I have struggled to find a way to answer this question in a way that isn't painful to people I love. It is one that I have been asking myself for a long time.
But first, some context.
Nephi sees a vision (or perhaps a night dream?) in which he is shown "the formation of a great church which is most abominable above all other churches, which slayeth the saints of God, yea, and tortureth them and bindeth them down, and yoketh them with a yoke of iron, and bringeth them down into captivity." The founder of this church is the devil.
Nephi sees this church set up among the Gentiles. In his vision he also sees the discovery and colonizing of America, the loss of many plain and precious parts of the Bible, the state of gentile apostasy, the restoration of the gospel, the coming forth of latter-day scripture like the Book of Mormon, and the building of Zion on the earth.
Answer:
1 Nephi 14:10-11 has the answer to this question:
"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.
And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
There is some rich doctrine in this verse. It also happens to be totally unpopular doctrine today, in a world where truth is assumed to be subjective. "Discover your truth" is quite literally a popular message that bombards us on a daily basis. It's just hedonism wrapped in shiny new paper, basically.
The doctrine is this: there can only be one true church.
"Church" here is a little hard to define. Is the church the people who make the church, or is it something else? The definition of "church" in English is an institutionalized religion, a hierarchy of clergy of a Christian organization, a particular Christian organization typically with its own clergy, buildings, and distinctive doctrine. It can also refer to the church building itself. By the way, other languages have multiple different words to disambiguate the building from the institution, which makes sense.
Let me make it crystal clear to whoever might be reading this: I do not think that being Catholic makes one evil. I do not think that being Catholic makes someone either a literal or a metaphorical whore. I do not personally have strong anti-Catholic thoughts or feelings. Most of my impressions and feelings about Catholicism are quite positive. I recognize that devout Catholics are more similar in lifestyle to me than anybody else I know, followed closely by devout Muslims. I treasure the relationships I have with devout Catholics. I want to support them in their search for faith. I do not want to tear anybody's faith down with the words that I write.
A fundamental latter-day saint doctrine is that Jesus Christ has a church. He leads it. It is the church of Jesus Christ. The reason why "of latter-day saints" is part of the name is to distinguish us from the church he founded while he was alive.
If Jesus Christ has a church which he leads, it means that he cannot lead all churches. While all churches contain some true doctrine, they cannot all be true. Their doctrine conflicts with each other.
Joseph Smith noticed this. He lived in Palmyra, New York which was part of the "burned-over district" of the Second Great Awakening. He often felt like he was in the middle of a "war of words and opinions." He asked himself, "Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it?"
We live in a time that is similar to that, only now the common idea is that "rightness" doesn't matter. That whatever you believe is right.
2 Nephi 28 (the whole chapter, but especially verses 21-22) has the answer to this question in more depth. It explores the idea of the falseness of most churches and it describes in detail why they are false. Here is a list of some of the hallmarks of false churches:
- they fight with each other
- they teach with their own learning, not the power of God
- they deny the Holy Ghost
- they deny the power of God
- they say that God is not a God of miracles today
- they teach, "eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die, and it shall be well with us." In other words, they teach, "discover your own truth."
- they teach, "a little bit of sin is not that bad - you can twist someone's words, you can take advantage of your neighbor - don't worry; God will just beat us a little bit and then we will be saved in the end."
- they teach other false, vain, foolish doctrines
- they are puffed up in their hearts
- they seek to hide their counsels from the Lord
- their work is in the dark
- the blood of the saints cries against them
- they have gone astray
- they are corrupt
- they rob the poor
- they have rich, fine church buildings
- they have rich, fine clothing
- they persecute the meek, poor, and humble
- they are proud
- they have stiff necks and high heads
- they commit whoredoms, aka sexual perversions for financial gain
- they revile things that are good and say that they are worthless
- the devil rages in their hearts
- they are angry about true doctrine
- they are lulled into carnal security, saying, "everything is awesome! No need to worry about religion."
- they are flattered into believing hell doesn't exist
- they don't believe the devil is real
- they listen to the philosophies of men
- they say, "We have received enough doctrine; we don't need any more!"
- they reject scripture
- they tremble and are angry because of the truth of God
- they put trust in human ideas and philosophies
Does this list exclusively describe the Catholic church? No!
In my opinion, this list describes a huge number of organizations, many of which are not actually religious at first glance, but are political.
If I take a good, hard, honest look at my own church, I have to admit that I do not see these attributes. Sure, I see flaws with some aspects of my church's culture. But these flaws are almost exclusively related to my United States culture, and are not explicit doctrine or teachings. When you experience the restored church in other places of the world, these flaws aren't there (and other ones are). Humans are flawed. Inasmuch as humans "are" the church, the church will have flaws. Inasmuch as the church is a foundation led by God, the doctrine it teaches must also be fully true.
If I take a good, hard, honest look at my own church, I have to admit that I do not see these attributes. Sure, I see flaws with some aspects of my church's culture. But these flaws are almost exclusively related to my United States culture, and are not explicit doctrine or teachings. When you experience the restored church in other places of the world, these flaws aren't there (and other ones are). Humans are flawed. Inasmuch as humans "are" the church, the church will have flaws. Inasmuch as the church is a foundation led by God, the doctrine it teaches must also be fully true.
I think that you'd be hard-pressed to deny that the Catholic church has historically been involved in a serious number of things on this list, even if you are a devout Catholic. For example, the historic practice of indulgences.
Personally, I like to believe that most devout people of all creeds are, "the humble followers of Christ." I think this includes some (perhaps most) of my Catholic ancestors. I know that many of them wanted to be members of the church of the Lamb of God. I know that in many cases they sacrificed greatly to practice their faith. I know that many of my ancestors knew at least some true doctrine and believed it. I do not have any known non-Christian ancestors, but even if I did, I am confident that these statements would apply to them, too (except I guess they wouldn't explicitly be "followers of Christ").
This is why it is so important to me to get them the opportunity to actually become members of the true church of the Lamb of God. I have been told repeatedly in the temple by various temple presidents that the majority of people whose temple work we do will accept the ordinances we perform for them. It's their choice. I don't know how this works, but I have faith that it does. I do know that you can't force someone to believe anything.
In a recent Facebook exchange with a kind, polite person of a different faith, I was deeply bothered by the idea that it doesn't really matter which baptism you have; that they are all valid. I want to affirm that one's baptism does matter. It must be performed by someone who has the proper authority from God to do so, by the immersion of a physical body either in person or by proxy. Baptism is the only way to become a member of the church of the Lamb of God. It is for sure a weird, physical ritual, but Jesus Christ himself was baptized (by immersion in the river Jordan, which I have visited multiple times - it's muddy and gross) so why should we think we need it any less than he does? Are we any better than him?
TLDR: The "great church" includes the institution of the Catholic church but it is not exclusive to it, and many (maybe most?) individual people within the Catholic church want (and have long wanted) to be members of the church of the Lamb of God, including the majority of my known Czech ancestors.
Jesus Christ has a church on the earth today. It is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
It isn't my place to determine who is and isn't a "humble follower of Christ." It is my place to be sure that I, myself, am one. It is my place to try to help other people become one. By far the least stressful way for me to do this is to research my dead ancestors and perform temple work for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment