LDS and Catholic Differences

[Prodigal_Son1]

The thread was pointing out differences not an attempt to prove one right and one wrong.

Forum Rules:
7. Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

I thought it was for discussions, as I see you pick and choose the subjects you’re willing to discuss, even though you posted several subjects in the first post, including the ‘apostasy’.

It’s not a disrespect to Catholicism, or Catholics, to try and prove your view on the ‘great apostasy’.

When a person avoids a discussion on topics they raised, ‘the proof is in the pudding’. Avoiding one discussion, that you raised yourself, also invalidates any points you might make on other subjects you raised.

 

[TheosisM]

Well, you certainly predicted my response correctly.

…and I do appreciate your explanation of how mortal sin is a rejection of that ‘indelible mark.’ My point, however, is confirmed with the 'yes, it’s still there…" part. What if the person does NOT commit a mortal sin, but just happens to believe that his path to Christ lies outside Catholicism? Or…what if a child, having been baptised Catholic, is raised in an entirely different Christian (even, gasp…Mormonism) tradition and lives THAT tradition to the best of his or her ability, and either never commits a mortal sin, or repents of them as soon as he is aware of commiting them?

What if he is simply a faithful Christian who just doesn’t want to be Catholic?

They would still have the “indelible mark”, and if they ever decided to come back to Catholicism, they wouldn’t have to be baptized again. Catholicism actually sees this as being true for all “valid” baptisms, since a Protestant or Orthodox would not have to be baptized again upon conversion. Catholicism makes no distinction between Catholic baptisms and baptisms in other churches professing belief in the traditional Trinity.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Doesn’t the fact that the NT requires a Bishop to be married cause a problem with that one?

Seem to be reading extra into the scriptures there. Show us where bishops are REQUIRED to be married.

 

[TheosisM]

Doesn’t the fact that the NT requires a Bishop to be married cause a problem with that one?

Sorry dianaiad, I never understood this interpretation of 1 Timothy. If the passage is stating that bishops must be married, then we have to also say that deacons must be married (since that’s what it says a few verses later). If Catholics are in violation of scripture on this, then so are LDS, if 12 year old males are ordained to the diaconate, who of course would not be married.

This actually brings me to a question I had in another thread: if this passage says that a bishop must be the husband of “one wife”, how was this interpreted during the days of plural marriage, where some bishops would have more than one wife?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t see that there is an argument at all. We are simply stating facts. You pay yours, we don’t pay ours until they are General Authorities.

Are you trying to say, you get what you pay for?

Look, Christ sent some out telling them to let the people provide their needs. If you deny the modernized paying of salaries to cover expenses, please show me where your clergy owns nothing and doesn’t even wear shoes?

**Luk 10:1 And after these things, the Lord appointed also other seventy-two. And he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come.
Luk 10:2 And he said to them: The harvest indeed is great, but the labourers are few. Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest that he send labourers into his harvest.
Luk 10:3 Go: Behold I send you as lambs among wolves.
Luk 10:4 Carry neither purse, nor scrip, nor shoes: and salute no man by the way.
Luk 10:5 Into whatever house you enter, first say: Peace be to this house.
Luk 10:6 And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him: but if not, it shall return to you.
Luk 10:7 And in the same house, remain, eating and drinking such things as they have: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Remove not from house to house.
Luk 10:8 And into what city soever you enter, and they receive you, eat such things as are set before you.
Luk 10:9 And heal the sick that are therein and say to them: The kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.
Luk 10:10 But into whatsoever city you enter, and they receive you not, going forth into the streets thereof, say:
Luk 10:11 Even the very dust of your city that cleaveth to us, we wipe off against you. Yet know this, that the kingdom of God is at hand.
Luk 10:12 I say to you, it shall be more tolerable at that day for Sodom than for that city.
Luk 10:13 Woe to thee, Corozain! Woe to thee, Bethsaida! For if in Tyre and Sidon had been wrought the mighty works that have been wrought in you, they would have done penance long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.
Luk 10:14 But it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgment than for you.
Luk 10:15 And thou, Capharnaum, which art exalted unto heaven, thou shalt be thrust down to hell.
Luk 10:16 He that heareth you heareth me: and he that despiseth you despiseth me: and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. **

 

[PaulDupre]

The notable difference here is that Catholic clergy give their entire lives to God, forgoing riches and marriage to serve. They do as Christ did and “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

You are quoting the bible. That is wasted on Mormons. They only believe Joseph Smith.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[sablouwho]

…that ‘indelible mark.’

I am guessing that this doctrine would be unpalatable to a LDS is because of the concept of free agency, which is so important in that tradition. So I can see why Diana might not like the idea of the indelible mark since it removes the individuals free agency. (Am I guessing right Diana?) However, since the LDS church doesn’t hold Catholic baptisms valid…well, I don’t know where I was going with that!

Let me throw another thing out there. It is not quite the same as the Catholic indelible mark, but it is sorta/kinda similar:

I was born Jewish according to Jewish law (halacha). Even though I am technically an apostate according to halacha because I believe in what they believe is a false god, Jesus (which is not looked on too highly by religius Jews!) they would say that I am *still *Jewish. They don’t wanna let me go! (Though, confusingly, at the same time, they might also say I am *not *Jewish–go figure!)

And yeah, my DNA hasn’t changed just because I changed religions, so in that respect, yes, I am still Jewish–my ancestry is still exactly the same as before I converted. But did you know that according to Judaism, I also have a Jewish soul? So according to Jewish belief, THEY claim the authority to tell me the status of my soul. They claim that they have a “say” in the matter.

Fortunately, I am not terribly offended by this, as I consider myself both Jewish (culturally/ancestrally, though I do not practice Judaism as a religion) *and *Christian. (Despite the fact that religious Jews are offended by that–too bad, as far as I am concerned, it isn’t their call. They don’t understand the Jesus thing–if they did, I think they would understand how a person could be both Jewish and Christian at the same time.)

Granted, it isn’t quite the same thing as in Catholicism because Jews are a “people” and not just a religion, and one is born into Judaism but Catholics are “made” via baptism.

 

[PaulDupre]

"Tmaque:

The notable difference here is that Catholic clergy give their entire lives to God, forgoing riches and marriage to serve. They do as Christ did and “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

My Opinion…
In my mind that makes little sense. If it did make sense then why don’t we all give up being married if that equals serving god and his purposes. Of course that in my mind goes against the commandment to procreate and I can’t see why God would not want his servants to enjoy the blessings of marriage.

Like I said… You quote Jesus in the bible and the Mormon responds “that doesn’t make sense”. They only believe Joseph Smith.

Paul (a former Mormon, now happily Catholic)

 

[ParkerD]

Originally Posted by Tmaque:
The notable difference here is that Catholic clergy give their entire lives to God, forgoing riches and marriage to serve. They do as Christ did and “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Tmaque,
Here are the verses as translated in the King James Version:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There is a completely different meaning between the words “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it” and “whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Also, “it” in the King James Version refers clearly to “this saying” which had to do with second marriages and the idea of the acceptability of divorce. Christ did not minimize the blessing given to Adam and Eve of being “no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This was the vital teaching He was communicating in this entire passage.

Matthew 12 making reference to “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” clearly is referring to second marriages, meaning that they have followed the teaching not to marry “her which is put away”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Originally Posted by Tmaque:
The notable difference here is that Catholic clergy give their entire lives to God, forgoing riches and marriage to serve. They do as Christ did and “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Tmaque,
Here are the verses as translated in the King James Version:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There is a completely different meaning between the words “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it” and “whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Also, “it” in the King James Version refers clearly to “this saying” which had to do with second marriages and the idea of the acceptability of divorce. Christ did not minimize the blessing given to Adam and Eve of being “no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This was the vital teaching He was communicating in this entire passage.

Matthew 12 making reference to “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” clearly is referring to second marriages, meaning that they have followed the teaching not to marry “her which is put away”.

The Authorized King James Version

**The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Holy Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England.[3] Printed by the King’s Printer, Robert Barker,[4] the first edition included schedules unique to the Church of England; for example, a lectionary for morning and evening prayer.[5] This was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.[6] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy**. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

 

[aspirant]

Doesn’t the fact that the NT requires a Bishop to be married cause a problem with that one?

The NT doesn’t require bishops to be married. The only passage to which you could possibly be referring was written by an unmarried bishop. It forbids bishops to have more than one wife.

Granted, it isn’t quite the same thing as in Catholicism because Jews are a “people” and not just a religion, and one is born into Judaism but Catholics are “made” via baptism.

What about converts to Judaism (gerim)? If they lose faith or renounce Judaism, do they cease to be Jews? I think gerim who lose faith remain Jews, unless it is somehow discerned that the conversion was not sincere.

 

[ricko]

Originally Posted by Tmaque:
The notable difference here is that Catholic clergy give their entire lives to God, forgoing riches and marriage to serve. They do as Christ did and “have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it.”

Tmaque,
Here are the verses as translated in the King James Version:

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.
11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

There is a completely different meaning between the words “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it” and “whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Also, “it” in the King James Version refers clearly to “this saying” which had to do with second marriages and the idea of the acceptability of divorce. Christ did not minimize the blessing given to Adam and Eve of being “no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This was the vital teaching He was communicating in this entire passage.

Matthew 12 making reference to “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” clearly is referring to second marriages, meaning that they have followed the teaching not to marry “her which is put away”.

Very interesting Sir but off topic. You’re dealing with divorce here.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Very interesting Sir but off topic. You’re dealing with divorce here.

Ironic that Mormons can change topics to discuss, but I’m not allowed to discuss the apostasy which was a part of the topic of this thread to begin with.

 

[sablouwho]

What about converts to Judaism (gerim)? If they lose faith or renounce Judaism, do they cease to be Jews? I think gerim who lose faith remain Jews, unless it is somehow discerned that the conversion was not sincere.

Great point aspirant. I honestly do not know the answer. But I will speculate.

First, because there are different branches of Judaism (the main 3 are Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, but there are also a few others) there is a problem with conversions being recognized. AFAIK the Orthodox don’t recognize Conservative or Reform conversions as valid.

But let’s assume that the gerim converts to Orthodox Judaism, and the loses faith… Honestly, I still don’t know the answer!

Let me change the question a little bit because it ALSO seems to apply to adult converts to Catholicism. I am already baptized (by a Protestant minister). And will soon be a confirmed Catholic. I assume that once I become Catholic, I will always be considered Catholic by the RCC regardless of whether I loose faith or change my mind at some point in the future? Fine.

Apparently, I am also a Hindu according to that religion, as all of us are considered Hindus. Hey, fine with me…

 

[ricko]

I cannot answer this question from the LDS PoV since I am not LDS. However, when I was an investigator, I recall coming across a statement against paid clergy in some document. I honestly don’t recall whether it was in the BoM, the D&C, or perhaps one of the speeches made by JS. But I am pretty sure that there was something in there somewhere that specifically looked down on paid preachers.

Perhaps someone else (an ex-Mo maybe) will remember where the passage comes from.

Frankly any quote from any Mormon document would not suffice as the LDS has no documents inspired by the Holy Spirit. It would explain why they do such and such but gives no biblical reason for same.

For our new Mormon friend I will give a biblical reason among others posted already that there is nothing wrong with receiving payment for serving the Lord as he and others have implied.

Whoever serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard without eating its produce? Or who shepherds a flock without using some of the milk from the flock? Am I saying this on human authority or does not the law also speak of these things?

It is written in the law of Moses, “You shall not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is God concerned about oxen, or is he not really speaking for our sake? It was written for our sake, for the plowman should plow in hope and the thresher in hope of receiving a share. If we have sown spiritual seed for you, is it a great thing that we reap a material harvest from you? If others share in this rightful claim on you, do not we still more?

He goes on to specify that even though he would be completely justified in being paid for his ministry (v. 18), he chose to forego that right in order to eliminate a potential source of criticism from his detractors. He explains in verses 13 and 14, “Do you not know that those who perform the temple services eat what belongs to the temple, and those who minister at the altar share in the sacrificial offerings? In the same way, the Lord ordered that those who preach the gospel should live by the gospel.” Also see Romans 15:26-27, 2 Thessalonians 2:6-10, and 2 Timothy 2:6.

Hope this helps you to understand.

 

[sablouwho]

It would explain why they do such and such but gives no biblical reason for same.

True enough, it doesn’t give a biblical reason. However, my intent was *not *to give a biblical reason but rather to try to simply give the poster who asked the question some documentation from LDS sources to “explain why they do such”, as you say.

 

[aspirant]

First, because there are different branches of Judaism (the main 3 are Orthodox, Conservative and Reform, but there are also a few others) there is a problem with conversions being recognized.

True enough.

I am already baptized (by a Protestant minister). And will soon be a confirmed Catholic. I assume that once I become Catholic, I will always be considered Catholic by the RCC regardless of whether I loose faith or change my mind at some point in the future?

I think some kind of formal defection from the Church is possible, though not simple, but your baptism would never be rendered invalid.

Apparently, I am also a Hindu according to that religion, as all of us are considered Hindus. Hey, fine with me…

 

[wyp8riot]

ldsfaq.byu.edu/viewQuestion.aspx?view=6e4fff47-d129-4f70-9bfc-c7b46dec5350

 

[zach_dunn]

There is a completely different meaning between the words “he that is able to receive it, let him receive it” and “whoever can accept this ought to accept it.” Also, “it” in the King James Version refers clearly to “this saying” which had to do with second marriages and the idea of the acceptability of divorce. Christ did not minimize the blessing given to Adam and Eve of being “no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” This was the vital teaching He was communicating in this entire passage.

Matthew 12 making reference to “eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake” clearly is referring to second marriages, meaning that they have followed the teaching not to marry “her which is put away”.

I would say this is wrong based on the principle that “there are many other fish in the sea,” do you really think someone would make themselves a eunuch because a woman they wanted to marry was already married? No. If this passage does not satisfy you, I suggest reading 1 Corinthians 7 as I’m sure has been pointed out already.

 

[ParkerD]

I would say this is wrong based on the principle that “there are many other fish in the sea,” do you really think someone would make themselves a eunuch because a woman they wanted to marry was already married? No. If this passage does not satisfy you, I suggest reading 1 Corinthians 7 as I’m sure has been pointed out already.

Zach,
I’ve already written in another thread about 1 Corinthians 7 (where Paul is speaking “not of the Lord, but of himself”). The word “eunuch” in the context in Matthew can mean just “staying unmarried.” But in all of this, if marriage is something one such as yourself doesn’t want, then this will provide you with the justification you want to not live by the commandment given to Adam and Eve.

Whatever suits what you want is, I suppose, what will grab your attention and give meaning and purpose to your life. It doesn’t really matter as to the question of marriage, other than that marriage and children are a wonderful blessing during mortality–since a Sadducees choice even to marry leads to being like an angel anyway in the resurrection, as taught by Christ.