Notwithstanding the stark condemnations of Elder McConkie, you and I are actually not very far from being Catholics ourselves. One needn’t look far to see the great similarities shared by the erstwhile Great and Abominable and the Only True and Living.
Each church rests on an unwavering claim of authority, given by Christ, through Peter, his chief Apostle.
No other Christian denomination makes nearly as much fuss about the importance of an explicit heavenly mandate. Further, as opposed to the rest of Christendom, even the rest of global religion, only Mormonism and Catholicism reflect such strong commitment to hierarchy. They’ve got their Pope, we’ve got our Prophet. The claims made of each of these leaders vary in stridency: theirs is infallible, ours is simply good. But ours receives revelation where theirs is simply inspired. Even after the tradeoffs in specifics, the net vision of each leader held by his followers is the same– one of reverent veneration.
Mormons and Catholics also occupy a similar place in the world. We each stand as currently respectable voices, sounding most often in defense of conservative, traditional values. While other religious groups emit similar messages, few employ the centralized apparatus needed to define their message as unequivocally as these two churches. Of course, our current respectability is not to be taken for granted. For both groups, this status has been recently and hard-earned, especially in America.
It’s this shared foundation that makes me wonder what we might learn from our Catholic friends. The Catholic project has gone on for 1800 to 2000 years now. We LDS are entering our 175th year. So, for all our similarities, we might reasonably see this vastly more experienced older sibling as a case study, to help us understand the dangers and pitfalls that might challenge a church like ours as we undertake to become the next behemoth of Christianity. I’ll focus on three.
First, what strikes me as the most important similarity is our mutual claim of guiding revelation. Catholics may be a bit less outspoken on this point, but if you look, you will find it. The Pope was selected by God, you’ll hear them say. Their doctrine is not that of man, but dictated from above. And etc. But how can an institution that claims to be divinely driven be responsive to earthly pressures? The Catholic church has a long history of successes and failures here. While some saw the earlier papacies of this century as signals of new openness, yesterday’s election of Cardinal Josef Ratzinger signifies a current commitment to hold to conservative principles.
In this context, a tension grows between the church’s revelatory foundation, and the possibility that change might come in response to external pressure and internal personalities. Would a sea change on the celibacy or birth control issues mean that the church has caved to the clamoring of mankind, rather than listening to God? To self-congratulatory Mormons, such changes might look like selling out. But how would we distinguish these moves conceptually from our own revelations-under-pressure, the rescission of the Priesthood ban and the abandonment of polygamy? What is the proper balance between revelation and pragmatism, and how much should we expect God’s institution to cater to man’s intuition? I’m interested to watch the Catholics to see what they gain and lose by their vacillation or imperviousness under pressure.
Secondly, external pressures do not rise up ex nihilo. The voices in the Catholic street (square?) belong to different groups within the Catholic umbrella. Every media story covering Catholic response to the Pope’s election will cite snippets from a “conservative Catholic” and a “liberal Catholic.” Beyond these broad categorizations, there are literally hundreds of different, formally organized groups within the Catholic church, all of whom have different agendas and hopes for the direction of the entire kingdom. The vastness of the church makes the proliferation of smaller tributaries all but inevitable. The combined effect is a very divided, sometimes even contentious lay membership.
But with the LDS church, one notices similar tendencies, on a greatly diminished scale. If you look at the divisions and dissent within the Catholic church disapprovingly, what reaction would you prescribe for the LDS church? Is there a way, as the church grows bigger (imagine 20 million, 50 million, 100 million) to keep everyone within one big huge mainstream, or are minor schisms simply unavoidable? Do our own versions of conservatives and liberals forebode a more divided body of saints in future years? Should our church seek only to be a big umbrella, as the Catholic church has become– home to many types of disciples worshiping in different ways? If not, how will we avoid becoming so?
Third, what are the ways in which each of these churches creates legitimacy around its leaders? Mormons will note the seeming randomness of the process of conclave. How can you really claim that this guy was chosen by God when he was put up there by popular vote? Two easy responses: Is the order of apostles’ deaths any less random? Also, does the manner of choosing new apostles related in the New Testament give more support to their way or ours?
Either way, randomness is supported biblically and is practiced by both churches as a way to allow God’s participation in the process. The question is whether the Prophet or Pope is received by the people as the authorized mouthpiece of God. Mormons do not currently seem to have a problem with this. Catholics’ general acceptance of the pope is more mixed. The interviews in the media betray a belief in the lay membership that perhaps this is the random act of men, and that perhaps this man is will exert his random will upon the church.
Will the LDS membership ever evolve to hold such views? How can that be avoided? A flurry of disapproval among some accompanied the ordination of President Benson. With growth and dissent, could our church end up like the Catholics, sometimes accepting a prophet as just an accident, or perhaps even an ambitious ladder-climber?
I think the real reason I’m pondering all of these questions is the pendulum I’ve noticed in my own mind these past few weeks. Sometimes I feel superior to the Catholics in the emptiness of their man-created practices. But then I will suddenly swing back to the realization that many of the practices or weaknesses I see there could easily come to be weaknesses in our own church. Mostly, I wonder whether the LDS church will necessarily follow the Catholics in some respects, as it begins to achieve comparable growth. But my final thought is that we ought to think charitably of other churches. We do not know what part God plays in helping them along, and we do not know what investment God has in their success.
I remember the glee some missionaries serving in Portugal had in telling stories of evil, conspiring Catholic priests (did you know there’s a 666 hidden on the Pope’s ceremonial hat?). These tales repelled me then, but they offend me now. We should be sympathetic to Catholics and their formidable organization. If not only for the good they do, then because there, but for the grace of God, go we.
Ryan, this is a thoughtful post. Clearly there are real similarities between our churches, and you point out many of them. Many of the Catholic intellectuals, both past and present, are worth reading and pondering for all people who honor the savior. One important point: I think it’s important to remember that it is not official church doctrine that the “Great and Abominable Church” of the BoM is a reference to the Catholic church. I know there are different GAs who have said that this reference is to the Catholic church, but a deeper reading of the scriptures, including Revelation and Isaiah, makes it clear that the BoM reference is consistent with the Bible references to their being two churches, the church of the devil and the church of Jesus Christ. In this case, the church of the devil is not a specific church but a collection of beliefs that opposes Jesus Christ. So the church of the devil is everything from atheism to agnosticism to bin Ladenism to liberal theology that denies the reality of Jesus Christ as the Messiah and as the son of God. The Church of Jesus Christ is everything that draws you closer to believing in Jesus Christ as the literal son of God who died for your sins. This church includes many Catholics, many Protestants and of course many Mormons. Your reference to the Great and Abominable church may have been just in passing, but I think it’s important to make it clear that it’s incorrect to see the Catholic church as the Great and Abominable church.
Geoff, thanks for that bit of background. My mention of the “Great and Abominable” was meant ironically, as I tried to signal by the use of “erstwhile” and the mention of Elder McKonkie’s condemnations immediately preceding it. Sorry if I was unclear.
This was a great post, thanks, Ryan.
What do you think about the trend, especially among Catholics in the U.S., to disregard the Pope’s directives (or revelations) and become “cafeteria Catholics”? Do you see Mormons heading down this same route?
For example, I live in an area dominated by the Catholic church, and I’d say that 90% of my non-Mormon friends here are Catholic. Not one of these 20-30 people agree with the Pope’s position on birth control or pre-marital sex. A few of my Catholic friends are in gay relationships, and still attend church regularly.
There seems to be quite a dissonance between what the Catholic leaders require their members to do, and what the members actually do in practice. I think there are signs that Mormons may be heading down this road as well.
That said, the most interesting difference to me is HOW the Mormon church seems to be more adept at “keeping its members in line” than the Catholic church.
Also, with respect to the “randomness” of choosing the pope, I agree that people outside the Church might view the succession of the most senior member of the Quorum of the 12 to be the new Mormon prophet as “randomness” based only on senority. I don’t think this is any less “man made” than voting for a new pope in a conclave.
Tess, interesting thoughts. Two responses:
First, there’s a lot of discussion among Catholics about whether the Church needs to back off some of these stricter strictures simply because no one’s following them. This approach assumes that the Catholic Church should care more about following the values of its membership than about doing what is right. The LDS Church would never take such a convenient retrenchment.
And yet, we have this principle that the Prophet will only give the membership what they’re ready for. So if the Prophet teaches something that the people reject, the prophet will stop teaching it. This creates all kinds of confusion. For example, those in support of birth control say that we need to follow the modern prophet instead of past prophets, and since the modern prophet doesn’t object to birth control, neither should we. And yet, the existence of the principle I explained above gives some reason to think the modern prophet might feel just as strongly about birth control as they did sixty years ago, but won’t say so because we wouldn’t accept it. The effect of this principle is that the church often will follow the values of its membership. Again, in a sense, we’re quite like the Catholics here.
Second: One fantastic thing the LDS church has that the Catholic Church lacks is a very visible carrot. To get their members to follow the commandments, both churches use a stick: You might go to hell. But Catholics don’t have the temple, and we do. That’s our carrot. By making the Temple and important source of positive blessings, and conditioning participation in the temple on a set of commandments we take to be of central importance, we guarantee consistent obedience among most of our mainline members at a high rate. I think the Temple is the reason we do so well at this, and the lack of such a program partially explains the variance among Catholics of their willingness to follow church teachings.
Geoff – I think the references to the Great and Abominable church are both historical, and figurative. In one instance, it’s an actually organization, in another, exactly what you stated, any church that fights the lamb of God. However, I think it’s dangerous to lump “many Catholics, [and] many Protestants” into the mix. There has to be a clean cut line where The Church of The Lamb ends, and The Church of The Devil begins. I would say that line ends where The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints ends. I simply think we have to be careful when making statements like this, but in essence I agree with you.
Ryan – I think the chief difference, in this case, between the Roman Catholic Church, and our church is that in our church people are ex-communicated and disfellowshipped at a much greater rate (at least to my knowledge). This same kind of apostasy still happens, but I think our church is much more active in church punishment (if you can call it that) and thus more people make a clean break from the church than stay inside of it and try to reform it. It seems too easy to me for an active catholic to boldly speak out against the church. A good example is that last night a catholic priest on Larry King Live was asked if he was disappointed in the selection of the new pope and he stated that he was. I don’t see that happening in this church very often. I’m sure if it did happen major action was taken.
Aaron– good point. Our practice of staying active in disfellowshipping and excommunicating members is another very effective stick, I think, that differentiates us from the Catholics. (On this point, see the quote linked to the title of this post, which deals well with your idea).
I had the following conversation more than a few times on doorsteps in Portugal:
“Hello, we’re here to share a message about Jesus Christ.”
“No, I’m already Catholic– Apostolic, Roman Catholic.”
“Ah, so you believe in God?”
“No.”
Door slams shut.
/and scene.
It’s not often that atheists remain members of the LDS church.
Excellent post.
Ryan-
The birth control example is a perfect illustration. How did the prophets decide to rescind the earlier directives against using birth control? Is this something the Lord reveals? So, if we want to follow a higher law, should we choose not to practice birth control?
I like this example, and your comments on this, but I think you give too much power to the Church members to influence policy/doctrine. What if a significant portion of the population stopped paying tithing? Would the Church scale the 10% rule back to 5%? Along these lines, do you think the 1978 priesthood revelation was in response to Church members who were questioning the legitimacy of denying blacks the blessings of holding the priesthood?
Anyway, I think it’s interesting to wonder how the church and why the church changes some of its policies and doctrine to accommodate the righteousness of its members. I’d actually prefer that the church stick with one “right” position, irrespective of whether people choose to follow the position.
Tess,
Regarding whether our system of choosing a new President is more or less “man-made” than the selection of a pope–from a believer’s perspective, it is certainly less man-made.
To a believing Latter-day Saint, the Lord inspires the First Presidency to call the proper apostle at the proper time. The Lord, knowing all things, therefore knows who will eventually ascend to the position of President of the Church, and therefore He controls succession. However, most believing Catholics freely admit that the selection of a new pope is very political. While they still respect the authority of the man who is selected, I don’t believe they consider his appointment as being the result of direct revelation from God.
So most believing Latter-day Saints believe our process is less man-made than most believing Catholics believe their process is.
Tess: no, I don’t think tithing would be rescinded if people stopped following it. On the other hand, I don’t understand tithing to be an eternal law, so who knows. Hopefully we’ll never find out.
And no, I don’t think the dropping of the Priesthood ban was done in response to grumbling among the members. My understanding of President Kimball and other leaders at the time is that they would never have done such a thing for such a reason.
My point is not that the members have great influence over doctrine and practice. I am saying that our belief that prophets may sometimes back off of difficult teachings because of reticence among the saints introduces some doubt as to whether they mean to be moderate or not. For example, President Hinckley seems to be very moderate compared to Presidents Benson and Kimball (on women in the workplace and birth control, respectively). Does that mean for sure that we are meant to be scaling those things down in our list of priorities, or that we have failed so miserably at living those higher commandments that the Lord is downgrading us to the basics, and we skip over the former out of mere laziness?
I don’t have much of an opinion on this (no, I don’t believe President Kimball’s more stringent declarations still govern over President Hinckley’s softer ones). But it’s an interesting position brought on by our idea of prophetic self-censoring.
Regarding the OD-2, there is an article in Dialogue about it and the influence of then Brother Helvecio Martins in that decision. (somebody help me, I forget the author and title) Obviously not authoritative nor privy to internal workings of the Twelve, but an interesting read. I think the entire issue there revolves around the principle that the Lord reveals knowledge according to a question or need of the Prophet or Church just as he did with Joseph. In other words, OD-2 wasn’t “out of the blue.†I don’t think it was a policy change without a revelation, but it was brought about by concerns of members of the Church.
Now birth control is another issue entirely. Because nothing has been said publicly for some time I don’t think we really know what the position of the current First Pres. is on this.
But do you think silence is implicit non-condemnation?
By the way, I’d love to see that Dialogue article. Given that Brother Martins couldn’t have held the Priesthood at the time, i’m wondering how he found a way to exert any influence.
Good comparison. Which is why the choice of Benedict XVI is helpful. He takes Priesthood and authority seriously. He reminds Catholics, and the World, that there can only be 1 true church; i.e. either Catholics still have Peter’s authority…or they lost it. If they lost it…it is still either lost; or someone else picked it up, i.e. Joseph Smith.
We may not know precisely what the position of members of the FP is on birth control, but we do have a recent revision of the policy statement in the Church Handbook of Instructions, which is in some ways more authoritative than, say, a conference talk. For an interesting history of birth control policies and rhetoric, see Melissa Proctor, “Bodies, Babies, and Birth Control,” _Dialogue_, Fall 2003.
The Dialogue article garnet is referring to is probably Lester Bush’s Spring 1973 overview of the history of teachings on blacks and priesthood. There’s a link from FAIR’s website, which also has a good short piece by Armand Mauss. However, the link is to the U of U scanned version of the Dialogue archive, which is really annoying to read. Ryan, you could just walk up the street to my grandma’s house and borrow her copy 🙂
Ryan, I’m also interested in your sources for the notion that “we have this principle that the Prophet will only give the membership what they’re ready for. So if the Prophet teaches something that the people reject, the prophet will stop teaching it.” You’re certainly not the only person I’ve heard asserting this principle, but it seems pretty folk doctrine-y to me. After all, the whole history of Old and New Testament and Book of Mormon prophecy is of prophets teaching people things they reject. What scriptural or authoritative teaching would make one suppose that this dispensation should be any different?
Mormons and Catholics also occupy a similar place in the world. We each stand as currently respectable voices, sounding most often in defense of conservative, traditional values.
In what parallel universe? There are several hundred times more Catholics than Mormons in this world- Mormonism is truly a minority religion compared to Catholicism, like a fly on the back of an elephant. There is no comparison, except in academic bloggy neverland where you could compare any completely different things and get away with it in trying to sound thoughtful and deep.
Wow, I knew that if I could prevent anyone from putting up any new posts for long enough, someone would end up going back and saying something on this thread.
Kristine, I just may take that walk up the street. Such a nice house, and I’ve always wanted to see what it’s like inside anyway. . .
As for your question on the folk doctrine– that’s exactly what it is. I make no claim that this is anything authoritative or correct. But it exists, as something many people believe, I think.
On the other hand, I don’t want to back off too much, because I think I believe in this principle, in a weak form. First, I don’t think your BoM counter example is relevant. Those were usually instances of a prophet preachin 1) a very, very basic, foundational, minimal requirement, like repentance or baptism; to 2) the unwashed and unconverted.
Today’s prophets speak doctrine to the church, who should know to follow what they say. When we don’t, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to surmise that God removes wisdom from those who should be open to it but aren’t.
As for sources (and these are vague, but suggestive): A few different declarations of Joseph and Brigham about wishing they could give more to the Saints, but they aren’t ready or they wouldn’t receive it; the word of wisdom and other doctrines being tailored to the weak (so that if we were better, we might have higher commandments); miracles being limited by our lack of faith (so that if we believed more God might give us more miracles of revelation). Again, this is far from any authoritative doctrine, but I think it’s enough to conclude that the Spirit of the Lord will not always strive with his people.
Do you disagree? If you do, the Spirit may constrain me that I speak no further to you on this point.
Jordan,
I had no intention of saying that we share the same status in the world, rather that our roles are the same. My meaning was the same as saying that Jason Kidd and Keith McLeod share the same place in the NBA. They’re point guards, even if they have vastly different talents and prestige. That doesn’t seem like that would be that hard a point to understand, if you were reading me charitably enough to assume that what I say makes sense.
You keep surprising me with the level of disdain that comes out in your comments lately. I’ve always thought of you as pretty calm and rational. I wonder if you realize, though, that your profile is becoming something quite different from that lately. Hope everything’s okay. Anyway, I’m sorry if I come off as trying too hard to sound thoughtful and deep. I don’t think that’s what I was aiming for, but who knows.
I’ve always thought of you as pretty calm and rational. I wonder if you realize, though, that your profile is becoming something quite different from that lately. Hope everything’s okay.
I may well be in real life. And perhaps I’m not. And maybe I’m a healthy or unhealthy combination of the two. You’d never know, since you haven’t ever met me anywhere in real life. All you’ve ever seen are shadows of me online, which is definitely not a good venue to judge anything about anyone’s general calmness or rationality.
I have been struggling a lot with some things lately. Hope to come out of it soon, though. I guess it has raised my general level of online snarkiness, since there aren’t a lot of other places where I could be snarky and “get away with it.”
I’m sorry, Jordan. I hope everything works out for you.
By the way, by suggesting only to know what your “profile” was becoming, I was hoping to make clear that I don’t claim to know what you really are. Though we can’t know the real character of a person we see only online, we do come to know their online “character.” I was just trying to point out the way yours seems to have evolved a bit lately. Hopefully whatever is bringing you down will evaporate shortly.
So, how bout them Catholics, huh? Anybody?
First,
I think Mr. Ryan Bell, Esq.,’s idea about the doctrines being adjusted to the spiritual level of the church is more than just a folk doctrine. Besides the sources he mentions, I would mention the general principle that God works line upon line, precept upon precept, more being added when a person is righteous, and truth being taken away when not. One specific example of this principle being applied to a nation as a whole is Moses and the 10 Commandments.
My conclusion is that there is a gap between what people believe and do and what the gospel requires that they believe and do, and what the church teaches in any one era will be somewhere in the middle, bridging the gap. Too great a distance between the Church and the people is unproductive, because everyone will dismiss the gospel and go about their business. Too small a distance is also unproductive, because no one is challenged and no one therefore changes.
On the other hand, the divine economy may sometimes require that the truth be proclaimed and the people damned, but since this usually leads to total apostasy and the end of a dispensation, I don’t see that happening in this final dispensation until the end is very near.
[This comment has been modified because of a shocking lack of titular decorum. We are grateful to Master Davis Bell for his gentle reproof.]
Things we can learn from Catholics:
Intellectually, Catholics have had over a thousand years
to think about what the gospel of Christ tells us about government, politics, the well-lived life, etc. Much of this is helpful to Mormons who care about these issues.
Intellectually, Catholics have had a lot of time to think about ritual and why it matters. We can learn from this, just as we can learn from their thoughts on the related subject of authority.
Tonsorially, Catholics have learned how to stop the mad itching from the shaving of the tonsure. Now that we’ve moved from shaving our beards to shaving our pates, this is helpful stuff. 🙂
Oh, Adam, you’re just saying that because you’re compelled to always say I’m wrong! 🙂
(I probably am in this case–I’m still thinking about it)
Mr. Greenwood,
I’m going to go ahead and assume that referring to Ryan as “Ryan” rather than “Ryan Bell” or “Brother Bell” or “Mister Bell” was an oversight, and not an intentional declaration that he and you are on a first-name basis, but you and I are not. I really, really hope that assumption is correct. I really do.
Pay no attention to the imp trying to distract us from behind the curtain, A-wood. He’ll never have what we have.
Sure, pardner.
Another area where we can learn from each other:
the role of women
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11128-2005Apr23.html