LDS and Catholic Differences

  • Thread starter Thread starter wyp8riot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

wyp8riot

Guest
Here are some main differences between the CATHOLIC religion and that of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day saints

I didn’t write this but I believe it clearly outlines some of the main differences and I dont agree these are three of the main differences.

"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.

Another area where we disagree is in the area of a professional clergy. In the Catholic Church, as with most Christian denominations, being a preacher is a career. The minister goes to school to learn how to be a preacher. One of the problems with a professional clergy is that in many cases the minister is beholden to the people who hire him to teach what they want to hear rather then what his conscience might dictate. If he doesn’t, then his congregation is likely to fire him. (This is probably more of a problem with protestant churches that lack a strong hierarchal structure than it is with the Catholic Church.) Having a full-time minister also deprives the membership of opportunities for service. In our church, we have a lay ministry. None of the positions of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints are paid positions. Our leaders provide for their own material needs by working at some career. Since they are busy making a living and raising families, they don’t have time to do all of the things that a career minister would do. So, these responsibilities are spread among the members of the congregation. Those that preside over the congregation call on various members to give the sermons each week among other things. This gives us all opportunities to serve each other, draw closer together as a congregation, and better learn the Gospel.

Another area of disagreement is in the area of baptism. Catholic believe that we are all born with the stain of original sin. Therefore, we must be baptized in order to be cleansed of Adams transgression. This leads to the practice of baptizing infants lest they should die and be condemned. We believe that we are born innocent. Christ’s atonement paid the price of Adam’s transgression. It is only when we become mature enough to know good from evil that we become capable of committing sin and, therefore, it is only at that point that we need to be baptized."

I would add to the above comments that as part of the beliefs of the LDS faith as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we allow men to believe and worship as they may. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints we should not name call and call other religions cults or non Christians, etc.

My personal belief is that “Saints” and “Christians” are those that live the teachings of Christ to the best of their ability and knowledge.
 
Here are some main differences between the CATHOLIC religion and that of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day saints

I didn’t write this but I believe it clearly outlines some of the main differences and I dont agree these are three of the main differences.

"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.
This is in reference to the ‘great apostasy’.

Catholics have defended, and documented those defenses, against heresies throughout the history of the Church yet, there is nothing documented against a ‘great apostasy’.

Where is the documentation of those who were accused of being apostates? Surely if they believed the Church had lost it’s valid priesthood, they would have written something to defend their action.

The Jews were accused of killing the Messiah, and assisted in the persecutions of Christians at the beginning of the Church. Why didn’t they document the ‘great apostasy’ in order to vindicate themselfs and help show they did not kill the ‘Messiah’?

The Romans severely persecuted Christians in the very beginning, and for several centuries to follow. They tried to ‘crush’ Christianity to the point of non-existence. Julian the Apostate studied the prophecy of Christ concerning the destruction of the temple and misunderstood Christ to say that the temple could never be rebuilt. Julian tried, unsuccessfully to rebuild the temple in order to show Christ’s prophecy to be false. The Romans would never have overlooked a total corruption of the Church which would have been an excellent tool to stop Christianity in it’s tracks.

Now, the Apostles were all dead and gone when the canon of the New Testament was defined. That means the very Bible that Mormons use would have come from an ‘apostate’ Church, if we’re to believe in the ‘great apostasy’.

To believe in the ‘great apostasy’ is to believe Christ failed in building His Church.

**Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. **

Remember Jesus’ promise to be with His Church until the end of time.

**Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. And behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world. **

Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit as a guide who would abide with the Church.

**Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father: and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever:

Joh 14:26 But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. **

Jesus said the Holy Spirit would reveal all truths to the Church.

**Joh 16:13 But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself: but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak. And the things that are to come, he shall shew you. **

The last comment I have to offer is in reference to the Mormon belief that the Apostle John did not die. They believe he was ‘translated’ and never died. If we believe that, then we have to believe Christ went back on His word because He took the only Apostle left that could have maintained the valid priesthood that Mormons claim was lost.

I’d say the OP has listed the first and most disputed differences in our Churches. So, let’s get the OP to answer the following questions, with sources to support their view.


  1. *]Who started the great apostasy?
    *]Where did the great apostasy start?
    *]Who defended against the great apostasy?
 
Wyp8riot, I hope you are as intellectually honest as you appear. These issues have been disussed on this forum until we’re all blue in the face. Unfortunately, I’ve never seen a lot of progress.

I agree with Prodigal Son1 in that your entire religion is balanced on a one legged stool called the “Great Apostasy”. I have yet to see any evidence that suggests that this even came close to actually happening. We have a great amount of written history from the time period you suggest this occurred. This would have been an event in which it is hard to imagine that something would not have been recorded. If the “Great Apostasy” did not occur then the rest of your issues don’t really matter and are, in fact, a distraction from the point at hand.

So my only request is this. Will you please answer Prodigal Son1’s three questions in a straight forward, to the point, honest manner? By the way, welcome to the forum. I know I seem a little negative but don’t take it personally. It’s just that this has been such a frusrating subject to discuss and I don’t care to go through the whole exercise again. The reason I am posting here is with the hope that it will be different this time.

God bless.
 
**Catholic Church Founder; Jesus Christ!
**
LDS founder; some guy named Smith?

End of discussion, next question!

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora pro Nobis Pecatoribus!

mark
 
Here are some main differences between the CATHOLIC religion and that of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day saints

Another area where we disagree is in the area of a professional clergy.
snip…
Having a full-time minister also deprives the membership of opportunities for service.
This is patently untrue. I, myself, hold two unpaid positions of service in my Catholic parish. I am a lector and a member of the Pastoral Council (which does take a fair amount of my time). There are hundreds of unpaid ways to serve in any Catholic parish:

altar server
choir
usher
hospitality ministry
decorating the church for feast days
traffic ministry
lector
cantor
Eucharistic minister
Christian service ministry (serving the poor)
prison ministry
sponsoring catechumens and candidates
teaching CCD, Sunday School, bible study, etc.
Financial council
Pastoral Council
Eucharistic adoration
prayer groups
and on and on…

The same is true in Protestant congregations. My younger brother and his wife are Evangelicals and they spend a lot of unpaid time in their church’s ministries, including missionary work.

Mormon arrogance is matched only by Mormon ignorance.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)
 
Great Apostasy?

The evidence shows the contrary - the dedicated and meticulous preservation of the fundamental truths of the Gospel.
 
I didn’t write this but I believe it clearly outlines some of the main differences and I dont agree these are three of the main differences.
Well, whoever did write this (not the OP, who is apparently just quoting an unnamed source) doesn’t seem to know the CC well enough to be making these statements.

Mormons complain (quite rightly, IMO) that many non-Mormons misunderstand the LDS because they don’t get their info about LDS from non-LDS (or anti-LDS) sources. They say that if you want to find out what the religion really teaches, that it is best to ask practicing adherents.

But this unnamed author being quoted doesn’t seem to follow this principle when it comes to understanding the CC.
Another area where we disagree is in the area of a professional clergy. In the Catholic Church, as with most Christian denominations, being a preacher is a career. The minister goes to school to learn how to be a preacher.
I am still in RCIA so I am just learning myself about vocations, thus I can only speak with limited knowledge. However, I am betting that author here doesn’t know much about it either. Seems to be little appreciate for the sacrifice a priest makes…they work very hard in service of their congregation. IMO it is more of a “calling” than a “career.”
Those that preside over the [LDS] congregation call on various members to give the sermons each week among other things.
While I’ve heard a lot of not-so-great homilies in the CC (not all priests are good at it, frankly), I much prefer them over the LDS “talks”. Lack of trained clergy means you often (usually, in the case of my experiences) get someone who isn’t gifted in this area. I found the talks to be generally uninspired and not teaching me anything worthwhile, nor increasing my faith in God.
Another area of disagreement is in the area of baptism.
I have some good LDS friends who are offended by what they think the CC believes and teaches about baptism. 'Nuf said?
 
The “terrible church, great and abominable above all the Churches” mentionedin the B of M is the LDS church and its offspring.

Among other “precious promises” the LDS rejects are the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books and the tradition of the Fathers.
 
I I think the quote above is accurate in that LDS and Catholic faiths disagree on the line of authority and if there were an apostasy. Am I correct?

Thanks for the opinions and replies.
 
So then the catholic church does not have any paid clergy?
The implication in your quote is that having a “paid” clergy is bad because it denies members the benefits of service. Can you show how having a “paid” clergy denies people the opportunity to serve? As Paul has shown there are ampule service outlets in the Catholic church and like he said there are other opportunities outside of his list. What you posted shows only prejudice on your part on what qualifies as service.
 
So then the catholic church does not have any paid clergy?
Yes, our clergy receive a living stipend, like your General Authorities do, because they give their entire lives to the service of the Church and its people. They have to live. But the stipend certainly does not make them wealthy. It is just enough to get by. They know that when they accept the call to Holy Orders.

Frankly, I am glad our clergy gets years of training before being allowed to take people’s lives in their hands, I am reminded of some of the ignorant hicks I had as bishops and branch presidents when I was LDS. If they had had some training, thay may not have blamed women for being beaten by their husbands, or blamed young girls for being raped by their fathers - their “priesthood leaders”. These “inspired men” told these women and girls that had they been more subservient and “supportive” of their LDS “priesthood leaders”, they would not have brought these misfortunes upon themselves.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)
 
Well, whoever did write this (not the OP, who is apparently just quoting an unnamed source) doesn’t seem to know the CC well enough to be making these statements. It was copied from another webpage with a username It is not an individual I know personally. I do not know the extent of his knowledge of the CC. That is beside the point. I came here to clarify some of the differences not to try and prove which is right or wrong, and I don’t intend to get into a pissing match with those who are easily offended. i appreciate the answers and polite respectful debate.

Mormons complain (quite rightly, IMO) that many non-Mormons misunderstand the LDS because they don’t get their info about LDS from non-LDS (or anti-LDS) sources. They say that if you want to find out what the religion really teaches, that it is best to ask practicing adherents.

But this unnamed author being quoted doesn’t seem to follow this principle when it comes to understanding the CC.

I am still in RCIA so I am just learning myself about vocations, thus I can only speak with limited knowledge. However, I am betting that author here doesn’t know much about it either. Seems to be little appreciate for the sacrifice a priest makes…they work very hard in service of their congregation. IMO it is more of a “calling” than a “career.”
I won’t argue with your opinion, but my question is are there paid clergy in the Catholic church?

While I’ve heard a lot of not-so-great homilies in the CC (not all priests are good at it, frankly), I much prefer them over the LDS “talks”. Lack of trained clergy means you often (usually, in the case of my experiences) get someone who isn’t gifted in this area. I found the talks to be generally uninspired and not teaching me anything worthwhile, nor increasing my faith in God. I personally have enjoyed many talks by LDS members, and I would agree some are not so good. I don’t have much experience to say much about catholic clergy just that I have heard from other Catholics the same opinions that some Priests are not as interesting as others, so in my opinion “training” doesn’t make a determining factor on the value individuals may place on a sermon and will vary from one person to another.

I have some good LDS friends who are offended by what they think the CC believes and teaches about baptism. 'Nuf said?
It is unfortunate that we get offended easily, this isn’t exclusive to any denomination and isn’t absent from this forum either. I can’t say I never get offended, but I do appreciate opportunity to discuss differences with out personal attacks and I try not to get offended or reactive and I appreciate others who do the same.
 
Yes, our clergy receive a living stipend, like your General Authorities do (This is incorrect the General Authorities are not paid by the church and their service is completely without pay), because they give their entire lives to the service of the Church and its people. They have to live. But the stipend certainly does not make them wealthy. It is just enough to get by. They know that when they accept the call to Holy Orders.

Frankly, I am glad our clergy gets years of training before being allowed to take people’s lives in their hands, I am reminded of some of the ignorant hicks I had as bishops and branch presidents when I was LDS. If they had had some training, thay may not have blamed women for being beaten by their husbands, or blamed young girls for being raped by their fathers - their “priesthood leaders”. (That would be frustrating, but in all fairness it hasn’t stopped priests from raping and molesting people either I think you will find human weakness and failures in any denomination) These “inspired men” told these women and girls that had they been more subservient and “supportive” of their LDS “priesthood leaders”, they would not have brought these misfortunes upon themselves. (I agree abuse is wrong, I have also seen the opposite extreme where women will make false allegations to get their way)

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)
My replies in Red
 
"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.
Catholics believe in something called “apostolic succession”, where the original Apostles passed on their authority to bishops. The Bishop of Rome is specifically the successor of Peter.
Another area where we disagree is in the area of a professional clergy. In the Catholic Church, as with most Christian denominations, being a preacher is a career. The minister goes to school to learn how to be a preacher. One of the problems with a professional clergy is that in many cases the minister is beholden to the people who hire him to teach what they want to hear rather then what his conscience might dictate. If he doesn’t, then his congregation is likely to fire him. (This is probably more of a problem with protestant churches that lack a strong hierarchal structure than it is with the Catholic Church.) Having a full-time minister also deprives the membership of opportunities for service. In our church, we have a lay ministry. None of the positions of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints are paid positions. Our leaders provide for their own material needs by working at some career. Since they are busy making a living and raising families, they don’t have time to do all of the things that a career minister would do. So, these responsibilities are spread among the members of the congregation. Those that preside over the congregation call on various members to give the sermons each week among other things. This gives us all opportunities to serve each other, draw closer together as a congregation, and better learn the Gospel.
The above is not completely true. Catholics believe that men are called by God individually to become deacons, priests, and bishops (bishops are called through people with authority, just like in the LDS church). After they are called by God, they go through seminary to study scripture, liturgy, history, language (Biblical Greek and Hebrew, Latin), music, etc. In most cases, permanent deacons (deacons that will not go on to become priests) also hold secular careers.

Does the Bible say something against paid clergy? There are a number of verses that support compensating clergy.

Having a full time minister deprives the membership of opportunities for service? Which church are you talking about? Catholic parishes (the equivalent of a ward) have tons of opportunities for laity to serve. The membership are the choir members, the cantors, the organ players, the Sunday school teachers, the altar servers, the lectors (readers), the ushers, the secretaries, the gift shop workers, the tour guides, the Eucharistic ministers, etc. There are tons of opportunities to serve in a Catholic parish. The clergy doesn’t do everything. :rolleyes:
Another area of disagreement is in the area of baptism. Catholic believe that we are all born with the stain of original sin. Therefore, we must be baptized in order to be cleansed of Adams transgression. This leads to the practice of baptizing infants lest they should die and be condemned. We believe that we are born innocent. Christ’s atonement paid the price of Adam’s transgression. It is only when we become mature enough to know good from evil that we become capable of committing sin and, therefore, it is only at that point that we need to be baptized."
True.
 
You are entitled to you opinion but it doesn’t have much relevance to this thread.
A good indication as to why you started the thread, and the meaning you have behind it. So yeah, it is relevant.
 
Thank you that link is informative…

“No professional ministers
There can be no doubt that the Church does have an unpaid ministry. More precisely, it does not have a professional clergy. Consider:”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top