Considering Leaving Mormonism For Traditional Christianity...

[LivingWaters7]

OK, just got in from church (LDS).

So today was an interesting day. Firstly, I didn’t go to ward council or Sacrament Meeting, mostly out of laziness. I figured I might as well go for the rest of it, since I missed the last few Sundays, and I had asked one of the Counselors in our Temple Presidency to speak in Elders Quorum, so I figured I needed to be there for that.

In Sunday School, the topic was the restoration of the priesthood (we’re going through the Doctrine and Covenants, and Church History, this year). I thought that was interesting in light of what we’ve been talking about in this thread, and my current questions of LDS belief. It was interesting when the teacher asked “when was the Melchizedek Priesthood restored?”, then said “maybe I should rephrase that: do we know when the MP was restored?”. The answer of course is no. We have a general idea of when it was restored, but there is no exact date, like with the Aaronic Priesthood. That was interesting.

Then we talked about the blessings of the priesthood that we have personally received. One of course is being able to participate in ordinances. Then, one person said that as a priesthood holder, when we are asked to give a priesthood blessing, he always has to pause and examine himself and wonder if he’s worthy to give the blessing. He said that sometimes those that ask for blessings may not think about that aspect of the priesthood, about how it may seem easy to just ask a priesthood holder to give them a blessing for whatever reason, and not think that the person has to examine themselves and determine if they are worthy to give the blessing. I thought that was interesting, and I’m sure RebeccaJ will have a comment on that. From what I understand/remember, in Catholicism, the sacraments and blessings don’t depend on the worthiness of the priest/bishop, although of course we should all be examining ourselves, especially before the Eucharist. Perhaps someone else can better articulate the difference here.

Then in Elders Quorum, we talked about the temple. This is one of my favorite topics, because I love the concept of “sacred space”, being able to go somewhere quiet and set apart by the Divine, outside of the hustle and bustle of the city and our busy lives. Catholics/Orthodox share this belief of course, viewing their churches as sacred space where God actually dwells.

Someone also mentioned how it was interesting that while generally most of our ordinances end “in the name of Jesus Christ”, or are done in Christ’s name, baptism and sealing (eternal marriage) are done in the name of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). They asked why that’s the case, but no one really knows why, that’s just how it’s done. Someone said something about Catholics (can’t remember what exactly) and the Godhead invocation, to which someone else responded that Catholics believe that They are One, while we believe that They are Three, hence why we say “in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Ghost”…I didn’t think that argument made sense, but I kept it to myself.

Anyway, I was planning on just going to the local cathedral just to sit for a bit after all of this, but we had a little social afterwards, then I went out with a few people. I think I’m gonna go to the cathedral in the week, before I go to the temple with my ward. I think that’ll be a good comparison experience. Just wanted to share my thoughts on my first Sunday experience after my recent questionings.

 

[KathleenGee]

M…

No problem…I was speaking irregardless tongue in cheek and with humor…but sorry if I am hard to follow…

 

[KathleenGee]

LW…am keeping you in prayer…

God created time, He created space. When we enter into the sanctuary where He is present, we are now before eternal time.

You mentioned previously of eternal marriage.

All relationships, married or not, based and centered on Christ endure in heaven. All our loving relationships will be there and we will have no need. We will be permanently living in eternal time and praising the Lord together.

Beyond that, as St. Paul said, we have no idea what awaits us. I say Let God be God…Let Him surprise us.

Yes, interesting that they could not define date when priesthood was restored; others think Great Apostasy happened sometime later, as do Restorationists Baptists do.

Go to www.calledtocommunion.com…and go back to 2009 by Ryan, ‘Ecclesial Deists’ that talks about when true religion fell away and the inabililty of some to find the date and circumstance.

 

[lynnanine]

Someone also mentioned how it was interesting that while generally most of our ordinances end “in the name of Jesus Christ”, or are done in Christ’s name, baptism and sealing (eternal marriage) are done in the name of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). They asked why that’s the case, but no one really knows why, that’s just how it’s done. Someone said something about Catholics (can’t remember what exactly) and the Godhead invocation, to which someone else responded that Catholics believe that They are One, while we believe that They are Three, hence why we say “in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Ghost”…I didn’t think that argument made sense, but I kept it to myself.

That’s interesting. Do they know about the Sign of the Cross that Catholics use? A lot?

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Ok thanks. Another thing LDS say is that Ephesians 4:11 (and he gave some apostles, some prophets, etc until we attain a unity of faith) shows that because we are not in a unity of faith, apostles, prophets, and all the other offices are needed. However, I guess what you state above could still work in understanding that verse.

I think the LDS use of this verse is a good example of proof-texting, especially so when we consider the entirety of chapter 4 in this letter. Starting in verse 7 Paul seems to be saying that Christ has given each of us (which together constitute his body) various and different gifts which are to be used for the building up of the kingdom until we are unified by faith. I don’t see Paul necessarily speaking prophetically here that Apostles and Prophets are actual offices in the Church that are necessary for the existence of the Church. Indeed, we do still have prophets among us in the Church that call us to repentance. We do indeed have Apostles that are taking the gospel to every corner of the globe. We do indeed have Pastors that gently shepherd us in the faith. Sometimes these individuals with these gifts are members of the actual offices of priesthood (Deacon, Priest, or Bishop), while others are lay.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

LivingWaters7 (from previous quote):

So (general question to all) what is the Catholic understanding of apostles vs bishops? The Bishops are successors of the apostles, but does that mean they have the same authority? What are the earliest references available that show that this is the ancient understanding of the issue of authority in the Church?

The way it was taught to me in RCIA is that Apostles (as in the 12) are essentially a subset of Bishops. Apostles are bishops. They were the very first bishops, and they were very special bishops. Our Lord selected 12 disciples of his to be specially ordained in this capacity and to be given the authority to go out into the world and preach the Gospel, and in the process set up particular churches, and ordain other bishops. These 12 are given an honorary title as “Apostle” distinct from merely being a bishop because they were specifically set apart by our Lord and were actual witnesses to his resurrection. The authority with which they act is nevertheless that of a bishop.

Here are some in the dictionary I mentioned earlier. You’ll note that any of these alone don’t explicitly say “the bishops are the sole successors of the apostles, and there are to be no more apostles”, but this can arguably be inferred when these quotes are taken collectively:
Clement of Rome c. 96 AD:

Preaching through countries and cities, the apostles appointed the first-fruits of their labors to be bishops of those who would believe afterwards.

Ignatius of Antioch c. 105 AD:

If the prayer of one or two persons possesses such power, how much more will that of the bishop and the whole church! …] Therefore, in order that we may be subject to God, let us be careful not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop …] It is clear, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself.

…

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Ignatius again:

I exhort you to study to do all things with divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters [priests] in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons.

Hermas c. 150 AD:

Those square white stones which fitted exactly into each other, are apostles and bishops who have lived in godly purity and have acted chastely and reverently as bishops.

Irenaeus c. 180 AD:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the churches, and the succession of these men to our own times …] For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also comitting the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.

Irenaeus again:

It is incumbent to obey the presbyters [priests] who are in the church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles. Those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father.

Irenaeus yet again:

Now all these [heretics] are of much later date than the bishops to whom the apostles committed the churches

Clement of Alexandria c. 195 AD:

Peter, James, and John (after the Savior’s ascension), although preeminently honored by the Lord, did not content for glory. Rather, they appointed James the Just to be bishop of Jerusalem.

Tertullian c. 197 AD:

Let them [the heretics] produce the original records of their churches. Let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that the first bishop of theirs can show for his ordainer and predecessor one of the apostles or apostolic men - a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers. For example, the church of Smyrna records that Polycarp was placed there by John. Likewise, the church of Rome demonstrates Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way, the other churches similarly exhibit [their list of bishops], whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

Hippolytus c. 225 AD:

No one will refute these [heretics] except the Holy Spirit bequeathed unto the church, which the Apostles - having received in the first instance - have transmitted to those who have rightly believed. But we, as being their successors and as participators in this grace, high priesthood, and office of teaching - as well as being reputed guardians of the church - must not be found deficient in vigilance. Nor should we be disposed to suppress correct teaching.

Cyprian c. 250 AD:

Our Lord, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter: "I say unto you, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ " …] From there, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the church flow onward. So that the church is founded upon the bishops. And every act of the church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the church. For the church is established in the bishop, the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

Cyprian again:

But deacons should remember that the Lord chose apostles - that is, bishops and overseers. But apostles appointed for themselves deacons after the ascension of the Lord into heaven, as ministers of their episcopacy and of the church.

Firmilian c. 256 AD:

The power of remitting sins was given to the apostles and to the churches which they established (having been sent by Christ) and to the bishops who succeeded to them by vicarious ordination. However, the enemies of the one catholic church to which we belong, who are the enemies of those of us who have succeeded the apostles, claim for themselves unlawful priesthoods - in opposition to us. And they also set up profane altars. So what else are they other than Korah, Datahan, and Abiram?

 

[Marie5890]

Will be keeping you in prayer this week, LW.

The only thing I would put out there, whatever is going on for you, you dont need to be making any decisions “right now”. There is no pressure.

This is a time of discernment. Just keep your mind and heart open. The Lord will take you were He wills.

God Bless.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

Then we talked about the blessings of the priesthood that we have personally received. One of course is being able to participate in ordinances. Then, one person said that as a priesthood holder, when we are asked to give a priesthood blessing, he always has to pause and examine himself and wonder if he’s worthy to give the blessing. He said that sometimes those that ask for blessings may not think about that aspect of the priesthood, about how it may seem easy to just ask a priesthood holder to give them a blessing for whatever reason, and not think that the person has to examine themselves and determine if they are worthy to give the blessing. I thought that was interesting, and I’m sure RebeccaJ will have a comment on that. From what I understand/remember, in Catholicism, the sacraments and blessings don’t depend on the worthiness of the priest/bishop, although of course we should all be examining ourselves, especially before the Eucharist. Perhaps someone else can better articulate the difference here.

This is actually heavily rooted in the Donatist heresy of the 4th century. The schismatic church taught that the efficacy of Sacraments depended on the sanctity of the minister. The only reason I know this is because (again as we talked about) I have seen LDS point to the Donatists as evidence that certain LDS doctrines (in this case the need for personal worthiness in being priesthood holders).

As the Church rightfully pointed out, this belief could do nothing more than cause us to perpetually worry about the validity of our own Salvation. “When I went to confession last week and Fr. Smith granted me absolution, was he free of sin too?” “Am I even validly baptized?”

In a way, though, I think I see why the LDS (and the Donatists before them) need to believe this: it makes the belief in the Apostasy more certain. I mean, what else could be the mechanism of Apostasy of the entire Church if Christ actually willed that it didn’t occur? Either early priesthood holders would’ve had to deliberately not ordain or deliberately botch the ordinations of others, or the priesthood holders would’ve had to slowly lose their authority through sin.

Someone also mentioned how it was interesting that while generally most of our ordinances end “in the name of Jesus Christ”, or are done in Christ’s name, baptism and sealing (eternal marriage) are done in the name of the Godhead (Father, Son, Holy Ghost). They asked why that’s the case, but no one really knows why, that’s just how it’s done. Someone said something about Catholics (can’t remember what exactly) and the Godhead invocation, to which someone else responded that Catholics believe that They are One, while we believe that They are Three, hence why we say “in the name of the Father AND of the Son AND of the Holy Ghost”…I didn’t think that argument made sense, but I kept it to myself.

I don’t think I would’ve been able to help it but giggle. Interesting that this guy bothered to focus so much attention on the word ‘and’ all the while ignoring the fact that the word ‘name’ is singular!

Anyway, I was planning on just going to the local cathedral just to sit for a bit after all of this, but we had a little social afterwards, then I went out with a few people. I think I’m gonna go to the cathedral in the week, before I go to the temple with my ward. I think that’ll be a good comparison experience. Just wanted to share my thoughts on my first Sunday experience after my recent questionings.

This just brought back memories of my Confirmation (in the Catholic Church), which actually freaked me out a bit. As you know, there are some pretty eerie similarities in the Anointing rites of the Temple and the Chrismation of Confirmation in Catholicism. Of course logic dictates that its more likely that Joseph Smith stole it from the Confirmation rite, but I could definitely see how a Mormon would interpret this as a little gem from pre-Apostasy days being kept by the Catholics.

 

[LivingWaters7]

In light of Christ, who died for all and opened the gates of heaven for all of humanity, I can’t see how anyone would accept the concept of a ban that denied people ordinances you have described in this thread as central to being LDS. LDS arguments will say God can change his mind, but this is not the Catholic view. Jesus is God’s Word, everything we reason is measured against Him. While LDS view truth as pragmatic, ever changing based on circumstance, for Catholics truth is revealed in Jesus Christ and does not change.

Yeah, I just really can’t understand the priesthood restriction. If it didn’t happen, things would be so much easier. But the restriction not only prevented people from participating in an ordinance (priesthood ordination) that we view as necessary for exaltation, but at the same time, even black women were not allowed to enter the temple for their Endowment, or Sealing. What did that have to do with the priesthood?

This page on Mormon Think was very interesting. Now, I of course am very critical of critical and anti-LDS websites, but it is interesting to read these statements from LDS officials on these matters. One of the things that I can’t understand is Elder Kimball (before becoming President) stating in the October 1960 General Conference that the Indian people were becoming “white and delightsome” as they were promised. This shows how LDS may not have interpreted “white” to mean something symbolic, or only symbolic, but that it was seen to refer to skin color too. And of course General Conference is where we hear the inspired words of prophets, apostles, and other leaders.

Then Elder McConkie saying this:
**
"There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

"We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter anymore." (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, All Are Alike Unto God, pp. 1-2)**

I don’t see how this makes sense. Why do we learn about what each President said in our “Teachings of Presidents of the Church” manuals and lessons? Should we just forget what they said and focus on the living prophet(s)? The prophets and apostles during this time seemed pretty sure that the priesthood restriction was Divine in origin, was doctrine not policy, etc. This is one of the difficulties I have.

Mormon ordinances are viewed as stepping stones to godhood. There is a strong element of “worthiness”, where the ordinances are not effective or can even be removed entirely, if the person isn’t worthy. In Catholicism, Sacraments are outward signs of an inward grace, grace being gifts of the Holy Spirit. There is no idea that one has personal worthiness or the Sacraments fade or can be taken away. They aren’t stepping stones to godhood.

Each that seem to be similar have major differences. The Eucharist is very different. Baptism is as well. As a baptized Catholic, the graces of your baptism will help you discern truth. Pray for God to protect you from what is false.

Thanks. Also, on the necessity of worthiness for the efficacy of sacraments/ordinances, see one of my latest posts in this thread. We talked about that very subject in Sunday School today! Isn’t that funny.

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW7, contrast our understanding of baptism to what a Mormon said to me shortly after I started posting here. I was not yet a baptized Catholic. He gave the opinion that because I left the Mormon church, I was in darkness and the Holy Ghost would not guide me to truth. For me, in my own experience of what God was doing in my life, statements like that underline why Mormonism is false.

For Mormons though, statements like that cause you to doubt your own ability to reason. If you decide to leave Mormonism, you will face similar statements from some LDS that you know, and random strangers who think they need to help “fix” you.

God created you as a rational creature, with the ability to reason. Reason and faith are not at odds,as they both are gifts of God. The graces we receive in the Sacraments do not speak to faith alone, they speak to reason as well.

Yes, I would like to use reason and faith in making this decision. I firmly believe in the importance of the Holy Ghost, that we can pray to God and He can give us an answer in many ways, including through a witness from the Spirit, etc. I also believe that reason is God given, and there should be reasonable answers for certain things. Hence why I’m interested in historically seeing what actually happened in Christianity from the New Testament on.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Thanks for that, Rebecca.

This cant be stressed enough with Mormonism. For Mormonism to work, you have to suspend the God given ability to reason. You have to deny a part of you that God Himself created.

In subtle ways, the GA’s of the LDS church encourage it’s membership to suspend reason. And to ignore Mormonism real, unvarnished history.

That should raise serious red flags for anyone.

Yes, certain things are just not discussed, and sometimes, I find myself just ignoring certain things. Now, this isn’t always the case. For example, there was a fireside sometime last year with Richard Bushman (author of Rough Stone Rolling). I couldn’t go, but a friend did, and she told me that he talked about the head in hat translation method of the Book of Mormon. I don’t think most people knew that that happened (since it isn’t really discussed), but I was glad that he at least brought it up. But yeah, I’m really thinking lately whether an apostasy is reasonable, whether it was predicted in the Bible, etc.

Will be keeping you in prayer this week, LW.

The only thing I would put out there, whatever is going on for you, you dont need to be making any decisions “right now”. There is no pressure.

This is a time of discernment. Just keep your mind and heart open. The Lord will take you were He wills.

God Bless.

Thanks. Yeah I’m going to try to take this slowly (but not too slowly!). I really need to make a prayerful, informed decision, so I’ll take my time with it, thanks for that.

 

[LivingWaters7]

I usually ignore your posts because, quite frankly, I find them incoherent, and this one certainly does little to disabuse me of such a conclusion.

I’m granting myself an exception to my standard operating procedure because I find this post likewise incredibly rude, and I believe it would betray both evangelism and good manners to let this go without speaking up. I genuinely believe you owe LW an apology.

I see I was a bit hasty in my response, as later on in the thread LW (being the good sport that he is) took your post light heartedly while still giving you a serious answer. I therefore apologize for my own snark in my previous post

Thanks, appreciate the thought.

 

[twopekinguys]

I really need to make a prayerful, informed decision, so I’ll take my time with it, thanks for that.

This speaks volumes.

You know, my prayer for you is not that you become Catholic. I pray you find truth.

 

[FindingMyFaith]

I don’t have a lot to offer, wish I did, except that I am right there with you. My issues and questions are different then yours, though. But this isn’t the first time I found myself on this boat. The first time was in 2007, when I Googled “Black Sheep” because that is EXACTLY what I felt like in the LDS church. The second time was in 2011, when I discovered MORE history then I had in 2007. I just had to walk away at that point, it was too much. I had planned on going on my own journey starting with the family tree of religions. Starting at the bottom and working myself up, but when I heard there was no historical/archeological evidence for Christ, I started Googling to prove it wrong… except, I found, there really wasn’t. At that point, I had been floundering, my children had been floundering and I needed to give them stability and God. I felt like I left the LDS sinking ship becomes of too many holes in their history and doctrine. If I jumped their ship, for Christianity, and yet could find not a lot of evidence on Jesus’ existence… well I KNEW I’d stay on this ship because I could NOT deny Jesus’ birth, or life. So then, rationality lead me too, “why did I jump theirs” (LDS)? Does that make sense??

Anyway, I through myself into the church for the past few months, and it was through reading Galatians in my NIV student Bible that things began to crumble for me… again. It was in reading the Introduction where it explains that Paul was angry and saw ominous dangers for the church. One was that people would begin to believe that they could get acceptance by God by their own human effort (works), and not Christ’s sacrifice. The other was insistence to strict rules would bring the side effect of subtle distinctions. In doing that, we would begin to snub or look down on one another. In the end, these 2 things would pervert the gospel and divide the church.

Well I saw BOTH of those things within the LDS church. You can say we (the LDS church) believe in Christs sacrifice and atonement. I have read some of your other posts while doing my own research today. But the fact remains we can not attain the highest level of glory, or live in the presence of God in Heaven unless we hold a temple recommend, And in order to do that we must follow and obey the Word of Wisdom- we must give up coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. We must pay a full tithe of 10%. We must accept Joseph as a Prophet of God. So right there we have to accept someone who is NOT Jesus before we can get to the temple in order to gain access to God. And we must do acts, or works to get the recommend to get this, and get into the heaven where God lives. Once we get the recommend then we must get endowed, get sealed, and obey all temple covenants to complete our ability to live with God one day. Again, works. I am not trying to lecture you, please don’t take it that way… I am trying to explain my own rationale as this was unraveling for me in my own head

Anyway, your post finally sparked me into making an account so I can say in a very long-winded post, “You are not alone”. I have already sent an e-mail to my closest Catholic church in order to get “their side”, get answers/truth, and hopefully learn more about the hirstory of everything that went down. I also encourage you to go to forum.newordermormon.org/viewforum.php?f=11 This site was instrumental in finding other like me. Many have ultimately left, some have stayed, and others are still like us in limbo. It’s helpful to NOT be alone.

Best of luck, and best wishes…

 

[Marie5890]

I don’t have a lot to offer, wish I did, except that I am right there with you. My issues and questions are different then yours, though. But this isn’t the first time I found myself on this boat. The first time was in 2007, when I Googled “Black Sheep” because that is EXACTLY what I felt like in the LDS church. The second time was in 2011, when I discovered MORE history then I had in 2007. I just had to walk away at that point, it was too much. I had planned on going on my own journey starting with the family tree of religions. Starting at the bottom and working myself up, but when I heard there was no historical/archeological evidence for Christ, I started Googling to prove it wrong… except, I found, there really wasn’t. At that point, I had been floundering, my children had been floundering and I needed to give them stability and God. I felt like I left the LDS sinking ship becomes of too many holes in their history and doctrine. If I jumped their ship, for Christianity, and yet could find not a lot of evidence on Jesus’ existence… well I KNEW I’d stay on this ship because I could NOT deny Jesus’ birth, or life. So then, rationality lead me too, “why did I jump theirs” (LDS)? Does that make sense??

Anyway, I through myself into the church for the past few months, and it was through reading Galatians in my NIV student Bible that things began to crumble for me… again. It was in reading the Introduction where it explains that Paul was angry and saw ominous dangers for the church. One was that people would begin to believe that they could get acceptance by God by their own human effort (works), and not Christ’s sacrifice. The other was insistence to strict rules would bring the side effect of subtle distinctions. In doing that, we would begin to snub or look down on one another. In the end, these 2 things would pervert the gospel and divide the church.

Well I saw BOTH of those things within the LDS church. You can say we (the LDS church) believe in Christs sacrifice and atonement. I have read some of your other posts while doing my own research today. But the fact remains we can not attain the highest level of glory, or live in the presence of God in Heaven unless we hold a temple recommend, And in order to do that we must follow and obey the Word of Wisdom- we must give up coffee, tea, alcohol, and tobacco. We must pay a full tithe of 10%. We must accept Joseph as a Prophet of God. So right there we have to accept someone who is NOT Jesus before we can get to the temple in order to gain access to God. And we must do acts, or works to get the recommend to get this, and get into the heaven where God lives. Once we get the recommend then we must get endowed, get sealed, and obey all temple covenants to complete our ability to live with God one day. Again, works. I am not trying to lecture you, please don’t take it that way… I am trying to explain my own rationale as this was unraveling for me in my own head

Anyway, your post finally sparked me into making an account so I can say in a very long-winded post, “You are not alone”. I have already sent an e-mail to my closest Catholic church in order to get “their side”, get answers/truth, and hopefully learn more about the hirstory of everything that went down. I also encourage you to go to forum.newordermormon.org/viewforum.php?f=11 This site was instrumental in finding other like me. Many have ultimately left, some have stayed, and others are still like us in limbo. It’s helpful to NOT be alone.

Best of luck, and best wishes…

FindingMyFaith, Hello and welcome to CAF.

Like I said to LW, you seem to be in a time of discernment, so I will pose to you what I asked him.

Are spiritual realities, spiritual truths important to you? If so, how much?
There is no pressure here, no pressure to “make a decision, right now”. Just an encouraging word to keep your heart and mind open as you seek, as you discern, as your pray.

God Bless, and again, welcome. There are several of us here on CAF who are former Mormons. Myself included. If we can be of any help, just ask or send a PM. Im sure the other former LDS members here will identify themselves

 

[TexanKnight]

FindingMyFaith, Hello and welcome to CAF.

Like I said to LW, you seem to be in a time of discernment, so I will pose to you what I asked him.

Are spiritual realities, spiritual truths important to you? If so, how much?
There is no pressure here, no pressure to “make a decision, right now”. Just an encouraging word to keep your heart and mind open as you seek, as you discern, as your pray.

God Bless, and again, welcome. There are several of us here on CAF who are former Mormons. Myself included. If we can be of any help, just ask or send a PM. Im sure the other former LDS members here will identify themselves

Yes…and some of us were very active LDS. If you ever have any questions, just PM us…

 

[LivingWaters7]

That’s interesting. Do they know about the Sign of the Cross that Catholics use? A lot?

Perhaps. I just thought it was interesting that he made an argument based on the use of “and” in the Trinitarian/Godhead invocation, when it seems that both LDS and Catholics use the word “and” in saying “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”. I don’t think he knew that, and maybe assumed that Catholics say “in the name of the Father, Son, Holy Ghost”, and that that would be of significance as to the Trinity doctrine.

I think the LDS use of this verse is a good example of proof-texting, especially so when we consider the entirety of chapter 4 in this letter. Starting in verse 7 Paul seems to be saying that Christ has given each of us (which together constitute his body) various and different gifts which are to be used for the building up of the kingdom until we are unified by faith. I don’t see Paul necessarily speaking prophetically here that Apostles and Prophets are actual offices in the Church that are necessary for the existence of the Church. Indeed, we do still have prophets among us in the Church that call us to repentance. We do indeed have Apostles that are taking the gospel to every corner of the globe. We do indeed have Pastors that gently shepherd us in the faith. Sometimes these individuals with these gifts are members of the actual offices of priesthood (Deacon, Priest, or Bishop), while others are lay.

Ok. And interestingly, there are no “pastors” in the LDS Church, at least as an actual priesthood office.

What is the Catholic understanding of “prophets”, in these days (i.e. post-Apostles)?

 

[LivingWaters7]

The way it was taught to me in RCIA is that Apostles (as in the 12) are essentially a subset of Bishops. Apostles are bishops. They were the very first bishops, and they were very special bishops. Our Lord selected 12 disciples of his to be specially ordained in this capacity and to be given the authority to go out into the world and preach the Gospel, and in the process set up particular churches, and ordain other bishops. These 12 are given an honorary title as “Apostle” distinct from merely being a bishop because they were specifically set apart by our Lord and were actual witnesses to his resurrection. The authority with which they act is nevertheless that of a bishop.

Here are some in the dictionary I mentioned earlier. You’ll note that any of these alone don’t explicitly say “the bishops are the sole successors of the apostles, and there are to be no more apostles”, but this can arguably be inferred when these quotes are taken collectively:

…

Ok. So in Catholicism, the apostles were bishops, but not all bishops are/were apostles. In the Pope vs Prophet debate, the LDS side said that they could understand that apostles were bishops, in the sense that “lower” priesthood offices are comprehended in the “higher” ones (i.e. as an elder, I have the authority of deacon, teacher, priest, in addition to that of an elder), so I could understand that.

 

[cajunhillbilly]

Praying God guides you to the truth. Amen