LDS and Catholic Differences

[paul_c]

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.

Parker,
Some of the key figures in the Apostolic Church were not married, including Jesus, Paul and John. This is sure proof that marriage is not required for salvation. Just because Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, doesn’t mean that marriage is a requirement. Jesus and Paul both talked positively about a life choice to stay single for the glory of God. To be clear, though, they also said that this wasn’t for everyone. As for your commentary of Jesus’ discussion with the Sadduccees, you have highly distorted what he said. The Sadduccees were trying to prove that there could be no resurrection after death because if there was life after death, who would be the rightful husband of a woman that had been married to 7 brothers. Jesus told them that they didn’t understand scripture because a) there is life after death and b) there is no marriage in heaven because those in heaven are like angels, who do not marry.

Bottom line, there is no marriage in heaven according to Jesus, which contradicts what Joseph Smith says. Frankly, it is a no brainer who to believe, since Jesus proved that he was the son of God by rising from the dead, and Joseph Smith proved he was a liar through his convictions on bank fraud and being a false treasure seaker.

 

[ParkerD]

Paul C,
I deliberately hadn’t responded to you in a while, but I want to let anyone reading know that I certainly believe Jesus and have an understanding of His teachings, including being able to diagram a fairly simple paragraph in which the Sadducees introduced a subject to Him, and He used His language with the understood subject being built into the verb as He described the condition in the resurrection (being like angels) of the seven hypothetical Sadducees brothers whom the Sadducees asking the question were referring to with their question.

One diagrams such a paragraph by identifying the subject and thus being able to match that understood subject when a verb is used that has an understood subject, such as the verb “are neither married nor are given in marriage”. In English, the understood subject is rendered to the word “they”, but that is not so in some languages such as the original language of the text. The word “they” in English for that verse, refers directly back to the subject that was introduced by the Sadducees’ question–which subject is the seven Sadducees brothers who didn’t believe in the resurrection, married the same woman after each one died successively, and found themselves being resurrected after all (much to their surprise, of course, since they taught and believed there would be no resurrection).

Again, I totally believe in the words of Christ, as did Joseph Smith. Christ taught truth with eloquence and simplicity and love for all humankind, and Joseph Smith loved His teachings, as do I.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

 

[dianaiad]

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.

I understand…and I have no real quarrel with it; your beliefs are yours. I simply note the irony, is all.

 

[dianaiad]

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

1Timothy, Chapter 3, v. 2: 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,bsober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Now I am rather familiar with this verse, given how many times it has been quoted at me as a prooftext against polygamy.

 

[dianaiad]

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?

(laughing…) I KNEW someone would bring this up…in my response to the post immediately prior to yours I even predicted it. You realize, don’t you, that arguing what this verse does to us doesn’t negate what it means to you?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1Timothy, Chapter 3, v. 2: 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,bsober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Now I am rather familiar with this verse, given how many times it has been quoted at me as a prooftext against polygamy.

When you read scriptures against scriptures, you see it is not a necessity, or REQUIRED as you said, to be married. The Apostle Paul was not married.

**1Co 7:8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I.

1Co 7:24 Brethren, let every man, wherein he was called, therein abide with God.
1Co 7:25 Now, concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as having obtained mercy of the Lord, to be faithful.
1Co 7:26 I think therefore that this is good for the present necessity: that it is good for a man so to be.
1Co 7:27 Art thou bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife.

1Co 7:32 But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God.
1Co 7:33 But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.
1Co 7:34 And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord: that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of the world: how she may please her husband.
1Co 7:35 And this I speak for your profit, not to cast a snare upon you, but for that which is decent and which may give you power to attend upon the Lord, without impediment. **

1Co 7:37 For he that hath determined, being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will: and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Some things are priceless, Prodigal Son. Just as no Catholic priest goes into that line of work for the money, our unpaid clergy have not become worthless because the church doesn’t pay them. Tell me, is your measure for the worth of a preacher/priest REALLY the size of his paycheck?

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?

??? Well, when our clergy is full time, the church does indeed support them, if required. Our missionaries are supported by their families, ward members and the church. As to owning nothing and being without shoes…(without SHOES?..that might work well in Israel, which has a lovely Mediteranian to mid-eastern desert climate, and even where I am, in a very similar climate, but it wouldn’t work too well in, say, Washington DC these days, or almost anywhere else. ) in the early days they WERE sent out ‘without purse or script’ quite frequently.

I honestly do not understand your problem here, sir. I find nothing reprehensible in the fact that the Catholic church pays it’s priests, nor anything horrific in the fact that the LDS church does not.

<snip the NT quotes, simply for space>

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Some things are priceless, Prodigal Son. Just as no Catholic priest goes into that line of work for the money, our unpaid clergy have not become worthless because the church doesn’t pay them. Tell me, is your measure for the worth of a preacher/priest REALLY the size of his paycheck?

The size of a paycheck does not make a clergy, which seems to be what was being insinuated by Mormon posters.

??? Well, when our clergy is full time, the church does indeed support them, if required. Our missionaries are supported by their families, ward members and the church. As to owning nothing and being without shoes…(without SHOES?..that might work well in Israel, which has a lovely Mediteranian to mid-eastern desert climate, and even where I am, in a very similar climate, but it wouldn’t work too well in, say, Washington DC these days, or almost anywhere else. ) in the early days they WERE sent out ‘without purse or script’ quite frequently.

I honestly do not understand your problem here, sir. I find nothing reprehensible in the fact that the Catholic church pays it’s priests, nor anything horrific in the fact that the LDS church does not.

<snip the NT quotes, simply for space>

So then, there is no difference for full time clergy. Why was there an insinuation that Catholic priests are paid, while Mormon clergy are not, to somehow diminish the holiness of the Catholic priests? It seems to be a double standard, for the purposes of swaying opinions against Catholic priests and accept the Mormon clergy as more righteous. These are common tactics of Mormon apologetcs.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

1Timothy, Chapter 3, v. 2: 2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant,bsober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Now I am rather familiar with this verse, given how many times it has been quoted at me as a prooftext against polygamy.

Since most sects of Mormonism are now against the mulitples marriages by one man, please explain how this does not reflect as an incorrect teaching, and practice, of Joseph Smith’s.

 

[dianaiad]

sablouwho;6290615I:

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!

heh…no, we don’t. . On the other hand, we don’t think ANYBODY else’s baptisms are valid. That’s another free agency thing, too. Well, that and a priesthood authority thing. However, Catholics don’t think our baptisms are valid either–some of our more suspicious types think that this is a ‘tit for tat’ sort of thing. Very understandable.

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 religious 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.

I understand the concept…and as an LDS with VERY strong beliefs in family ties and the eternal nature of family, what you are describing hits a very strong chord; one always belongs to one’s ancestors and culture in a way that simply cannot be entirely escaped from…nor SHOULD it be.

I simply note the irony of the idea that any people that believes in something like an ‘indelible mark’ (no matter how beneficial) that is placed upon a person without their knowledge, consent or ability to remove is so all fired shocked about LDS proxy work for the dead, when what WE do is utterly dependent upon the consent and acceptance of whoever it is done for.

(shrug) In both cases, a paper record is made for mortal eyes, but only in one case does this paper record reflect a ‘done deal…’ as in, will they, nil they, they are members of a belief system and eternally identified with it. No matter what…

And it ain’t us.

On the other hand, it helps me understand a little bit why the indignation is there; they think that since THEIR baptisms are irreversible, indelible and have no need for the permission or acceptance of those being baptized, that this must necessarily be true for us, as well. (shrug)

 

[dianaiad]

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.

Actually, Paul was a widower…

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.

I believe that both Sou and I have commented on this issue.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Please excuse me, but…wasn’t that his POINT? That this passage, quoted by someone else, IS dealing with divorce?

 

[dianaiad]

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.

I see…so you are allowed to explain LDS beliefs any way you wish to, because anything we show you, from our own documents and stated beliefs, don’t count because they are ours?

Interesting point of view, that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, Paul was a widower…

Show the scriptures that state Paul was married?

 

[zach_dunn]

Paul C,
I deliberately hadn’t responded to you in a while, but I want to let anyone reading know that I certainly believe Jesus and have an understanding of His teachings, including being able to diagram a fairly simple paragraph in which the Sadducees introduced a subject to Him, and He used His language with the understood subject being built into the verb as He described the condition in the resurrection (being like angels) of the seven hypothetical Sadducees brothers whom the Sadducees asking the question were referring to with their question.

One diagrams such a paragraph by identifying the subject and thus being able to match that understood subject when a verb is used that has an understood subject, such as the verb “are neither married nor are given in marriage”. In English, the understood subject is rendered to the word “they”, but that is not so in some languages such as the original language of the text. The word “they” in English for that verse, refers directly back to the subject that was introduced by the Sadducees’ question–which subject is the seven Sadducees brothers who didn’t believe in the resurrection, married the same woman after each one died successively, and found themselves being resurrected after all (much to their surprise, of course, since they taught and believed there would be no resurrection).

Again, I totally believe in the words of Christ, as did Joseph Smith. Christ taught truth with eloquence and simplicity and love for all humankind, and Joseph Smith loved His teachings, as do I.

I truly mean no offense, but I am going to be blunt: this is poor exegesis. It is poor for the fact that you did not make reference to parallel texts in the other Gospels:

Luke 20:34-35
And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they that shall be accounted worthy of that world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither be married, nor take wives.

Notice that the they in this version of what was said is referring to the children of this world, not the seven sadducean brothers. Christ is saying that in heaven [aka the “new earth”], no one is married because were are like angels who do not marry; sorry Parker, there is no getting around it.

which subject is the seven Sadducees brothers who didn’t believe in the resurrection, married the same woman after each one died successively, and found themselves being resurrected after all (much to their surprise, of course, since they taught and believed there would be no resurrection).

Since you understand this teaching, who would be married to the woman in heaven?

 

[zach_dunn]

Parker,
Some of the key figures in the Apostolic Church were not married, including Jesus, Paul and John. This is sure proof that marriage is not required for salvation. Just because Adam and Eve were told to be fruitful and multiply, doesn’t mean that marriage is a requirement. Jesus and Paul both talked positively about a life choice to stay single for the glory of God. To be clear, though, they also said that this wasn’t for everyone. As for your commentary of Jesus’ discussion with the Sadduccees, you have highly distorted what he said. The Sadduccees were trying to prove that there could be no resurrection after death because if there was life after death, who would be the rightful husband of a woman that had been married to 7 brothers. Jesus told them that they didn’t understand scripture because a) there is life after death and b) there is no marriage in heaven because those in heaven are like angels, who do not marry.

Bottom line, there is no marriage in heaven according to Jesus, which contradicts what Joseph Smith says. Frankly, it is a no brainer who to believe, since Jesus proved that he was the son of God by rising from the dead, and Joseph Smith proved he was a liar through his convictions on bank fraud and being a false treasure seaker.

Sorry to burst your bubble, paul, but they have the whole John thing “covered”. According to Mormons, John the Apostle is still a live to this very day preaching the gospel and converting people and I’m sure they believe he is married considering their heavy emphasis on being married.

 

[dianaiad]

The size of a paycheck does not make a clergy, which seems to be what was being insinuated by Mormon posters.

So then, there is no difference for full time clergy. Why was there an insinuation that Catholic priests are paid, while Mormon clergy are not, to somehow diminish the holiness of the Catholic priests? It seems to be a double standard, for the purposes of swaying opinions against Catholic priests and accept the Mormon clergy as more righteous. These are common tactics of Mormon apologetcs.

I think that is because there IS a difference between clergy which recieves a paycheck and those who do serve without ‘purse or script,’ Prodigal. Those who volunteer, who do NOT get paid, are, in many views (including Catholic views) more honored than those who ‘do it for a living.’

Mormon clergy do not ‘do it for a living,’ not until the duties of church service take up so much time that they simply can NOT earn their bread elsewhere. Our organization is such as to enable this way of serving. Our congregations are smaller and more managable for this very reason.

There is no shame, or fault, in being a full time preacher/priest…though I would think that being dependent upon the goodwill and approval of the more moneyed members of the congregation that actually hand over the money could cause some problems, diplomatically and ethically. I understand, for instance, that in many Protestant churches, a preacher can be, and often IS, dependent upon his very job upon the approval of people who want to get him to approve their lifestyles, even if their lifestyles don’t quite march with the beliefs of the preacher. I don’t have a clue how much influence a Catholic congregation has upon the selection of a parish priest, if they have any.

The point is, we make it quite clear that anybody about to become LDS is going to join a culture that is very different from the one they might be used to; organists aren’t paid. We don’t pay the singers. We don’t pay the local bishops. If you want to get married in the church, by the Bishop (something we discourage, by the way, though it is allowed) there will be no fee for either clergy or the use of the building. The new convert is made very aware that he or she WILL be doing a lot of volunteer work, and there won’t be any monetary compensation.

No paid clergy at the ward or stake level, in other words. It is up to the ward members to keep the congregation going, and we do it for free.

What…you think we should keep that a secret, so that a newly baptized convert is blindsided when he is ‘called’ to be the ward organist–a position that he may have been paid $100 per week for in his previous church–and he’s not only expected to do it for free, but he will probably ALSO be asked to accompany choir rehearsals, singers and all sorts of other things, ALSO for free?

Should he be ‘called’ to be a bishop, so that he will be spending 30 to 40 hours a week performing the duties of that position, should it come as a surprise to him that he ISN’T GOING TO BE PAID for it?

Come on, Prodigal…you are such a fan of openness and transparency—you think we should keep this a secret?

 

[dianaiad]

Since most sects of Mormonism are now against the mulitples marriages by one man, please explain how this does not reflect as an incorrect teaching, and practice, of Joseph Smith’s.

Irrelevant…you already are convinced that WE are not ‘true.’ What you need to worry about is how this verse affects what you believe to be true.

 

[Stephen168]

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."

.

Mormon Bible Dictionary: Baptism in water has several purposes. It is for the remission of sins, for membership in the Church, and for entrance into the celestial kingdom; it is also the doorway to personal sanctification when followed by the reception of the Holy Ghost.
Fourth Article of Faith: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Catholics believe we are removed of all sin at baptism just like Mormons believe. The difference is Catholics believe all sin includes the sin of Adam (1 Cor 15:21-23, Roman 5:12-19) and personal sin. Catholics believe through baptism we enter communion with Christ’s death and the new covenant (Col 2:11-14, John 3:5, Mark 16:16) which replaces circumcision. Circumcision takes place at eight days old. So Mormons and Catholics believe what happens at baptism is very similar, but Joseph Smith rejected the sin of Adam and chose to withhold baptism from his children contrary to the New Testament, and ancient Christian belief and practice. This rejection of the teachings of the Apostles is just one more example of the apostasy that Joseph Smith led his people into in April 1844.