Considering Leaving Mormonism For Traditional Christianity...

[LivingWaters7]

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.

Indeed. However also, LDS typically believe that the apostles died and there were none with their authority on the earth (maybe they weren’t able to ordain successor apostles since they were being persecuted).

From further investigation though, it seems as if LDS tend to view the matter of worthiness and the priesthood in different ways depending on the time period. Many apologetic works on the Apostasy point out the sinfulness and/or “unworthiness” of various Popes and other leaders of Catholicism, the “Dark Ages”, etc as evidence of the Apostasy. On the other hand, it seems that while LDS do emphasize personal worthiness before performing an ordinance, and ask that we not perform an ordinance if we find ourselves to be unworthy, it does seem that it is accepted that unworthily performed ordinances are still considered to be valid, and do not have to be repeated:

askgramps.org/10091/worthy-priesthood-holder
timesandseasons.org/index.php/2006/07/are-ordinances-retroactive/

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!

Yeah, it was definitely an interesting moment for me.

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.

I only vaguely remember my Confirmation, so you’d have to refresh my memory as to the similarity you’re referring to. I know in the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox (and perhaps Eastern Catholic), their Chrismation (and apparently an anointing done just before baptism) involves an anointing of various body parts, and a blessing pronounced on each part. This bears some interesting similarities to the Anointing portion of the Washing and Anointing ordinance performed in the temple. And yeah, we definitely have referenced this similarity in various temple-related apologetics as evidence of the ancient origin of the ordinance. And yeah, I did (do?) find it compelling. We know that Joseph was surrounded by Protestants, and it is frequently stated that Protestantism influenced the development of Mormonism, however I’d be curious to know if he would have been privy to this sort of information found in Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

I only vaguely remember my Confirmation, so you’d have to refresh my memory as to the similarity you’re referring to. I know in the Eastern Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox (and perhaps Eastern Catholic), their Chrismation (and apparently an anointing done just before baptism) involves an anointing of various body parts, and a blessing pronounced on each part.

This is exactly what I’m talking about and it was definitely in my confirmation back in 2009. There were other things I found interesting, since as an adult convert I was baptized, confirmed, and had first communion all in one fell swoop on the Easter Vigil, for example, being given a new (confirmation) name, donning the baptismal stole just before the chrismation, etc.

This bears some interesting similarities to the Anointing portion of the Washing and Anointing ordinance performed in the temple. And yeah, we definitely have referenced this similarity in various temple-related apologetics as evidence of the ancient origin of the ordinance. And yeah, I did (do?) find it compelling. We know that Joseph was surrounded by Protestants, and it is frequently stated that Protestantism influenced the development of Mormonism, however I’d be curious to know if he would have been privy to this sort of information found in Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

I would wager that the same anointing of senses is found in the confirmations of High-Church Protestants such as the Lutherans and Methodists (the latter of which we know Joseph Smith along with many of his family members were exposed to). If we’re to assume that it was absorbed into Mormonism by osmosis then I’d think it’s more likely that it came from Methodism than Catholicism.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

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.

Eh, not really, since Elder in itself is another office of the priesthood. In Catholicism there are only three offices: Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. Like in Mormonism, the responsibilities and authority is tiered: Deacons are the normative people who read the Gospel at Mass. Priests can do this too, but they can also hear Confessions. Bishops can do both of these but they can also Confirm people, etc. (just as your example with LDS offices).

What I meant in my earlier post is that the authority of Bishop is the exact authority the Apostles exercised, and that “Apostleship” is more of an honorific than anything else, sort of like how “Cardinal” or “Monsignor” are not priesthood offices in Catholicism.

 

[xixxvmcm85]

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

Explicit, public revelation concerning matters of our salvation, culminated in the revelations of John (Luke 16:16, Matthew 11:13). As Catholics, we understand Jesus Christ himself to be the fullness of God the Father’s revelation to mankind. He is the word of God made flesh (Hebrews 1:1-2).

We nevertheless have “prophets” pop up from time to time to do the same thing that many other prophets of old have done: call us to repentance and reaffirm the truths already handed down to us in the Deposit of Faith. Since any new prophecies/visions/apparitions do not convey new information pertaining to the plan of Salvation, individual Catholics are not required to believe.

There is no priesthood office of ‘Prophet’, rather prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit accessible (in theory) to all members of the Body of Christ. I don’t see any evidence that either Christians or Israelites ever saw a prophet as necessarily exercising priesthood authority (or that there at any given moment in time is a succession of one, supreme prophet who leads the entire Church). In fact, I’d say this is explicitly contradicted by the fact that there have been female prophets: Aaron’s sister Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), and Anna (Luke 2:36).

 

[pablope]

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.

LW…there is a difference in concept of what a Catholic bishop is and what a LDS bishop is.

As I had been informed, a LDS bishop is akin in authority or responsibility either to a catholic priest or lector.

 

[RebeccaJ]

RE: Bishops, Priests and Deacons, CAF has a good tract, here.

Also, a good book about the ECFs is Pope Benedict XVI’s, “Church Fathers, From Clement of Rome to Augustine”. I recommend a read, at least, of the chapters on the particular ECF’s that are being studied.

 

[pablope]

Indeed. However also, LDS typically believe that the apostles died and there were none with their authority on the earth (maybe they weren’t able to ordain successor apostles since they were being persecuted).

Catholicism/Orthodoxy.

I had shared this quote with you…from Clement of Rome, his epistle to Corinth:

earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

1Clem 42:4 So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons unto them that should believe.
1Clem 44:2 For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration.

Clement of Rome is the 4th pope…and was ordained by St. Peter himself…According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time “most of the Latins” held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15).

St. Irenæus (III, iii) tells us that Clement “saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles”.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

 

[RebeccaJ]

In Sunday School, the topic was the restoration of the priesthood (we’re going through the Doctrine and Covenants, and Church History, this year).

Of course, there is no such thing as a “Melchizedek Priesthood”. Jesus is the fulfillment of Melchizedek. He is the only High Priest. (See Hebrews)

Second, the priesthood of Aaron requires that you are descended from Aaron. I imagine a few LDS converts would qualify, otherwise, y’all are a bunch of genitles aspiring to be Jews.

Third, the priesthood of Aaron existed to offer sacrifices, on behalf of all believers in the covenant of Abraham, for the remission of their sins. Jesus fulfills the sacrifice made in the temple. Catholic priests offer a sacrifice at Mass. That is what the office of a priest does: offer sacrifice. So, what sacrifice to priests offer in Mormonism?? A priestly office has never existed to benefit the individual priest.

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 when we talked about the blessings of the priesthood that we have personally received.

All the baptized share in the Priesthood of Jesus Christ. Any baptized person can give a priesthood blessing. While I am not a cradle Catholic, and didn’t raise any children Catholic, I absolutely love to hear from parents (mom and dad) who make blessing their children a daily thing. Beautiful! I sometimes see it at Mass, where a parent will bless their child with holy water on the way at the door.

As for worthiness…examining one’s conscience is a very Christian practice. We are called to repentance, but as I already said, the idea that you think you are “worthy”??? …I know I am not worthy of the Cross. How about you? We are made worthy by the Cross, in and through Jesus Christ.

We approach the Eucharist in a state of worthiness because of Jesus Christ, not because of ourselves. There isn’t any way for us to make ourselves worthy. The Cross is the evidence of this. We are forgiven, already, of all of our sins. Again, the Cross is the evidence of this. The Sacrament of Reconciliation (Confession) is how God makes this reality of grace present to us.

To believe we can sin as much as we like, because God will forgive us, or fearing that our sins are so great we can never be forgiven are both disordered views of Salvation.

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.

The OT temple, which existed to make sacrifices to God, and to worship God, is what we call a prefiguring of Jesus Christ. Jesus is our temple. (John 2:19-22) As one of our deacons has clearly stated, without the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in our churches, they are nothing but empty museums.

I would also make an argument that a building is required at all, for the type of sacred space you are describing. Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying, but God is present in all of creation. A walk alone in the mountains of my backyard gives me that sense of sacred space. As Christians, we are called to be present to others, as the hands, face and heart of Jesus Christ.

The Real Presence of Christ, in a Church, is where we are transfigured.

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.

Yes, LDS make up the religious beliefs of others (especially Catholics) and then use what they pretend as an attempt to validate their own beliefs.

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.

I think you will need to discern where God is calling you, and not be distracted. Difficult, I know, but there is a difference between someone who is enamored of Mass because of the one time they went, and someone who is actually seeking truth.

 

[KathleenGee]

Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of all prophets.

And when we are animated by His life within us, and extend His to the world, His will, His kingdom of hope, mercy, and justice, we likewise share in His priesthood, both male and female.

So in serving God in our daily duty through the prophetic witness, we all share His life as prophets…and when we share His holiness…both women and men are also anointed as priests in the lives Christ gives us.

We are, through the new life of Jesus Christ within us, the Word and Sacraments our nourishment, we share in His kingship, prophet, and priesthood.

Ordained priests are chosen and serve as intercessor representing Christ, administrating the Word and sacraments, and reside so to speak in the sanctuary of the Church.

Subsequently, Catholicism is in essence mystical and faith in Christ. Our existence and life comes exclusively from Him. When we commit mortal sin, we are no longer in the Church. We are restored to the Church through the sacrament of penance/confession.

So if a former Catholic leaves the Church, going to confession restores his place as member and he can resume reception of the Sacraments, especially Eucharist at Mass.

 

[KathleenGee]

There is a movement here in USA to ask the Church to reconsider having the Sacraments of Initiation be given all at once to children, instead of having them wait until teen years to be confirmed. So many times, teens are not interested in confirmation.

I was confirmed at 12, and looking back at it for myself, it was appropriate. Any time later, my mind would have more been on fitting in with others.

I remember my First Holy Communion at age 6, and its effects. I think a child would understand and take to heart belong totally to Jesus at that age with confirmation.

And so it is…to return to the child receiving all 3.

 

[LivingWaters7]

This is exactly what I’m talking about and it was definitely in my confirmation back in 2009. There were other things I found interesting, since as an adult convert I was baptized, confirmed, and had first communion all in one fell swoop on the Easter Vigil, for example, being given a new (confirmation) name, donning the baptismal stole just before the chrismation, etc.

Yeah, I’ve heard of this, though I never attended an Easter Vigil liturgy.

Speaking of new names, I just realized that I realized I forgot my temple new name! I’m sure I’ve got it written down somewhere, but that’s funny. My Catholic confirmation name is Michael.

I would wager that the same anointing of senses is found in the confirmations of High-Church Protestants such as the Lutherans and Methodists (the latter of which we know Joseph Smith along with many of his family members were exposed to). If we’re to assume that it was absorbed into Mormonism by osmosis then I’d think it’s more likely that it came from Methodism than Catholicism.

It would be interesting to look into that.

Eh, not really, since Elder in itself is another office of the priesthood. In Catholicism there are only three offices: Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. Like in Mormonism, the responsibilities and authority is tiered: Deacons are the normative people who read the Gospel at Mass. Priests can do this too, but they can also hear Confessions. Bishops can do both of these but they can also Confirm people, etc. (just as your example with LDS offices).

What I meant in my earlier post is that the authority of Bishop is the exact authority the Apostles exercised, and that “Apostleship” is more of an honorific than anything else, sort of like how “Cardinal” or “Monsignor” are not priesthood offices in Catholicism.

Ok thanks.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Explicit, public revelation concerning matters of our salvation, culminated in the revelations of John (Luke 16:16, Matthew 11:13). As Catholics, we understand Jesus Christ himself to be the fullness of God the Father’s revelation to mankind. He is the word of God made flesh (Hebrews 1:1-2).

We nevertheless have “prophets” pop up from time to time to do the same thing that many other prophets of old have done: call us to repentance and reaffirm the truths already handed down to us in the Deposit of Faith. Since any new prophecies/visions/apparitions do not convey new information pertaining to the plan of Salvation, individual Catholics are not required to believe.

There is no priesthood office of ‘Prophet’, rather prophecy is a gift of the Holy Spirit accessible (in theory) to all members of the Body of Christ. I don’t see any evidence that either Christians or Israelites ever saw a prophet as necessarily exercising priesthood authority (or that there at any given moment in time is a succession of one, supreme prophet who leads the entire Church). In fact, I’d say this is explicitly contradicted by the fact that there have been female prophets: Aaron’s sister Miriam (Exodus 15:20), Deborah (Judges 4:4), and Anna (Luke 2:36).

What are some examples of post-New Testament Catholic prophets? I find this interesting. So “public revelation” is referring to what is necessary for salvation, right? If so, when traditional Christians state that “public revelation” ended with the death of the Apostles, this means that all that is necessary to be known for salvation has been revealed, right? So, Catholics still obviously believe that revelation from God to man has continued, just a specific sort of revelation has ended.

I’ve also been curious lately about these miracles and apparitions of Catholicism (mostly because I noticed SteveVH talk about the Eucharistic Miracle of Lanciano on another forum, and found that interesting). I think I’ll save that for a separate thread (I’ve been debating starting new threads on specific issues instead of having this free-for-all, not that I’m not grateful for the replies). One of the claims of the Latter-day Saint faith is that miracles and Divine intervention were restored in the Restoration. This was actually a point in that Pope vs Prophet debate, that after the apostolic age, miracles seemed to decline, and reappeared after the Restoration. Allow me to quote this section of the debate:

**"The Signs of an Apostle

Paul reminisced about a former visit to Corinth, “Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds.” (2 Corinthians 12:12) The online Catholic Encyclopedia article on the “Charismata”, or gifts of the Spirit, has this to say: “The Apostolic office contains in itself a claim to all charismata, for the object of its ordinary working is identical with the object of these special gifts: the sanctification of souls by uniting them in Christ with God.” Now, if the Catholic bishops still have the some “object” of their office as the Apostles, and are the “successors” of the Apostles, shouldn’t their office have the same claim to the charismata as the Apostolate? If the Catholic bishops are really “successors of the Apostles”, let us see some “signs of an apostle”.

Do the Roman Catholic bishops exhibit these signs? What about the Pope? With reference to “Papal infallibility”, Catholic Apologist David Goldstein admits, "It means not that the Pope is inspired…"13 The article on the “Charismata” says of the gift of prophecy, “In the course of time prophecy became less common, without, however, ever disappearing altogether.” So apparently the prophetic gifts are still out there - just not with the Pope. Anywhere BUT with the Pope!

(Note: I don’t mean to imply that no Catholic has ever received a God-given miracle. The Book of Mormon insists, “it is by faith that miracles are wrought;… wherefore, if these things have ceased wo be unto the children of men, for it is because of unbelief, and all is vain.” {Moroni 7:37} It would be a sad day for the world if hundreds of millions of Roman Catholics couldn’t muster a drop of faith! Neither do I intend to demand a sign before I will believe. My point is simply that the prevalence of the prophetic gifts dropped off sharply after the Apostles departed the scene, although one would expect their “successors” to have the same prerogatives of office.)**

…continued…

 

[LivingWaters7]

…continued…

**What Happened to the Gifts?

Let us look, for instance, at the history of the gift of prophecy - surely one of the distinctive marks of the Apostolate. In their classic work on the New Testament apocrypha, Hennecke and Schneemelcher report, “By the end of the 1st century prophecy has lost its original significance…”, and show that this gift was considered heretical after the middle of the second century. 14 We can follow the decline by citing references to the gifts from the Early Christian Fathers. Justin Martyr (ca. 150 AD) claimed "the prophetical gifts remain with us, even to the present time."15 A few decades later Irenaeus (ca. 180 AD), although he was bishop of Lyons, had only heard of the presence of these gifts: "We hear that many brethren in the Church possess prophetic gifts."16 In the middle of the third century, Origen could only point to traces of the gifts: "For {the Jews} have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable extent are still found among Christians…"17 In a footnote to this passage, Roberts and Donaldson reveal, "The Fathers, while they refer to extraordinary divine agency going on in their own day, also with one consent represent miracles as having ceased since the Apostolic era."18 In the fourth century Eusebius quoted the above passage from Irenaeus in his History of the Church, and then noted, "So much in regard to the fact that various gifts remained among those who were worthy even until that time."19 In other words, Eusebius was attempting to show the Catholics had inherited the true apostolic tradition, and his evidence for this was that at least the prophetic gifts lasted in the Catholic tradition till the late second century! Why would the Fathers be so desperate to show a continuation of the gifts, even when they condemned every concrete instance of claimed prophecies (e.g. those of the Montanists and Gnostics)?

In the midst of the Catholic-Montanist conflict in the late second and early third centuries, the Catholic bishop Apolinarius of Hierapolis noted, "For the apostle thought it necessary that the prophetic gift should continue in all the Church until the final coming."20 He said this in opposition to the Montanists, who had not had any more of their pseudo-prophets for fourteen years, but the last bona fide example of a Catholic prophet he gave was that of Quadratus, who wrote an apology for the Christians during the reign of Hadrian (117-138 AD)21 But if the “apostle thought it necessary” that the “prophetic gift must continue in the whole Church until the final coming,” how does this affect Catholic claims to spiritual authority? Tertullian (ca. 200 AD), an important early Christian writer who defected to the Montanist camp, rebuked Catholic officials for claiming apostolic authority to forgive sins, while having no gifts to back up their claims: "Exhibit therefore even now to me, apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognize your divine virtue, and vindicate to yourself the power of remitting such sins!"22

The “Apostolic” Church ought to have “Apostolic” gifts. I have personally witnessed LDS general authorities prophesying things that came to pass. I have seen others given the gift of prophecy, and I have on a couple occasions received this gift myself. Now, I don’t want to fill up these pages with anecdotal evidence for my claims.23 My point is simply that I can do better than Irenaeus, Apolinarius, Origen, and Eusebius. All I have seen from the Roman Catholics are wishy-washy references to prophetic gifts that are still around… somewhere. Therefore, I have to repeat Tertullian’s challenge to the Catholic bishops: “Exhibit therefore even now to me, apostolic sir, prophetic evidences, that I may recognize your divine virtue, and vindicate to yourself the power of remitting such sins!” "**

Sorry for the lengthy quote, but I’d be interested in Catholic views on that. In my understanding, Catholics would cite various miracles and apparitions that have happened as evidence that this isn’t the case.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I don’t know of any practicing Catholic who doesn’t view Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, Humanae Vitae as prophetic. Here’s a LDS physician who agrees that it is inspired:

"Q: Have you read “Humanae Vitae”?

Stanford: Yes. I first read “Humanae Vitae” in 1991 and several times since then. I think it is an inspired document. I think it captures fundamental aspects of human nature. He [Pope Paul VI] really hits the nail on the head regarding the dark side of contraception, sterilization and abortion and their effects on society.

Although I do not think divorce, promiscuity, teen pregnancy are exclusively the result of contraception, I also think these are not unrelated to contraception. I think contraception is a heavy part of the fuel behind the sexual revolution and many of the problems in society we are facing.

I think “Humanae Vitae” is basically a prophetic statement."

 

[LivingWaters7]

LW…there is a difference in concept of what a Catholic bishop is and what a LDS bishop is.

As I had been informed, a LDS bishop is akin in authority or responsibility either to a catholic priest or lector.

Yes there is a difference. A bishop in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is akin to a Catholic priest. A LDS bishop is the leader of the local congregation (or “ward”). The equivalent of a Catholic bishop would be a LDS “stake president” who presides over multiple LDS congregations in an area.

RE: Bishops, Priests and Deacons, CAF has a good tract, here.

Also, a good book about the ECFs is Pope Benedict XVI’s, “Church Fathers, From Clement of Rome to Augustine”. I recommend a read, at least, of the chapters on the particular ECF’s that are being studied.

Thanks for the recommendations. I’ll add the book to my wishlist on Amazon.

Yeah, I’m really interested in reading more about what the ancient Church was like, from the most ancient writers from that time period, outside of the New Testament of course. Now, while I’m partial to what the Catholic faith has to say on this (since I was Catholic for most of my life), I haven’t written off the Orthodox Church completely either, as I’ve always been fascinated by them (perhaps because they seem to avoid some of the “issues” that many have with the Catholic faith, like Papal Infallibility, amongst other things). When it comes down to it, I desire only to be part of the Church established by Jesus Christ in the Bible, so that I can partake of all the blessings (graces?) He has available to us, be forgiven of my sins, and be able to live with God for eternity, with my loved ones.

Now, I’m definitely not a “fanatic” (I enjoy having fun and hanging out as much as any other person in their 20s!). However, I already know that God exists (in addition to having a “testimony” of that, I also look to the witness of science, and have read many works by Christian scientists (not “Christian Scientists” the religion) on that matter that present very compelling arguments), and desire to know Him, in the same way that I desire to know my family, friends, etc. SO, I’m really trying to exercise reason and look to what the earliest Christians believed and did, hence why I enjoy adding these references to my list.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Honestly, from the perspective of this convert, the differences between Catholic and Orthodox are slight compared to the differences between Catholic/Orthodox and Mormon.

Both are apostolic churches, though I think the east has a more restrictive view of the west. The only reason I didn’t seriously consider the Orthodox is because here, in Utah, Orthodox is associated to ethnicity. I’m not Greek or Russian. I’ve never met a convert to an Orthodox church in Utah. I think in theory they must exist.

 

[LivingWaters7]

Honestly, from the perspective of this convert, the differences between Catholic and Orthodox are slight compared to the differences between Catholic/Orthodox and Mormon.

Indeed.

Both are apostolic churches, though I think the east has a more restrictive view of the west. The only reason I didn’t seriously consider the Orthodox is because here, in Utah, Orthodox is associated to ethnicity. I’m not Greek or Russian. I’ve never met a convert to an Orthodox church in Utah. I think in theory they must exist.

Yeah in theory

Luckily, I’ve always lived in large cities (SF, NYC, DC), so we have Orthodox churches around. I’ve been to Divine Liturgy before, and loved it. I’ve also been to a Tridentine Mass. I also have enjoyed a properly celebrated “Novus Ordo” (I periodically go to Mass with my family (and sometimes drop my brother off at Confirmation class, isn’t that amusing), and like the “and with your spirit” instead of “and also with you” change). The thing that I’ve enjoyed in these worship 'services" is the sense of worship and majesty of God. I don’t find that in LDS settings unfortunately. Yes, we pray to God the Father, yes we sing hymns, but it’s definitely different. Even “temple worship” doesn’t really seem like “worship” to me, though I do love the environment of the temple (and love the concept of going to the House of God where He dwells in a special way). It seems to me that Catholic/Orthodox worship has retained/expressed ancient Jewish temple worship moreso than the LDS temple has.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Indeed.

Yeah in theory

Luckily, I’ve always lived in large cities (SF, NYC, DC), so we have Orthodox churches around. I’ve been to Divine Liturgy before, and loved it. I’ve also been to a Tridentine Mass. I also have enjoyed a properly celebrated “Novus Ordo” (I periodically go to Mass with my family (and sometimes drop my brother off at Confirmation class, isn’t that amusing), and like the “and with your spirit” instead of “and also with you” change). The thing that I’ve enjoyed in these worship 'services" is the sense of worship and majesty of God. I don’t find that in LDS settings unfortunately. Yes, we pray to God the Father, yes we sing hymns, but it’s definitely different. Even “temple worship” doesn’t really seem like “worship” to me, though I do love the environment of the temple (and love the concept of going to the House of God where He dwells in a special way). It seems to me that Catholic/Orthodox worship has retained/expressed ancient Jewish temple worship moreso than the LDS temple has.

I left Mormonism, purposely, before doing the temple thing. My one experience of the SLC temple, doing baptisms for the dead as a teenager, was less than stellar. I was never convinced that I would want to return.

I can’t say from what I have read about the LDS temple ceremony prior to 1991 that I regret staying far from a Mormon temple. The thought has crossed my mind more than once that it is providential that I never had that experience.

But, that is my experience. There are several former LDS here who were “temple worthy” Mormons who maybe can relate to your experience.

I never experienced anything like Mass, in my life. I was at the time an atheist with an anxiety towards religion, so I sat in the back just in case I felt like I had to get the heck outta there. What struck me the most were the prayers, coming from people who just looked like they had faith. I had to figure that one out.

Today, I’m not one that really needs Mass to be a particular form. I like my parish’s mix of Latin, traditional Catholic music and incense in the NO Mass. I haven’t been to a EO form, though I can see the appeal of a head covering. I view my own conversion as a miracle, so, going to Mass anywhere, anytime, any form, is special to me. I just can’t get over being amazed at being Catholic, and I was baptized 5 years ago.

 

[SteveVH]

(and love the concept of going to the House of God where He dwells in a special way).

Then you would love the Catholic Church where he truly dwells; body, blood, soul and divinity.

 

[Marie5890]

Yes I can relate to the temple experience.
The endowment ceremony, I found it tedious. Watching the film (I had been thru the temple prior to the changes of what year was it? 1990? there abouts). Watching those films bored me to tears and I felt no sense of worship in the ceremony. More the feeling of being initiated with all of it’s handshakes etc. (so very Masonic in that respect as I would learn years later)

If people want to understand what the LDS endowment ceremony is like, read up on Masonic rituals. It’s very very Masonic

I did enjoy the quiet and the peace of being able to sit in the celestial room and ponder and meditate. I can get that, however, out in the fields of our farm or in the woods, and just being quiet)

That is why, when I first experienced the Triduum, I was blown away and felt I had actually WORSHIPED God. I never ever had that kind of feeling of worship or praising or giving thanks to God in either Sacrament meeting or the temple.