LDS and Catholic Differences

[sablouwho]

Y’know, one of these days you are going to conceed a point or admit an error with grace, and without rolling your eyes. I will be so shocked when that happens that I might not be able to type for a whole five minutes.

Mwah ha ha (evil grin)

That was just too funny.

Just sayin…

 

[dianaiad]

Mwah ha ha (evil grin)

That was just too funny.

Just sayin…

It was also, unfortunately, over the line a bit. (sigh) I let frustration get away with me.

 

[sablouwho]

Uh huh, and Catholics tell me that I’m going to hell, that I’m not a Christian, and that I have no business coming anywhere near them. (yes, Catholics HAVE done this.) …and I’ll bet you anything you don’t get the point of what I just wrote.

Oy vey! (The Jewishness comes out!)

Y’know, I think it must be because I hail from outside of Christianity completely that I just don’t understand one Jesus-affirming group declaring that another Jesus-affirming group is going to hell. Some Catholics do it to Protestants, some Protestants do it to Catholics. Some Protestants to it to other Protestants. Some of Catholic/Protestant do it to LDS and other groups that affirm Jesus but are admittedly outside of the mainstream. Believe it or not I even have a Catholic friend who was told by LDS that he was going to hell (though I can’t help but wonder if my friend misunderstood that…)

Oh yeah, and then there are those who evangelize Jews with “Christian love” and when Jews don’t “get it”, they are told they’re going to hell. Let me tell you, THAT is a fun experience.

Such behavior is so un-Christ-like.

I don’t get it.

 

[SteveVH]

SteveVH,
1 Corinthians 7 has several references to widows or to men or women whose spouses were not part of the church, and some spouses had left their marriage. Verse 8 says that Paul didn’t remarry–that is what can be understood from reading the entire chapter and comparing the different kinds of examples he gives.

But for those who justify their having chosen to ignore the commandment and blessing given to Adam and Eve, which Christ reiterated so plainly in His teaching, then it’s great that they have reasons that they can bring to judgment day and say something such as "but I thought I was being told that to not marry was exercising self-control and was “a good thing”; and I suppose Paul will be sent for and he will say, “Now wait a minute, I wrote “neither the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Don’t blame your choice on me–it was your choice. You had Genesis to teach you, and Christ’s words to teach you.”

Sorry, in verse 8 he is speaking to the “unmarried and to widows”. “Unmarried” might include someone with a previous marriage, but it certainly isn’t limited to them. Unmarried is unmarried. To the widow, yes, of course he would be speaking of re-marriage but this doesn’t insinuate that Paul was a widower. In verse 7, Paul states that he wishes “everyone to be as I am”. Then, in verse 8 he discloses that he is unmarried. He advises marriage to those who would otherwise not enter into marriage but would suffer from temptations of the flesh. He sums up the whole thing in verse 17: “Only everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God calls each one”. This implies that some are called to marriage and some are not, but that we must each answer God’s call in our lives.

 

[aspirant]

Actually, Paul was a widower…

Even if this were true, the point remains: the epistle to Timothy was written by an unmarried and celibate man.

Actually, I"m not wedded to the notion that he was a widower. It makes more sense, however, that he was than that he was not, given his position previous to his conversion. All the arguments that hint that Jesus may have been married (cultural, not scriptural) go double for Paul, and he doesn’t have the excuse of divine origin to forbid it… The culture he lived in and the rules he lived by demanded that he be married in order to fullfill his duties.

Ancient Jewish culture, contrary to popular opinion, did not strictly require rabbis to be married. Dedication to the Word of God could take precedence. When Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai, in the early 2nd century, was criticized for not marrying, he responded “What shall I do? My soul clings lovingly to the Torah; let others contribute to the preservation of the race.” The rabbis subsequently wrote of him: “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah, like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned,” and they praised him saying “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth.”

The Prophets, similarly, were believed by ancient Jews to be celibate. Not just the unmarried ones, like Elijah and Elisha, but even the married ones. Ancient Jews believed that Moses, though married with children, became celibate at Sinai and remained celibate thereafter.

To say that Paul’s life as a Pharisee “demanded” marriage really is an overstatement.

IMO, a literalist approach, one that isn’t interested in exegesis, does violence to scripture and its meaning.
[/Rant]

I feel the same way.

 

[aspirant]

Uh huh, and Catholics tell me that I’m going to hell… (yes, Catholics HAVE done this.)

The Catholic faith does not teach that they can know that, so they should not say that.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53,
The word translated into the word “angels” has several different and distinct meanings in the Bible. If you will look at Revelation 19:10 and then Revelation 22:9 and then Revelation 12:7, you will see two of those different meanings. One has to do with spirits before coming into mortality, led by Michael the Archangel. One has to do with messengers from God who have already lived on the earth, and return to it with a message. Another has to do with those “angels” who are in the presence of God giving glory to Him, or singing praises. It is less clear what their role is other than that. The meaning needs to be gleaned from the context of the passage where it is used. But when John writes about “joint heirs” or “sons of God” being “like Him” or inheriting a throne, then those passages do not refer to that kind of glory as being an “angel.” Christ is not described as an angel; thus, to be like Christ is not synonymous with being like an “angel”.

Thank you for trying to explain, Parker, but this post does not answer my question at all. In fact, it leads me to more questions, because I have seen no evidence of St. Michael becoming a man, which is what I am getting from your point above “…coming into mortality, led by Michael the Archangel”. ???

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am somewhat amused by LDS and their neutrality (feigned?) regarding paid clergy. There is a reason that LDS clergy are not paid, Joseph Smith taught it was “priestcraft”. From an Institute manual at lds.org:

D&C 52:39 Who Does the Lord Command to “Labor with Their Own Hands,” and How Would Obedience to This Commandment Prevent Idolatry?

This instruction was given to those elders not assigned to go as missionaries to Missouri. These men were assigned to stay home and be the priesthood leaders for the Saints in Kirtland. By laboring with their own hands for their support, rather than being paid for their priesthood service, these brethren would help prevent idolatry and priestcraft from springing up in the Church (see 2 Nephi 26:29)

D&C 52:39 39 Let the residue of the elders watch over the churches, and declare the word in the regions round about them; and let them labor with their own hands that there be no idolatry nor wickedness practised.

 

[ricko]

1Timothy, Chapter 3, v. 2: 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,bsober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Now I am rather familiar with this verse, given how many times it has been quoted at me as a prooftext against polygamy.

of but one wife" - Polygamists are disqualified from the eldership. This may have been a common phenomenon given the culture of the early church. Today, I would think this would disqualify “serial polygamists” - (those who remarry after divorce). The phrase “but one” (actually a single word “mia” in the greek) **does not disqualify single men, as Paul even recommends singleness as it frees one to servce God from from the distractions of marriage. (1Cor 7:32). **
bcbsr.com/books/1tim3.html

The way the Mormons interpert the bible they have verses conflicting with each other, as insisting that a bishop MUST be married conflicts with 1Cor. Allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you will solve that problem and allow you to see that HAVING to be married is taken out of context with the rest of what the bible says of marriage and serving God.

 

[RebeccaJ]

of but one wife" - Polygamists are disqualified from the eldership. This may have been a common phenomenon given the culture of the early church. Today, I would think this would disqualify “serial polygamists” - (those who remarry after divorce). The phrase “but one” (actually a single word “mia” in the greek) **does not disqualify single men, as Paul even recommends singleness as it frees one to servce God from from the distractions of marriage. (1Cor 7:32). **
bcbsr.com/books/1tim3.html

The way the Mormons interpert the bible they have verses conflicting with each other, as insisting that a bishop MUST be married conflicts with 1Cor. Allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you will solve that problem and allow you to see that HAVING to be married is taken out of context with the rest of what the bible says of marriage and serving God.

Well, they do believe the scriptures have been corrupted.

 

[ricko]

As has been mentioned and stated in the above link. One of the main differences is that LDS believe in continued revelation and additional scripture and knowledge from God. In fact that is one thing that makes LDS different than most other religions of the world to my knowledge.

And that is one of the things that makes LDS a false religion as the bible says that there are no new revelations to come as Jesus, who is perfect gave all that is necessary for salvation and there is no need for any new (public) revelations.
The problem with “claiming” to receive new revelations helps a false religion to prop itself up to change things to cover its previous false teaching as in the “revelation” in 1978 that blacks could now serve in the temple. Not a revelation from God but a revelation from many people around the country complaining about its racist teachings

Also, several schools threaten to stop playing brigham young university unless they changed their policy. Taking away the income from football is bound to cause a “revelation” that NOW seems like a good time to reverse the LDS policy on blacks.
Prior to 1978, Mormon leaders forbid Blacks from holding the Mormon Priesthood. In 1978, due to mounting pressure from pending lawsuits concerning racism, Spencer W. Kimball suddenly received a revelation that Blacks could now enter the temple and hold the Mormon Priesthood. If the Mormon Church had not changed its views on Black people, it would have lost its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - as pending litigation in several states in America was proceeding.

Today the Mormon Church flatly denies that it’s revelation was based on loosing its Tax-Exempt 503(c) status - however a great deal of evidence exists showing that it did.

 

[mfbukowski]

Actually, I"m not wedded to the notion that he was a widower. It makes more sense, however, that he was than that he was not, given his position previous to his conversion. All the arguments that hint that Jesus may have been married (cultural, not scriptural) go double for Paul, and he doesn’t have the excuse of divine origin to forbid it.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

The fact is, Paul had been a Pharisee, and they were required to be married.

Here is a link to a non-Mormon, non-Catholic evangelical site which makes the point quite well:
biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/timeline-life-of-paul-from-birth-to-first-missionary-journey.html

I really don’t want to get too involved in this thread- I will just stick my nose in from time to time.

 

[SteveVH]

"The first, and probably most important, of our differences is in the area of authority. We do agree with Catholics in that the authority to perform ordinance must come from God and in an orderly way. It must be passed down from one man with the authority to another. It is not something that someone can just take unto himself. However, we do not believe that the Popes represent an unbroken chain of authority leading back to Jesus. We believe that the authority to act in the name of God was lost not long after the end of the ministries of Jesus’ apostles. We believe that it had to be and was restored to Earth when Peter, James, and John appeared as heavenly messengers, sent by Christ, and conferred the authority on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdry.

Now I wrote that this is probably the most important difference. I assert this because we can’t both be right. If the Catholics are right, then they are right about everything else they believe. The same is true if we Latter-day Saints are right about the source of our authority then we are the true church. Obviously there are sincere believers on both sides.

wyp8riot: I believe I was the third poster on this thread. I asked you a question about the “Great Apostasy”. In fact, Prodigal Son1 asked the question first. I only asked you to be intellectually honest enough to answer the questions in a straight forward, to the point manner. You have yet to do this. As I said in my first comments, this was my fear; that you would just ignore the question as the other LDS posters have. The Great Apsotasy is quite a claim to make to not be able to defend it. Will you please at least attempt it. GIVE US SOME EVIDENCE!

 

[RebeccaJ]

I am somewhat amused by LDS and their neutrality (feigned?) regarding paid clergy. There is a reason that LDS clergy are not paid, Joseph Smith taught it was “priestcraft”. From an Institute manual at lds.org:

D&C 52:39 39 Let the residue of the elders watch over the churches, and declare the word in the regions round about them; and let them labor with their own hands that there be no idolatry nor wickedness practised.

The fact is, Paul had been a Pharisee, and they were required to be married.

Here is a link to a non-Mormon, non-Catholic evangelical site which makes the point quite well:
biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/timeline-life-of-paul-from-birth-to-first-missionary-journey.html

I really don’t want to get too involved in this thread- I will just stick my nose in from time to time.

Paul was also a Jew. After his conversion he taught circumcision was not required, and neither is marriage. It is easy enough to read these teachings. They are very clear.

 

[ricko]

Oh, I can think of a few contrary examples, m’friend…and historically the Catholic church priests and abbots were noted for being rather, well…

nevermind.

I can’t honestly think of a very rich parish priest, and as far as I am aware (not that this is true or not true, but I’ve not heard of one…) there aren’t any priests further up the hierarchy that have gotten wealthy off of the church.

OK…and? How is that our fault?

…was there a point to that thought?

Oh?

I referenced in my post the fees that are incurred by Mormons who want to get married in an LDS chapel by the Bishop; nada. On the other hand, if a couple wants to marry in a Catholic church, typical fees are as follows : (from the website for St.James Catholic Church in Falls Church, Virginia)

Please provide a link to St. James website. I’ve looked and can’t find any prices for anything as you said.

$275…‘donation to the church’ (well, it’s actually mandatory, but if you don’t pay it, you don’t get the venue…)
$200…to “Mr. Dan Day, Director of Music”
$50.00 Two altar servers (at least $25 each)
Optional…(if you have one, that is…)
$125 Cantor/soloist
Other fees as assigned to other ‘instrumental fees.’

St. Patricks, in Cranston Rhode Island, charges as follows:
$500 for the church,
$200. for the professional organist (who, by the way, IS paid a salary…) and
$150 for the soloist at the Mass or service.

Same for the above Church, link please.

Now let’s look at the Vatican (I had NO idea that you COULD get married at the Vatican! That’s way cool!)

As of 2008, the cost of a wedding in the Chapel of the Choir in St. Peter’s Basilica was $1,150 Euros (or $1563.85 as of right now). This includes almost everything…except that a personal gift to the officiating priest of 100 Euros on the day of the wedding is suggested. It does not cover the flowers and other decorative costs, but all other wedding arrangements, like flowers (they suggest not to bother, since St. Peter’s is already beautiful enough) and photographers must be obtained through Vatican approved sources only. The soloist is extra, another 100 euros, and there’s no choice there, either. You get who you get.

Now me, I think that this is actually rather inexpensive, compared to many venues that newlyweds CAN choose, especially for St. Peter’s! However, I simply note that for Mormons, Temple weddings are absolutely free. So are weddings in chapels and officiated by bishops, and trust me, anybody who tried to slip money to a Bishop for performing the ceremony would get such a look!

It is a difference in culture. Our bishops and stake presidents often put in every inch as much time as a parish priest—AND have to earn their own livings as well. This is just…fact. Sorry about that, but it is what it is. This is not to downplay the efforts and true dedication a good priest has, by any means.

It’s just…that when you claim that organists, choir directers and such don’t get paid, that’s incorrect. They do. Not always, but often they do.

But not by us. (shrug) It’s just a thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The fact is, Paul had been a Pharisee, and they were required to be married.

Here is a link to a non-Mormon, non-Catholic evangelical site which makes the point quite well:
biblestudy.org/apostlepaul/timeline-life-of-paul-from-birth-to-first-missionary-journey.html

I really don’t want to get too involved in this thread- I will just stick my nose in from time to time.

Now, I know Paul referred to himself as a Pharisee in scriptures, but it was clearly after his conversion. In fact, if you read the context of the passage where he refers to himself as a Pharisee, he was in the custody of the Pharisees and being physically abused.

In another instance that Paul said he was a Pharisee, he was speaking about when he was 8 days old. Children of Pharisees were considered Pharisees.

As I said before, there is no conclusive evidence in scriptures that Paul was married. He was rising in the ranks among the Jews, but as nothing tells us he was married, nothing tells us he was a Sanhedrin prior to his conversion.

 

[mfbukowski]

She changed it to ‘likely’ since he was a Sanhedrin. When I requested they prove that, they quit posting.

He was educated by Gamaliel.

 

[ricko]

I can tell them that their question is irrelevant when it is, JM; in fact, it was a very classic tu quoque argument.

tu quo·que used to accuse accuser: used when accused of an offense to accuse the accuser of the same offense

Or in other words… “Same to you buddy!!”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He was educated by Gamaliel.

**Act 22:3 And he saith: I am a Jew, born at Tarsus in Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, taught according to the truth of the law of the fathers, zealous for the law, as also all you are this day: **

Doesn’t ‘brought up’ in the city at the feet of Gamaliel insinuate he was a child?

Again, there is NO conclusive evidence in the Bible of Paul being married.
.

 

[aspirant]

The fact is, Paul had been a Pharisee, and they were required to be married.

Clearly you missed this. This popular notion that marriage was strictly required is a misconception.