he was called as a Stake President. Such is called a "sitting Bishop" because he still was not released as Bishop. President Packer gave a "key" to the 70 who gave it to the sitting Bishop/unsustained Stake President and have the sitting Bishop/Stake President to extend the call for the new Bishop in his ward. This was because A. He was called, yet not yet sustained, stake president. B. He was still the Bishop of the ward and he knew the people better than the stake president of that time. Although the Bishop/Stake President extended the called, it was with a key delegated by the President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

[jinc1019]

I think I understand the Mormon position now.

[Traveler]

I think I understand the Mormon position now.

I would suggest that you are only beginning to scratch the surface. For example - the Old Testament scripture of Daniel chapter 2 tell us concerning the Kingdoms of the world. That following other kingdoms - that a kingdom of iron will be established (most agree that this is in reference to the Roman Empire). We learn that this empire would be divided first into two strong empires and then at some future time be divided up into 10 weaker kingdoms. In the day of the 10 weak kingdoms - that G-d would establish his kingdom. It is obvious to any student of history that the Catholic Church was established even before Rome was divided into two kingdoms let alone 10.

Next I would point you to Isaiah 2:2. This symbolism here is interesting - often the term mountain made reference to government or law. For example the Mosaic Law came from Mt Sinai. However, it is here in Isaiah 2:2 that we learn G-d’s kingdom (government of law) will be established in “the top of the mountains”. I would point out that the literal meaning of Utah in the native language of the Ute people is “The top of the mountains”. So that Isaiah could be translated as that - the kingdom of G-d will be established in the last days in a place called Utah.

The Traveler

[jinc1019]

I would suggest that you are only beginning to scratch the surface. For example - the Old Testament scripture of Daniel chapter 2 tell us concerning the Kingdoms of the world. That following other kingdoms - that a kingdom of iron will be established (most agree that this is in reference to the Roman Empire). We learn that this empire would be divided first into two strong empires and then at some future time be divided up into 10 weaker kingdoms. In the day of the 10 weak kingdoms - that G-d would establish his kingdom. It is obvious to any student of history that the Catholic Church was established even before Rome was divided into two kingdoms let alone 10.

Next I would point you to Isaiah 2:2. This symbolism here is interesting - often the term mountain made reference to government or law. For example the Mosaic Law came from Mt Sinai. However, it is here in Isaiah 2:2 that we learn G-d’s kingdom (government of law) will be established in “the top of the mountains”. I would point out that the literal meaning of Utah in the native language of the Ute people is “The top of the mountains”. So that Isaiah could be translated as that - the kingdom of G-d will be established in the last days in a place called Utah.

The Traveler

Very interesting stuff...I have found all of this to be particularly interesting. I hope to learn more about it in the coming days, weeks, and possibly months.