LDS and Catholic Differences

  • Thread starter Thread starter wyp8riot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RebeccaJ said:
Yes, St. Francis wrote the Canticle of the Sun.

I know, I once asked a Mormon if they would celebrate the Feast of Christ the King. They were all bent out of shape and told me He wasn’t King yet. And y’all wonder why people don’t think you’re Christian.

Also, your momornism is showing. God=The Holy Trinity, not the Father alone. Most Christians, including St. Paul, have had no problem calling Christ “King”.

But wait, don’t LDS sing “Rejoice the Lord is King”?
Click to expand...
Please note I never said he wasn’t a “king”, I just said we don’t CALL him one.

It would be like Mrs Obama calling her husband “president” over dinner.
 
Marie5890 said:
Holy water is what is used for baptism, it’s also believe to repel evil…
Click to expand...
This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in. It doesn’t need to be “repelled” by things.
 
mfbukowski said:
This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in. It doesn’t need to be “repelled” by things.
Click to expand...
“I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction” (JS—H 1:15).
 
mfbukowski said:
This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in. It doesn’t need to be “repelled” by things.
Click to expand...
“Very foreign”???

Two words

Priesthood garments.

They are seen as a protection against evil. And they are “things”
 
dianaiad said:
When we refer to ‘the Sacrament’ we mean only one; what you would call ‘communion.’ We call ‘Sacrament Meeting’ that because the entire purpose of it is for the partaking of 'The Sacrament," or communion. We call the other things that you refer to as ‘sacraments’ as ‘ordinances.’
Click to expand...
Thank you for your explanation. Can you tell me how you define the term “sacrament”?
Just trying to understand.
dianaiad said:
When As to how we do it, members of the priesthood…priests, actually…will tear slices of bread into small pieces and put those pieces on trays. They will poor water into small paper cups that are in different trays. They will then 'bless and sanctify" the bread and water that the have prepared, using one of the very few memorized prayers we have (come to think of it, those may be the only memorized and scripted prayers we have…) and other members of the priesthood will pass the broken bread and water to the congregation where they sit. Members of the congregation will then either eat the bread and drink the water, or they will quietly pass the trays to the next person without partaking.

This is done almost immediately…at the beginning of the meeting, right after an opening prayer, an opening hymn and any immediate church business (like blessing babies…). After we partake of the Sacrament, we then have members of the congregation, who have been previously assigned/asked to do so, speak. We’ll have two or three ‘youth’ speakers (under 19) and a couple of adult speakers. Somewhere in the middle we will have a ‘rest’ hymn. After the last speaker we will have a closing song and a prayer.

That is how Sacrament meeting goes.
Click to expand...
Dianaiad, I appreciate your response. I’ve never attended a Mormon service so I have no idea what it is about. I think we misunderstand each other when we use the same words, but those words have different meanings for us. That is why I asked for your definition of a “sacrament”. What is being accomplished when your priests “bless and
sanctifify” the bread and water? And just one more, if you don’t mind, why is water used instead of wine?

Thanks and God bless.
 
aspirant said:
I think some kind of formal defection from the Church is possible, though not simple, but your baptism would never be rendered invalid. :hmmm:

😉
Click to expand...
I’d consider the act in itself simple and more than that: It’s trivial.
What’s not simple is the process before doing it…

The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you.

Your sister in Christ,
Janet
 
RebeccaJ said:
“I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction” (JS—H 1:15).
Click to expand...
I don’t recall him warding off evil with holy water. Where is that part?
 
Marie5890 said:
Not applicable; he wasnt part of any denomination that uses it. 😉
Click to expand...
Huh?

I totally agree. That is because he “was part of a denomination” which doesn’t believe in its efficacy. That is the entire point.
 
Let’s see guy ,sits in a cave and an “angel” dictates to him what God wants,Muslim, then we have a guy who finds a “Golden book’” with all instruction how to live your life but when asked the “book” disapeared?

Come on please present rational arguements based on accepted texts.
 
mfbukowski said:
Huh?

I totally agree. That is because he “was part of a denomination” which doesn’t believe in its efficacy. That is the entire point.
Click to expand...
Exactly, he wouldn’t have had it because he didn’t believe in it…Came up with the priesthood garment instead… 😉
 
R.D. Schreirer,

**You wrote: *** Let’s see guy sits in a cave and an “angel” dictates to him what God wants, Muslim, then we have a guy, [Mormon] who finds a “Golden book’” with all instruction how to live your life but when asked the “book” disapeared?

Come on please present rational arguments based on accepted texts. *​

Well, I’m with you, R.D., but one has to admit, looking at the Qur’an carefully, that Muhammad gave Jesus a whole lot more credit for prophetic credibility than he gave himself! That is not the case with vainglorious Joseph Smith Junior, who churned out “revelations” as they made things convenient for him and his claims and various needs (including extra wives), and had the temerity to claim that the Book of Mormon, among this stuff, was more trustworthy than the Holy Bible!

Few Westerners notice that Jesus is the ONLY prophet in the Qur’an to speak from His Own authority! The other Qur’anic prophets (so many of whom also are Biblical figures) speak through angelic intervention, as the angel purportedly spoke to Muhammad himself. However, in the Qur’an, Jesus speaks his revelations directly, not by means of angelic disclosure. (The Holy Qur’an also refers to Jesus as the divine and etnernal Word made flesh, another high honour and one congruent with a Catholic interpretation, but that is another matter.)

I’ll leave it at that. Yeah, go ahead and knock Joseph Smith, who was a mountbank, but, please, whether one regards Muhammad from a Catholic or from a Mormon standpoint, Muhammad stands higher and is in another league altogether from the gringo prophet of the religion of the L.D.S. and R.L.D.S.!

As for me, I’ll take the Bible (all of it, O.T., deuterocanonical writings included, and N.T.), any day, rather than the Holy Qur’an or the Book of Mormon (and other J. Smith Jr. writings).

Pax, Jerry Parker
 
Marie5890 said:
Holy water is what is used for baptism, it’s also believe to repel evil…
Click to expand...
mfbukowski said:
This notion is very foreign to Mormonism.

We believe that evil cannot bother you unless you let it in. It doesn’t need to be “repelled” by things.
Click to expand...
RebeccaJ said:
“I was seized upon by some power which entirely overcame me, and had such an astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me, and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction” (JS—H 1:15).
Click to expand...
mfbukowski said:
I don’t recall him warding off evil with holy water. Where is that part?
Click to expand...
I guess you are saying Smith “let it in”.

I have to agree with you there.
 
That is totally fallacious.
Click to expand...
Why don’t you answer the subject and defend Joseph Smith and Mormonism on their own merits, instead of trying to divert the subject back to Catholicism or the Pope?
Click to expand...
You said evil spirits couldn’t harm Mormons unless they let them in.
Click to expand...
And so the fact that Joseph Smith claimed he was attacked by an evil spirit, by your own reasoning shows that he let the evil spirit in.
Click to expand...
 
Answersplease said:
words about “letting it in”
Click to expand...
Joseph Smith exerted all his power to call upon God to deliver him from that force of evil that had tried to overcome his desire to find out truths from God. He did not “let it in”–he exerted his bodily effort and his mind and his spirit and all his strength. Satan could tell the sincerity of his prayer and the sincerity of his faith, and that there was going to be change in the world if this young lad received an answer from God. He did receive an answer, and it has changed the current world (or at least a small part of the world, and a large part of the spirit world).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top