Thoughts on M Russell Ballard and Roman Catholicism

Recently, there has been some discussion about comments made by Elder M Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve on Roman Catholicism's theology of the Father, Son, and Spirit. Some have taken these statements to be "anti-Catholic." I know some people have commented on this issue, including Daniel C. Peterson (an LDS scholar for whom I have great respect), but I have decided to write "blind" on this topic and not read any of the commentary/blog posts on this so I can give my own perspective on this and related issues. Of course, I realise that some may not appreciate these comments, but I do believe that doctrinal truth is of eternal importance.

As background: I am a former Roman Catholic from Ireland and a graduate of a Catholic seminary (Pontifical University of Ireland, Maynooth). I have discussed Roman Catholicism a couple of times on this blog, and, unlike most people who are former Catholics, I actually understand the theology and history of Roman Catholicism; indeed, some Catholic apologists have said that I would make a great Catholic apologist due to my knowledge of the issues (which I take to be a high compliment). I am also convinced that the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church of Christ and have warned people about the eternally precarious position they place their eternal lives if they were to embrace Rome's gospel.

Firstly, Latter-day Saints, including those in our community who are uncomfortable with comments critiquing Rome, should realise that (1) Latter-day Saints claim to be members of the only true and living Church (D&C 1:30) and (2) understand that the reality of false gospels is not hypothetical, but a reality (see Gal 1:6-9). Indeed, as a result of the Great Apostasy, the plain and precious truths of Christ's true gospel were changed, and in some cases, grossly perverted, and were under God's own anathema (see the strong denunciation of creeds and those who profess belief thereto in JS-H 1:19).

Secondly, I realise that many 19^th and even 20^th century LDS commentators (e.g., Orson Pratt; Bruce McConkie) believed that the “great and abominable church” in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants, as well as the Whore of Babylon from the book of Revelation, was one-to-one equivalent to the Roman Catholic Church, I believe that this is a rather naïve reading of the pertinent texts. For a good paper, see Stephen Robinson’s article here (he identifies the church in 1 Nephi 13 as Hellenism). I think this is a more exegetically-sound position to hold than the 19th century reading of the texts.

Some comments I have seen on facebook have stated that Ballard was wrong in stating that Roman Catholics do not know the members of the Godhead as Rome has done, and continues to do, a lot of good. They are half-right on this point--one has to applaud the saintly individuals (morally speaking) produced by the Catholic church and the official moral theology of the Catholic Church is very biblical and conservative (as one who has been active in the pro-life movement for 12 years, I commend their views on the sanctity of human life, for e.g.) However, good morality is not the equivalent of good theology--there are many moral individuals who belong to denominations that preach a false gospel (e.g., Christadelphians; Calvinists; Jehovah's Witnesses), just as there are immoral people in the LDS Church (wheat and the chaff . . . enough said). I also recognise the great intellectuals who are, and have been, Catholic (one obvious example would be Thomas Aquinas [1225-1274]). One should not ignore the positives the Catholic Church has done and continues to do (intellectual integrity is always important).

Theologically speaking, however, I agree with Ballard, as unpopular as that seemingly is even in some LDS circles. If one holds to official Catholic theology, which would include the false doctrine of the (creedal/Latin) Trinity, one has a false conception of the Father, Son, and Spirit. I have discussed the Trinity many times on this blog, especially the topic of Christology, so I will refer to this post on the topic of LDS vs. Trinitarian Christologies (while it is a response to a Reformed Baptist, the Catholic Church would share the same Christology).

Moreover, not only has the Roman Church distorted the person and nature of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, they have also added to the gospel many ahistorical, unbiblical dogmas (doctrines that are purportedly definitional of the gospel that one must believe under anathema), such as the Immaculate Conception, the Bodily Assumption, and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice, as well as doctrines and practices uniquely LDS Scriptures view to be false (such as infant baptism [Moroni 8:9]). And let us not forget that indulgences are still part-and-parcel of official Catholic teaching (no, Trent and/or Vatican II did not get rid of this teaching; see this post-Vatican II document on indulgences from the Holy See) or that there is a movement to dogmatically define Mary as co-redemptrix, co-mediatrix, and advocate (it really is a question of when not if this becomes elevated to a dogma—it already is a doctrine of the Catholic Church).

For Latter-day Saints approaching Roman Catholicism in general, and the comments of M. Russell Ballard specifically, one has to realise that, while he could have (and should have) discussed why he believed such to be the case, he is right, not just about the false conceptions of the Godhead and its members one finds from the official dogmatic teaching of Roman Catholicism, but all the other man-made traditions that have been elevated as de fide dogmas, such as the Transubstantiation, the papacy and papal infallibility. Such is why I would agree with Ballard as well as strongly oppose theological ecumenism, as there is no possible theological compromise between the LDS Church and Roman Catholic Church (not the same as rejecting the validity of discussing theology with one another [see this book as a good example of how such can and should be done]).

Anyway, this post reflects just some quick thoughts on a (seemingly contentious) issue, so consider it my two cents worth (Euro, not Dollar, of course).