LDS and Catholic Differences

[mfbukowski]

Yes, I did. Paul counts himself among the unmarried (αγαμος), so the epistles to Timothy were written by an unmarried, celibate bishop.

An unmarried apostle who apparently was married before.

So asserting the same thing again and again makes it so, I guess. It can be interpreted either way. “Unmarried” can mean “was married, but no longer married” and the word used clearly means that in verse 11. My position is that Paul was in fact in that category, you say “no he wasn’t” and I say “Yes he was”, and this could go on for eternity I suppose.

Do you have any evidence for your interpretation- it seems that many other Christians who are not Catholic interpret it all as I have, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.

We can discuss it or you can just keep asserting your position- I don’t want to waste time.

 

[LittleDeb]

Using images or props is definitely non- Mormon. We use pictures to explain things to children or to illustrate various aspects of the gospel, that is very common, but not for anything like “meditation”

Oh wow. That is just flat out not true. I have been on a temple tour and have seen the public photos. The use of the mutually reflecting mirrors in the sealing room is most certainly a “prop.” You are instructed to “ponder” on eternal marriage by the sealer. Ponder and meditate can have very similar meanings.

Please don’t misrepresent your practices just to appear different. I have deep respect for my LDS friends because they acknowledge their beliefs and practices, even when God forbid, they are very close to Catholic beliefs and practices.

 

[mfbukowski]

Please don’t misrepresent your practices just to appear different.

What’s that supposed to mean? Why be so defensive?

If you want to call symbolic representations “props to use in meditation” be my guess. It’s semantics.

So you are saying that Mormons and Catholics are NOT different?

What’s wrong with appearing different? Cheesh! It’s all just words m’dear. I agree. Mormons and Catholic beliefs are quite similar. That seems to be what you are saying.

The last thing I want to do is stand in the way of Christian Unity.

 

[MyzTek]

An unmarried apostle who apparently was married before.

So asserting the same thing again and again makes it so, I guess. It can be interpreted either way. “Unmarried” can mean “was married, but no longer married” and the word used clearly means that in verse 11. My position is that Paul was in fact in that category, you say “no he wasn’t” and I say “Yes he was”, and this could go on for eternity I suppose.

Do you have any evidence for your interpretation- it seems that many other Christians who are not Catholic interpret it all as I have, but of course you are entitled to your opinion.

We can discuss it or you can just keep asserting your position- I don’t want to waste time.

It has been repeatedly pointed out ITT that the only biblical reference to Paul’s marital status clearly states that he is not married. Since you are making the contrary claim that he was married at some time before he made that statement, the responsibility for providing evidence of the claim falls to you.

So far, all that has been offered in evidence of the “Paul was once married” position is another claim, (again without evidence) that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin and thus would have to be married or a widower and natural father. Since the Bible only makes the claim that Paul was commissioned by the Sanhedrin for a particular job, and gives no indication that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin, it again falls to you to document your claim.

Those who, as you say, “keep asserting your position” that Paul was single have already provided documentation: Paul’s own statement that he is unmarried and practicing celibacy, a statement contradicted nowhere in scripture.

Can you provide any evidence for either your claim that Paul was married or that he was Sanhedrin (and thus married or a widower/father)? If you can I’d love to see it. Otherwise it is you who are making unfounded claims, not those on the other side of the question.

 

[dianaiad]

The biggest difference between the Catholic faith and the Mormon faith is that 99.9% of the key events in the Catholic past were witnessed by many, including those of other faiths, while the key events of the Mormon faith were witnessed by one or two people only in 99.9% of their events…

The initial event in the forming of the Mormon faith was to two people, both of which wished to live life in a certain way and they created that way through their visions and such. There were no other witnesses to any of the visions/etc. Just these two. They then formed their faith base and grew from there. Other events, such as the one dealing with “blacks” in clergy, again came from one person’s “vision”, and was not share by more than that one person.

This is why I have a problem with the Mormon faith system… (And I have been studying faith systems for over 30 years now…)

Interesting idea. However…and please do not get me wrong about this because I do believe that the events mentioned in the NT actually did happen… in reality the events that began Christianity are witnessed and talked about by far fewer people than the witnesses of, say, the Book of Mormon plates.

What witnesses OUTSIDE the authors of the NT talk about Jesus Christ at all, much less of the miracles and His death and resurrection? That is, people who actually witnessed these things and wrote about them first hand?

Nobody, actually.

Now, about those who did; we have Mathew, who witnessed these things personally (and who may or may not have written the book of Mathew…he actually never claimed it, y’know.) Mark…who Eusebius claimed wrote HIS gospel as “Peter’s interpreter,” John, and Luke, who was one of Paul’s travel companions, evidently, and was not one of the original 12 apostles…and who may or may not have witnessed the events of Jesus’ life personally. Then there is Paul–who very much did NOT witness the life of Jesus, but who recieved all his information by direct revelation from Jesus after the resurrection and from the teachings of those who did witness it.(I think that counts.The revelation part, anyway) Peter, of course…and John the author of Revelation. That’s it…of these, only five, (perhaps 6) men personally witnessed the events spoken of in the NT.

…and they didn’t all witness all of those events. Yet, on the strength of these few witnesses and their words, billions of people believe.

Now Mormons also have witnesses…men to whom Jesus appeared, three, and then eight, who saw and handled the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

In actuality, then, there are more witnesses to the events of Mormonism than there are to the events of early Christianity. Now whether you accept the word of those witnesses or not is an entirely different matter, but if you are only going to talk about NUMBERS…

The thing is, m’friend, that it doesn’t matter whether there were six, three, eight or many thousands of witnesses to any religious event. What matters is what the Holy Ghost witnesses to YOU.

Now, as to the beginning of the CoJCoLDS, we have, of course, the visions of JS, which is one. We have the three witnesses

 

[MyzTek]

Some other differences between Catholicism and Mormonism that I find interesting include:

Catholic: In Baptism, pouring of the water over the candidate is sufficient, and in times of necessity this can be done anywhere, by any believer.
Mormon: In Baptism, only immersion is sufficient, and (as I understand it) only in a Mormon Temple (please correct me if I am mistaken here).

Catholic: The trinity of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and of one substance; they are a single entity, one God in three persons.
Mormon: The Godhead is made up of three distinct entities united in purpose but not substance.

Catholic: Founded by Jesus Christ, who ordained the apostles, who ordained others, who passed the ordination down to our present day in an unbroken line.
Mormon: Founded by Joseph Smith, who was ordained by a spirit in the woods claiming to be one of Christ’s apostles, which ordination was passed down since then by his followers to today.

 

[dmbell]

Interesting idea. However…and please do not get me wrong about this because I do believe that the events mentioned in the NT actually did happen… in reality the events that began Christianity are witnessed and talked about by far fewer people than the witnesses of, say, the Book of Mormon plates.

What witnesses OUTSIDE the authors of the NT talk about Jesus Christ at all, much less of the miracles and His death and resurrection? That is, people who actually witnessed these things and wrote about them first hand?

Nobody, actually.

Now, about those who did; we have Mathew, who witnessed these things personally (and who may or may not have written the book of Mathew…he actually never claimed it, y’know.) Mark…who Eusebius claimed wrote HIS gospel as “Peter’s interpreter,” John, and Luke, who was one of Paul’s travel companions, evidently, and was not one of the original 12 apostles…and who may or may not have witnessed the events of Jesus’ life personally. Then there is Paul–who very much did NOT witness the life of Jesus, but who recieved all his information by direct revelation from Jesus after the resurrection and from the teachings of those who did witness it.(I think that counts.The revelation part, anyway) Peter, of course…and John the author of Revelation. That’s it…of these, only five, (perhaps 6) men personally witnessed the events spoken of in the NT.

…and they didn’t all witness all of those events. Yet, on the strength of these few witnesses and their words, billions of people believe.

Now Mormons also have witnesses…men to whom Jesus appeared, three, and then eight, who saw and handled the plates from which the Book of Mormon was translated.

In actuality, then, there are more witnesses to the events of Mormonism than there are to the events of early Christianity. Now whether you accept the word of those witnesses or not is an entirely different matter, but if you are only going to talk about NUMBERS…

The thing is, m’friend, that it doesn’t matter whether there were six, three, eight or many thousands of witnesses to any religious event. What matters is what the Holy Ghost witnesses to YOU.

Now, as to the beginning of the CoJCoLDS, we have, of course, the visions of JS, which is one. We have the three witnesses

As to Paul, there are written accounts by those around him that he walked a ways blind, with help, etc. Again there were outside, skeptical, witness that wrote of the events.

There are writings from several Jewish people that were not part of the Christian followers that have written on what they saw Jesus and his followers do, at the time of Jesus’ being around.

There are writings from several Roman people that talk of the events of Jesus and his followers of his time, during his time.

All of the events that make up the events that make up the beginning of the Mormon faith were limited to eight people, in “private conversations”, or less. Many of these people were friends and or related, or had similar desires from the beginning. (As is documented in many books and by many people.

I am not looking for numbers, but I am looking for witnesses that have seen the transformations or events to help give the event credit, I don’t see that with the formation of the Mormon faith. I see a hand full of people saying things to build a group that made them money (in one form or another), that is all I see (of the beginning of the faith).

 

[dianaiad]

And yet we both reject the idea of scripture alone. We agree that Christ’s Church has as part of its structure a visible head (Pope or Prophet). The issue ultimately is which of these is true. As you state, there are people of good conscience on both sides.

And it is obvious that Catholics reject the notion of a “Great Apostasy” followed by a “Restoration.” History also belies the Mormon claim, although I’ve seen some colorful arguments in support of the Mormon position.

The distinction is much larger. It’s not that the Catholic clergy are merely “professional preachers.” They are a sacrificing priesthood. The LDS has no equivalent. You have the two priesthood autorities, but no sactifice is offered by your priesthood. Also, it does not seem to be the case that the LDS Church makes an effort to train theologians. Are there LDS seminaries? If so, why?

Actually, I have to chime in here big time. What makes you think that we do not have a 'sacrificing priesthood?" What do you mean by 'sacrifice." in this context? I’m not about to downplay the dedication of Catholic priests, who devote their lives to their calling, but what makes you think that Mormons do NOT? In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of Mormonism out there is that Mormonism is a ‘way of life,’ not simply a church we go to. It’s not that we have a specific ‘sacrificing priesthood.’ It is that we ALL live Mormonism ALL the time.

Oh, and yes, we do have seminaries. Four years of Seminary, (yes, that is what it is called) that every high school student is expected to attend from the time we are freshmen to the time we graduate. Those of us who do not live in Utah (and that is the vast majority of us, by the way) are expected to go to seminary classes early in the morning, before school. 5:30 AM is typical. Then, when we go to college, we are all expected to take religious classes there, as well, in an “Institute of Religion” (we call it ‘Institute’) so that by the time we graduate from college, we have taken more formal classes in religion than most people with BA’s in theology. The difference is that ALL of us are expected to do this, men and women alike.

Not really a Catholic issue.

Don’t really see this as an issue either. The only thing that laypersons cannot engage in are the sacraments and the mass. Since your church has neither of these, it seems that LDS and Catholics are in pretty much the same boat.

We don’t have the Mass…but we DO have church meetings, and we have the Temple ceremonies which are every inch as loaded with ceremony/symbolism as the most involved of high Masses. As to the "Sacraments…’ Simply because you do not believe that our baptisms and communion (that we call "Sacrament’) are invalid doesn’t mean that we don’t actually HAVE them. After all, we don’t believe that Catholic baptisms and communion are valid, either, but we are at least willing to accept that you do actually DO them, and believe in them yourselves. So…with the permission of the local Bishop, Mormon (LDS) men may ALL administer communion, baptise and confirm their own children, and do everything else a clergyman can do–because each and every one of them IS a full fledged clergyman.

cont. on next post

 

[dianaiad]

cont. from previous post

I wouldn’t call that a positive, but I agree that the LDS Church does wonderful charitable works with the system that they do have.

First, unbaptised babies were never “condemned.” The issue that led to the question of “limbo” arises on the apparent controversy that arises from clear scriptural reference to Baptism being necessary for salvation. The LDS doctrine comes with some fundamental problems.

How so? this is a clear "either/or’ situation. As you claim, the scriptures say that baptism is necessary for salvation, especially if the concept of original sin remains. The entire point of something being necessary is that if you don’t HAVE that ‘something,’ you don’t get whatever it is that it is necessary to have. Ergo, if you have to be baptised to be saved, then if you are not baptised, you are not saved. The opposite of ‘saved’ is ‘condemned’ in religious terms.

Since we believe that the death and resurrection of Jesus the Christ took CARE of that original sin (else why go to all that trouble?) then the only sins that need to be remitted are our own personal ones. In order for a sin to BE a sin, the sinner must be aware of the nature of the sin, aware that it is a sin, be able to control his actions…and do it anyway. (This, by the way, is a definition of ‘sin’ that Catholics and Mormons actually agree on. ) Since infants and tiny children (and some adults, for that matter) aren’t capable of DOING this, then why do they require baptism? They are utterly innocent and free of sin. That is our position on this, and the only problems that come with it are those brought by those who plug their own beliefs and requirements into our behavior.

If ‘original sin’ still applies, then you are correct. If it does not, then we are…and that is the true difference between our beliefs in this area, I think.

An interesting form of semi-pelagianism? Do you believe that one is saved or damned based solely upon their own conduct. Do you believe a man can avoid sin without God’s grace, or do you believe that baptism is always necessary. And if it is always necessary, then why put it off until one is older? Why not confer that grace as soon as possible, so that one can start avoiding sin earlier?

Actually, I’d call it full on Pelagianism, not ‘semi-Pelagianism’ if you are going to assign a name to it. The man was, after all, right. Semi-Pelagianism posits that humanity as a whole is ‘tainted by sin’ as if it were an outside poison. While we believe that the ‘natural man’ is indeed an ‘enemy to God,’ it’s not some outside source that is the problem. It is simply that we all tend to want to do that which is physically pleasant and physically rewarding rather than spiritually so, simply because the physical is so much THERE. It is immediate, and it DOES feel good, at least in the short run. However, just as we are all capable of choosing longer ranged rewards at the expense of short range ones (eventually…don’t expect a toddler to figure that out…) so can we CHOOSE to ask God to give us the strength…grace…to help us grow spiritually.

We can’t do it without Him, but it is always and only OUR choice whether to accept His grace. We can’t do that unless and until we know what it is we are doing. We don’t NEED it before that, do we?

Yet, you clearly believe that your religion is the “true” religion that has been restored, and the rest of christianity arises from an apostate church. If you really believed that, you would be going door to door trying to get people out of that apostate state… Oh, wait, you do that. So, where’s the live and let live vibe?

I understand that it is sometimes difficult, especially for the anti types out there who can’t see it, but there is a HUGE difference between teaching what WE believe to be true, and insulting and attacking what you believe to be true.

That’s very Catholic of you. Did you know that?

We would rather say…that’s very Mormon of you.

The thing is, truth is true no matter where you find it. Catholics aren’t all wrong…and neither are we.

Peace to you…

 

[MyzTek]

Don’t really see this as an issue either. The only thing that laypersons cannot engage in are the sacraments and the mass. Since your church has neither of these, it seems that LDS and Catholics are in pretty much the same boat.

Actually, if I understand the lessons we were taught in RCIA, in the Catholic Church laypersons can and do engage in the sacraments, at least some of them. Any Catholic can administer the sacrament of baptism to a person in an emergency situation where no priest is available. All Catholics present participate in the sacrament of the eucharist, though a priest officiates (I never thought about it 'till now, but can a priest still consecrate the bread and wine if he is the only one present?). The congregation is expected to actively participate in the Mass. There may be parallels in some of the other five sacraments, but I am less sure where marriage, holy orders, confirmation, holy orders, and last rites are concerned.

peace,
MyzTek

 

[dianaiad]

I personally have no problem with crosses, but it is now not the “Mormon way”. Perhaps it will change, I would have no problem with it.

Nor do I…symbols and the reactions to them change over time, and they symbolize what the users of them say they do.

When I was small, in a mostly Idaho and Utah culture, the pervading view of the cross was revulsion…because to THESE people, it symbolized a horrific event; the death of Jesus. To them, it really DOES represent the celebration of the torture device that killed Christ. While mentions of the cross are in the hymns we use, and we also use that symbol in speeches, it is ALWAYS emphasized as the horrific burden and very nasty way to die that it is. There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, good about the cross as a method of execution, and that is how we view it; as the method of Christ’s execution.

That we do not wear it, then, isn’t evidence that we are not Christians, or that we don’t believe in Him, or are somehow afraid of it (or Truth…) it is, rather, evidence that we respect the cross TOO much. Every time we see one, it’s purpose is emblazoned in our minds the way it cannot be to Christians who wear instruments of torture as jewelry. Our position is that Christ overcame that cross, was resurrected, and stands with God the Father AS God the Son…He DEFEATED the cross. Why on earth does everybody go around wearing the symbol of the Romans who killed Him?

THAT is what we see when we see that symbol.

That’s what it represents to us. Another poster here said this in a far shorter sentence than I just did…and he does represent the very strong feelings most of us have. Of course it doesn’t help much when other people, who are afraid of US (like my sister’s mother in law) pointedly wear the largest example of it she can every time she gets close to my sister, and who insists (when she and her husband visit them for three months every summer) upon hanging them all over their bedroom, giving them to her grandchildren, and even pouring holy water all over the living room.

However, I’m a lot older than I was, and have come to understand the uses of symbols a lot better. The vast majority of Christians do not see what we do. They see it as a symbol of Christ, of what He overcame. It is a simple symbol that represents everything positive about Him. Just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean that I don’t understand that other Christians do–and when a friend gave me a cross (before she understood how we thought of it) I honored both her and the gift, because to HER that cross meant everything positive. Because it meant that to her, it means that to me, as well.

Symbols mean what we say they mean, those of us who use them…or who do not, as the case may be.

 

[dianaiad]

Since we are talking about differences between Catholics and LDS, I thought I’d mention yet another, the Melchisedek priesthood. Catholics believe that as Hebrews chapter 7 indicates, he is “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God’ abideth a priest continually” refers only to Jesus our high priest. The LDS think that any 18-19 year old LDS male holds the Melchisedek priesthood (and I believe they think it can be taken away for bad behavior.)

Actually, we believe that the Melchisedek priesthood IS the Priesthood of Jesus Christ… As well, the LDS think that a 19 year old man MAY hold the Melchisedek priesthood, and it can only be removed upon excommunication from the church.

 

[MyzTek]

How so? this is a clear "either/or’ situation. As you claim, the scriptures say that baptism is necessary for salvation, especially if the concept of original sin remains. The entire point of something being necessary is that if you don’t HAVE that ‘something,’ you don’t get whatever it is that it is necessary to have. Ergo, if you have to be baptised to be saved, then if you are not baptised, you are not saved. The opposite of ‘saved’ is ‘condemned’ in religious terms.

Though it doesn’t specifically mention baptism, I think this post in the Ask an Apologist section addresses your point: Is my grandfather in hell?

ostrich_four:

My grandfather died recently at the age of 93. He was fully aware of the existence of the Catholic Church but was an atheist from his youth. Does that mean he must be in hell?

Michelle Arnold:

No. Knowledge of the existence of an institution does not mean that a person has received the grace to understand its truth or a personal obligation to join it. Rather than worry that your grandfather is in hell, I encourage you to pray for the repose of his soul and arrange for Masses to be said for him.

Recommended reading:

Can atheists be saved?

 

[MyzTek]

Nor do I…symbols and the reactions to them change over time, and they symbolize what the users of them say they do.

When I was small, in a mostly Idaho and Utah culture, the pervading view of the cross was revulsion…because to THESE people, it symbolized a horrific event; the death of Jesus. To them, it really DOES represent the celebration of the torture device that killed Christ. While mentions of the cross are in the hymns we use, and we also use that symbol in speeches, it is ALWAYS emphasized as the horrific burden and very nasty way to die that it is. There is nothing, and I do mean NOTHING, good about the cross as a method of execution, and that is how we view it; as the method of Christ’s execution.

That we do not wear it, then, isn’t evidence that we are not Christians, or that we don’t believe in Him, or are somehow afraid of it (or Truth…) it is, rather, evidence that we respect the cross TOO much. Every time we see one, it’s purpose is emblazoned in our minds the way it cannot be to Christians who wear instruments of torture as jewelry. Our position is that Christ overcame that cross, was resurrected, and stands with God the Father AS God the Son…He DEFEATED the cross. Why on earth does everybody go around wearing the symbol of the Romans who killed Him?

THAT is what we see when we see that symbol.

That’s what it represents to us. Another poster here said this in a far shorter sentence than I just did…and he does represent the very strong feelings most of us have. Of course it doesn’t help much when other people, who are afraid of US (like my sister’s mother in law) pointedly wear the largest example of it she can every time she gets close to my sister, and who insists (when she and her husband visit them for three months every summer) upon hanging them all over their bedroom, giving them to her grandchildren, and even pouring holy water all over the living room.

However, I’m a lot older than I was, and have come to understand the uses of symbols a lot better. The vast majority of Christians do not see what we do. They see it as a symbol of Christ, of what He overcame. It is a simple symbol that represents everything positive about Him. Just because I don’t see it doesn’t mean that I don’t understand that other Christians do–and when a friend gave me a cross (before she understood how we thought of it) I honored both her and the gift, because to HER that cross meant everything positive. Because it meant that to her, it means that to me, as well.

Symbols mean what we say they mean, those of us who use them…or who do not, as the case may be.

Thank you for this post! This is a very clear explanation of your view and helps me understand it much better. Also your handling of the situation with the gifted cross from your friend shows a very Christian handling of what could have been an uncomfortable situation for both of you had your disposition been even slightly different.

peace,
MyzTek

 

[dianaiad]

The stations of the cross are not usually done in pageant form, but I still don’t think most Mormons would have a problem with this sort of devotional practice (apart from the doctrinal differences expressed).

We absolutely do not have any problem with this. Anyone who has ever been through the Temple is very aware of our appreciation of the use of ritual and symbology.

Basically, the stations of the cross devotion is done by meditating on Jesus carrying the cross from his condemnation to death through his crucifixion and burial (and sometimes through his resurrection). Some of the scenes along this journey come from scripture (e.g. St. Simon of Cyrene assisting in carrying the cross) and some from other traditional sources (e.g. the woman now known as St. Veronica wiping Jesus’ face with her veil). Sometimes people use images (ranging from small printed pictures in booklets to lifesize sculptures) to assist in this meditation, other times it’s done just by stopping to imagine and meditate on the next scene. It can be done with live actors as in a pageant-- I did promotional art for one once-- but this is less common. Some people carry big wooden crosses while doing it, as a kind of personal “reenactment” to assist in meditation, but this is also less common.

I can imagine that this particular devotion wouldn’t necessarily appeal to Mormons, who (if I understand it correctly) have a different theology of atonement. But I don’t think Mormons would oppose the idea of meditating on scenes from Jesus’ ministry (or some other portion of salvation history), nor using images or other props to assist any devotional participants in the meditation.

This is also my understanding.

We don’t…though we have a very different view of when it is appropriate. Our pageantry tends to be internal and private. Our Temples are restricted (we do not perform for outsiders; they are OURS, for our own meditation/worship/learning) and even though we do not wear crosses or carry rosaries (or use many outward symbols of our faith) we DO continually wear garments that remind us of it. They aren’t supposed to be reminding others of who we are, they are supposed to remind US of who we are. On the other hand, we do have CTR rings (a fad that seems to be fairly long lasting…) and minor stuff like that.

But our Temples are chock a block with JUST such ‘props.’ We humans need them; it’s how our minds work.

On the other hand, we are as likely to put on pageants about our history as not; some of them are pretty good.

 

[dianaiad]

I have never heard of anything like this even remotely in 30 years of being LDS. We just don’t do anything like this, using “images or props to assist any devotional participants in the meditation.” I know what it means, having been Catholic, but in fact we typically don’t “meditate”. We “ponder” which is a spiritual prayerful thinking about some aspect of the gospel, and we pray which we see as a two way conversation with God. I think the attitude is different than “meditation”.

Using images or props is definitely non- Mormon. We use pictures to explain things to children or to illustrate various aspects of the gospel, that is very common, but not for anything like “meditation”

I think we need to define what ‘props’ are. After all, from the instant we walk through the Temple doors we are inundated with just such ‘props…’ and symbols. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the difference isn’t whether we use them or don’t use them…we do. However, ours are simpler, and far more private. No crosses on the walls, but we wear garments. What are THEY, if not exactly the sort of ‘prop’ being mentioned here? We don’t use rosaries because we don’t use memorized prayers…but we do meditate, don’t we? Aren’t we supposed to think about the scriptures and ‘ponder?’ Isn’t a specific scripture to ponder a ‘prop’ of this sort?

What they are is…reminders.

 

[MyzTek]

We absolutely do not have any problem with this. Anyone who has ever been through the Temple is very aware of our appreciation of the use of ritual and symbology.

We don’t…though we have a very different view of when it is appropriate. Our pageantry tends to be internal and private. Our Temples are restricted (we do not perform for outsiders; they are OURS, for our own meditation/worship/learning) and even though we do not wear crosses or carry rosaries (or use many outward symbols of our faith) we DO continually wear garments that remind us of it. They aren’t supposed to be reminding others of who we are, they are supposed to remind US of who we are. On the other hand, we do have CTR rings (a fad that seems to be fairly long lasting…) and minor stuff like that.

But our Temples are chock a block with JUST such ‘props.’ We humans need them; it’s how our minds work.

On the other hand, we are as likely to put on pageants about our history as not; some of them are pretty good.

Could you explain what a “CTR ring” is please? I am totally unfamiliar with those.

peace,
MyzTek).

 

[dianaiad]

Some other differences between Catholicism and Mormonism that I find interesting include:

Catholic: In Baptism, pouring of the water over the candidate is sufficient, and in times of necessity this can be done anywhere, by any believer.
Mormon: In Baptism, only immersion is sufficient, and (as I understand it) only in a Mormon Temple (please correct me if I am mistaken here).

You are mistaken here. Any body of water large enough to permit submersion, no matter where it is, is sufficient. I attended a baptism at a local creek (mill pond, actually…and this reminds me of one of my favorite J.Golden stories…) at a community swimming pool…and mostly at the local meeting houses. All ‘stake centers’ have baptismal fonts, and quite a few ward chapels do. The thing that matters isn’t the place, but the authority. We do believe that one has to have that authority in order to perform this ordinance, yes.

Catholic: The trinity of The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are co-eternal and of one substance; they are a single entity, one God in three persons.
Mormon: The Godhead is made up of three distinct entities united in purpose but not substance.

Catholic: Founded by Jesus Christ, who ordained the apostles, who ordained others, who passed the ordination down to our present day in an unbroken line.
Mormon: Founded by Joseph Smith, who was ordained by a spirit in the woods claiming to be one of Christ’s apostles, which ordination was passed down since then by his followers to today.

(grin) It always amuses me how language can be used so dismisively…one simply cannot be objective about religion.

 

[dianaiad]

As to Paul, there are written accounts by those around him that he walked a ways blind, with help, etc. Again there were outside, skeptical, witness that wrote of the events.

Really? Where are they? However, those accounts would not be witnesses of CHRIST, would they? They would be witnesses of how Paul reacted, not of what Paul, personally, experienced. Only Paul is a witness of the revelation itself.

There are writings from several Jewish people that were not part of the Christian followers that have written on what they saw Jesus and his followers do, at the time of Jesus’ being around.

Actually, there are writings from one Jew, who reported rumors. He was not a witness himself.

There are writings from several Roman people that talk of the events of Jesus and his followers of his time, during his time.

Would you mind providing those references?

All of the events that make up the events that make up the beginning of the Mormon faith were limited to eight people, in “private conversations”, or less. Many of these people were friends and or related, or had similar desires from the beginning. (As is documented in many books and by many people.

Actually, there were thousands of witnesses and participants whose writings we have right now, readily available. Their thoughts and impressions, both of spiritual and physical events, are certainly available.

I am not looking for numbers, but I am looking for witnesses that have seen the transformations or events to help give the event credit, I don’t see that with the formation of the Mormon faith. I see a hand full of people saying things to build a group that made them money (in one form or another), that is all I see (of the beginning of the faith).

The problem with your claim is…that you haven’t looked. As well, since Joseph Smith died broke (and he was murdered to boot) and never WAS rich, the bit about ‘making money’ is considerably off base.

 

[MyzTek]

You are mistaken here. Any body of water large enough to permit submersion, no matter where it is, is sufficient. I attended a baptism at a local creek (mill pond, actually…and this reminds me of one of my favorite J.Golden stories…) at a community swimming pool…and mostly at the local meeting houses. All ‘stake centers’ have baptismal fonts, and quite a few ward chapels do. The thing that matters isn’t the place, but the authority. We do believe that one has to have that authority in order to perform this ordinance, yes.

Thanks for this correction, clearly I misunderstood

(grin) It always amuses me how language can be used so dismisively…one simply cannot be objective about religion.

Sorry if I came of as dismissive, that was not my intent.

peace,
MyzTek