"Brigham Young University has recently seen a small parade of notable Catholic scholars and theologians honored at all-campus events, including Robert George and Francis Cardinal George, Catholic scholars invited to address smaller on-campus symposia, and the Deseret News has painted early Utah relations between the two churches as respectful and amicable. In a Mormon Times piece, Dan Peterson states, "'The old Catholic church traditions are worth more than all you have said,' Joseph [Smith] told his followers in a sermon delivered less than two weeks before he himself was murdered by a mob. A strong foundation for friendship and respect toward Catholics was laid down in the earliest years of Mormonism.""
I need to review what Joseph said, because from this it does not appear he was trying to revere the Catholic church.
I have never been Catholic but I was taught by Jesuits and know their theology. I have had and hope to have a good number of Catholic friends. This does not mean tho that I accept their religion because I also know for myself that the great and abomibable church is the apostate church which changed the laws of God. Revelation says that the "light of the bridegroom shall shine no more at all in thee..." This means that this church once did have the light of the bridegroom but LOST it. Does the Catholic church fit this bill?
The Bible says that a bishop should be a husband. It also says that in latter times some shall depart from the faith forbidding to marry - among other things. Who else do you know who forbids to marry, and could be described as departing from the faith? Again this means a people who had the faith but left it. Catholics now believe to be closer to God they should abstain from marriage, while God has shown thru his greatest prophets that they should marry and that he would bless all the world through them with rare exception. These ideas seem to have come from Paul, but he admitted that his belief on abstinance were not by commandment, but he apparently viewed his abstinance as better for his travels and ministry.
I can see a superficial appeal for certain aspects of Catholicism - it does maintain a priesthood, and some of the early structure of the Church - but it also retains a lot of introductions from the Roman pagan state and religion - such as the use of holy (salted) water for baptism. Christ, our exemplar, by contrast was baptized in ordinary river water. Diocese were originally a Roman military geographic unit, not a church unit - whereas the Bible mentions the ward units of Jerusalem. Christ was not born on the pagan Roman holiday of the Saturnalia (Dec 25), and there would be no shepherds out in the fields abiding their flocks at this time - but this date was another incorrect introduction that Christ must endure.
The eastern churches and their modern counterpart of the Orthodox church would hold more appeal for me because it didn't embrace the worst sins of the Catholic church which at its worst routinely burned and tortured heretics - something Christ would never do. While God at times commanded the stoning of false prophets, Christ did away with this aspect of the Mosaic law, and taught the people to spread the gospel through love and not punishments.
Maybe the Church feels it wise to curry the favor of the Catholic church. I see no problem in befriending members of the Catholic church - I feel they do mostly try to follow Christ. I am not in favor in any way of persecuting their members. I am only interested in teaching the truths of the gospel and how churches have departed from them, so that some eyes may be opened, and some may come to the full knowledge and glory of Christ, and learn for themselves that they can truly become like Christ, and truly inherit all that he hath. Seeing things like the invention of the Trinity by man, and other changes in God's law (holy water for baptism, and baptism by sprinkling, etc) is just part of this journey. Even though I was taught the Trinity in my youth, I now find it absolutely amazing that this introduction has been passed off as Bible truth, even though the Bible never once mentions it, and Jesus himself says many things showing how he was not the same as the Father - He prayed to the Father, He said the Father is greater than me, he said He did not have the authority to grant who would sit on His right nor His left hand - but also that someone would indeed do it - but this someone would obviously not be a Catholic believer in the Trinity, since there is no room in a trinity for any other members of the Godhead. Nor is there room for the gods of the hebrews who even Jesus said "is it not written in your law, I have said ye are gods, and all of you are children of the most High. If the law calls those gods to whom the son of God now comes, how can ye say I blaspheme saying I am the son of God?" The truth is the churches have not understood the law at all - nor the Bible - but have departed from it, thus denying the fulness of the gospel to the peoples of the world - and in many respects are as blind as the Jews were, who did not accept that they were sons of God, even tho it was written in their law.
