LDS and Catholic Differences

[Jay53]

Prodigal Son1,
I had made the assumption that you have read LDS beliefs enough to understand that the LDS teachings are that there are “three heavens”, and that each is a kingdom of glory in the resurrection. In my discussion with Zach, I understood by his use of the term “heaven” that he was meaning “the Celestial glory” which is the glory that applies for those who receive celestial marriage and live worthy of their covenants. The Sadducees, the subject of the discussion about marriage we are talking about, did not believe in Christ, were “the children of this world”, and will receive a glory in a heaven but that glory will be like the angels.

So the angels are not in the same Heaven as God?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1,
I had made the assumption that you have read LDS beliefs enough to understand that the LDS teachings are that there are “three heavens”, and that each is a kingdom of glory in the resurrection. In my discussion with Zach, I understood by his use of the term “heaven” that he was meaning “the Celestial glory” which is the glory that applies for those who receive celestial marriage and live worthy of their covenants. The Sadducees, the subject of the discussion about marriage we are talking about, did not believe in Christ, were “the children of this world”, and will receive a glory in a heaven but that glory will be like the angels.

Sorry, but that’s too many dance steps for me to keep up with.

In direct response to the question Christ said, ‘…they that shall be accounted worthy of that world and the resurrection of the dead shall neither be married or take wives.’ Those accounted worthy of that world and the resurrection of the dead are in heaven, are one people. He is using and the resurrection of the dead to let you know He is speaking about heaven in ‘that world’.

‘Neither can they die any more for they are equal to the angels and are the child of God, BEING children of the resurrection.’

Luk 20:35 But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world and of the resurrection from the dead shall neither be married nor take wives.
Luk 20:36 Neither can they die any more for they are equal to the angels and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So the angels are not in the same Heaven as God?

**Mat 18:10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. **

**Rev 3:5 He that shall overcome shall thus be clothed in white garments: and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life. And I will confess his name before my Father and before his angels. **

 

[Jay53]

**Mat 18:10 See that you despise not one of these little ones: for I say to you, that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father who is in heaven. **

Thank you for the quote. (Although that quote will probably be spun to also mean that God has a human face like you and me. ) I truly do not “get” Mormon theology. I understand that they believe in 3 different heavens based on a verse in the Bible where Paul said something about the “third heaven”, but I just don’t understand their interpretations that extrapolate off of that. How can the angels not be in the same heaven as God and all of us when we die? Parker has made it sound like the angels have been relegated to a “lesser” heaven than the Mormons will be in as “exalted men”, but how can that possibly be? I just don’t get it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thank you for the quote. (Although that quote will probably be spun to also mean that God has a human face like you and me. ) I truly do not “get” Mormon theology. I understand that they believe in 3 different heavens based on a verse in the Bible where Paul said something about the “third heaven”, but I just don’t understand their interpretations that extrapolate off of that. How can the angels not be in the same heaven as God and all of us when we die? Parker has made it sound like the angels have been relegated to a “lesser” heaven than the Mormons will be in as “exalted men”, but how can that possibly be? I just don’t get it.

I think you hang a right at Kolob…

 

[Jay53]

I think you hang a right at Kolob…

And I’m sure I don’t get it because one “such as me” is not sincere enough or I don’t have an open mind or I am just content in my own beliefs so that I will be relegated to whatever station I am desiring while in this world, but others who are not as me will be given more and richer blessings that they desired. I think somehow I’m supposed to feel envy and somehow desire this greater state which can only be achieved through Mormonism. (But, of course, isn’t envy one of the seven deadly sins? )

 

[paul_c]

Paul C,
I also have thought it would be important to make clear that your choice to disregard both American jurisprudence and Christ’s teachings by setting yourself up as judge and jury of a dead person who is not here to either defend himself or be tried fairly in a court of law, is reason enough to continue exercising the option of having your posts not show up on my screen unless I’m curious enough to select the option of viewing the post.

You are making a judgement of Joseph Smith as much as I am. You choose to believe him, I do not. I have told you why I choose not to believe him. Have you told us why you feel his story is credible? Isn’t that the critical question for All that consider the LDS? The entire religion is based on its founder’s credibility, just like all religions. Catholicism is based solely on the credibility of Jesus Christ and his Apostles. You can not say that because Joseph Smith totally redefined Christianity, setting himself up as the Prophet of God. You absolutely need to believe he his credible to be a Mormon.

 

[paul_c]

Actually, Paul was a widower…

That is extremely doubtful and certainly can not be proven.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Thank you for the quote. (Although that quote will probably be spun to also mean that God has a human face like you and me. ) I truly do not “get” Mormon theology. I understand that they believe in 3 different heavens based on a verse in the Bible where Paul said something about the “third heaven”, but I just don’t understand their interpretations that extrapolate off of that. How can the angels not be in the same heaven as God and all of us when we die? Parker has made it sound like the angels have been relegated to a “lesser” heaven than the Mormons will be in as “exalted men”, but how can that possibly be? I just don’t get it.

Mormons believe angels are human. They are in a state somewhere before exaltation, with a belief that some of these “angels” will eventually be exalted. Those that are not exalted will serve the ones who have been exalted. ParkerD eludes to this (or kind of explains it) when he said that those who are not married, but have been faithful LDS, will be angels. Not AS angels, but literally, angels.

The Christian understanding that angels are a separate, and an earlier Creation, is completely foreign to, and often ridiculed, by LDS.

 

[Jay53]

Mormons believe angels are human. They are in a state somewhere before exaltation, with a belief that some of these “angels” will eventually be exalted. Those that are not exalted will serve the ones who have been exalted. ParkerD eludes to this (or kind of explains it) when he said that those who are not married, but have been faithful LDS, will be angels. Not AS angels, but literally, angels.

The Christian understanding that angels are a separate, and an earlier Creation, is completely foreign to, and often ridiculed, by LDS.

Thank you for the explanation. Is there a scriptural basis for this belief or is this just speculation on their part?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is extremely doubtful and certainly can not be proven.

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

 

[dianaiad]

Those who do it for a living, make enough to live, it is their only income. They do not build up great retirements and they spend all their time to their ministry.

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.

Hmmm, twist and turn, twist and turn.

Priests are priests ALL the time. They have no other income and have dedicated their lives to serving Christ. Once they become priests, all their time is taken up through their ministries.

OK…and? How is that our fault?

.It’s not like you describe Mormon clergy, who once their time is taken up by the Church.

…was there a point to that thought?

.Catholic organists, choirs, lectors, Eucharistic ministers, altar servers, etc. etc. are not paid.

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)

$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.

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.

 

[paul_c]

Zach,
If you will first pray sincerely about what you are about to read, then read 1 John 2:13-14. John is talking to fathers and to young men and little children, with an affectionate and truthful message to them. He singles them out in his writing. It is completely illogical to think that this prophet and apostle, John, would single out fathers and teach them unless he were a father who could teach by experience. That is how truthfulness works. He taught what he knew from personal experience.

The same is true for the Apostle Paul as regards that bishops should be the “husband of one wife.” How credible would it have been for him to have taught that to any man if he himself had never married? There would be no credibility in his teaching about the importance of being married, had he not come from a position of having been married.

(But it does seem from 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul had had a tough ordeal in his marriage.)

This is extremely poor and self serving logic. Since when does someone have to be a father to teach fathers? And why does Paul have to have been married when he says that bishop shouldn’t be married more than once. In fact, it is clear from his writings that he is not married.

And funny how you should quote 1 corinthians 7: does this sound like a man that is demanding marriage:

32 I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
33 But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife,
34 and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

 

[dianaiad]

What?

How can you tell someone that there question is irrelevant?

You are like a bully on the playground.

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

 

[paul_c]

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.

Yes, the LDS seems to believe that core truths change while most other religions believe that truth is eternal.

 

[dianaiad]

Well then your statement of, ‘Actually Paul was a widower’ was overstated. Now, you speculate he was married, because he had a mother and father and probably took baths?

Now, show the scriptures that state Paul was a Sanhedrin, or is this another overstated statement?

Oh, come ON.

Stephen was stoned at the direct orders of the Sanhedrin. Paul was there as an official witness…and one had to be a member of the Sanhedrin in order to fulfill that. Paul was 'consenting to the act…" He voted with the Sanhedrin against the Christians (Acts 26:10) Since only members of the Sanhedrin COULD 'vote with the Sandedrin…" that tells you something right there. As well, in Acts 9: 1-2, Paul went before the high priest to get letters authorizing his official status as someone who could bring Christians to trial and punishment.

In sum, Paul acted as a member of the Sanhedrin, officially authorized to do the things only members of the Sanhedrin COULD do. Ergo, he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Mormons are by no means the only Christians who understand and claim this, y’know.

As for my comment about baths…it is exactly this sort of thing that makes me nuts. The men who wrote the books of the Bible had lives and work that were not mentioned in the Bible; that is, they were none of them hung up in a closet between biblically mentioned incidents. For instance, Paul’s death is never mentioned…yet Eusebius (and Tradition) claim that he was beheaded about three miles from Rome on Feb. 22, AD 64 or thereabouts. Are you going to tell me that, because his death isn’t mentioned in the bible, that Paul is bebopping around the planet right now?

I have no idea whether Paul was beheaded there and then. I am quite certain, however, that being mortal like the rest of us, he died at some time and in some manner…which is not mentioned in the bible. What IS mentioned in the bible are the times when he behaved as only a member of the Sanhedrin could legally behave. It’s not exactly rocket science to figure that if he was a Pharisee (and the bible does explicitly say that…) and he not only acted as a member of the Sanhedrin, but had letters of authority from the high priest to so act, and if he was not criticized for acting this way (when doing so without authority would be bad…) then he was a member of the Sanhedrin.

…until, that is, he quit.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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?

It’s not a fault, but was an insinuation brought up as less than righeous by Mormons.

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)

$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.

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!

I don’t get your point? Many people, visitors to our area, like getting married in our Church. Coordinations have to be made and people have to give professional services rendered. So what if they charge.

At least you’re making a distinction between regular services and ‘special services’, which you did not make in your original post about choirs, organists, etc. Must have had another purpose for not making the distinction earlier.

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.

Again, returning to the insinuation that Mormon clergy are more ‘righteous’…must be a pride thing.

By the way, you keep making assertions about Paul’s martial status, to which I have requested proof. Are you going to provide that proof, or leave the assertion hanging simply because you said it was so?

 

[dianaiad]

Oh, and your speculation that Paul was married or a Sanhedrin is not just your interpretation…which is only being stated, as fact initially, that helps your Church?

Actually not. Come to think of it, the idea that Paul was a widower is a position that is taken by a great number of Christian authorities. I don’t quite see how it ‘helps my church’ one way or the other.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Zach,
If you will first pray sincerely about what you are about to read, then read 1 John 2:13-14. John is talking to fathers and to young men and little children, with an affectionate and truthful message to them. He singles them out in his writing. It is completely illogical to think that this prophet and apostle, John, would single out fathers and teach them unless he were a father who could teach by experience. That is how truthfulness works. He taught what he knew from personal experience.

The same is true for the Apostle Paul as regards that bishops should be the “husband of one wife.” How credible would it have been for him to have taught that to any man if he himself had never married? There would be no credibility in his teaching about the importance of being married, had he not come from a position of having been married.

(But it does seem from 1 Corinthians 7 that Paul had had a tough ordeal in his marriage.)

Well with this logic then any apostles words to women would lack any credibility since since they aren’t women.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Oh, come ON.

Stephen was stoned at the direct orders of the Sanhedrin. Paul was there as an official witness…and one had to be a member of the Sanhedrin in order to fulfill that. Paul was 'consenting to the act…" He voted with the Sanhedrin against the Christians (Acts 26:10) Since only members of the Sanhedrin COULD 'vote with the Sandedrin…" that tells you something right there. As well, in Acts 9: 1-2, Paul went before the high priest to get letters authorizing his official status as someone who could bring Christians to trial and punishment.

Show where he voted please? All I see is he received the authority of his actions from the chief priests. Remember the chief priests turned Christ over to the Romans. Were Romans Sanhedrin too? Seems to me you’re adding something to the scriptures that’s simply not there.

**Act 26:10 Which also I did at Jerusalem: and many of the saints did I shut up in prison, having received authority of the chief priests. And when they were put to death, I brought the sentence. **

And getting letters of authorization makes him a Sanhedrin how?

**Act 9:1 And Saul, as yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest
Act 9:2 And asked of him letters to Damascus, to the synagogues: that if he found any men and women of this way, he might bring them bound to Jerusalem. **

In sum, Paul acted as a member of the Sanhedrin, officially authorized to do the things only members of the Sanhedrin COULD do. Ergo, he was a member of the Sanhedrin. Mormons are by no means the only Christians who understand and claim this, y’know.

As for my comment about baths…it is exactly this sort of thing that makes me nuts. The men who wrote the books of the Bible had lives and work that were not mentioned in the Bible; that is, they were none of them hung up in a closet between biblically mentioned incidents. For instance, Paul’s death is never mentioned…yet Eusebius (and Tradition) claim that he was beheaded about three miles from Rome on Feb. 22, AD 64 or thereabouts. Are you going to tell me that, because his death isn’t mentioned in the bible, that Paul is bebopping around the planet right now?

I have no idea whether Paul was beheaded there and then. I am quite certain, however, that being mortal like the rest of us, he died at some time and in some manner…which is not mentioned in the bible. What IS mentioned in the bible are the times when he behaved as only a member of the Sanhedrin could legally behave. It’s not exactly rocket science to figure that if he was a Pharisee (and the bible does explicitly say that…) and he not only acted as a member of the Sanhedrin, but had letters of authority from the high priest to so act, and if he was not criticized for acting this way (when doing so without authority would be bad…) then he was a member of the Sanhedrin.

…until, that is, he quit.

So you really don’t have any proof Paul was a Sanhedrin, only an assumption of guilt?

While Paul might have been on a path to becoming a Sanhedrin, there is nothing written that he actually became one prior to his conversion. Wouldn’t you say that’s a fair statement?