LDS and Catholic Differences

[TheosisM]

(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?

I think that the only way to interpret the chapter and not go against the practices of either church is to interpret it as saying that if a bishop or deacon is married, they must be married to only one wife. That seems to be the only way to interpret the chapter and be consistent with the practices of either church.

Did you see my question about plural marriage? I’m curious as to how the interpretation of 1 Tim 3 in regards to bishops being married was affected by plural marriage. If we interpret it as saying a bishop must be married, or that if he is married he is to have only one wife, what happens to those verses when he is in a plural marriage?

 

[dianaiad]

Show the scriptures that state Paul was married?

Actually, I"m not wedded to the notion that he was a widower. It makes more sense, however, that he was than that he was not, given his position previous to his conversion. All the arguments that hint that Jesus may have been married (cultural, not scriptural) go double for Paul, and he doesn’t have the excuse of divine origin to forbid it.

As to scriptural verses to support it, well…there aren’t any. However, deciding that unless scriptures say he was then he was not is a little short sighted. The scriptures do not mention that he had a father or mother, either, nor that he took baths, but we know he did. The culture he lived in and the rules he lived by demanded that he be married in order to fullfill his duties. For instance, he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and the rules for THAT were rather strict; in order to be there, he had to be married and the father of children! The scriptures do not come out and say that he never WAS married, only that at the time he was preaching that he was not. He wasn’t a fan of divorce, ergo…the odds are rather high that he was a widower.

(shrug) Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

Zach,
There is not a single piece of evidence that either John or Paul were not married at some point in their life. Those who choose to believe they were not married have chosen to draw conclusions that are not warranted from the text of the Bible itself.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.’

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.

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?

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.

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

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

 

[dianaiad]

I think that the only way to interpret the chapter and not go against the practices of either church is to interpret it as saying that if a bishop or deacon is married, they must be married to only one wife. That seems to be the only way to interpret the chapter and be consistent with the practices of either church.

Did you see my question about plural marriage? I’m curious as to how the interpretation of 1 Tim 3 in regards to bishops being married was affected by plural marriage. If we interpret it as saying a bishop must be married, or that if he is married he is to have only one wife, what happens to those verses when he is in a plural marriage?

I believe that what was done was to say that the verse meant that he should be married to at least one wife.

However, the real explanation is that we have this thing called ‘continuing revelation,’ and that this revelation made it rather clear that there were times when polygamy was to be practiced–and times when it was not.

I do note your interpretation, though…which only helps your church.

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach,
There is not a single piece of evidence that either John or Paul were not married at some point in their life. Those who choose to believe they were not married have chosen to draw conclusions that are not warranted from the text of the Bible itself.

And there is evidence that both were married? Please, provide some evidence.

 

[JMJ4]

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.

What?

How can you tell someone that there question is irrelevant?

You are like a bully on the playground.

 

[ParkerD]

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.

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

Zach Dunn,
I sincerely don’t care about “exegesis”. I care about what Christ taught.

In answer to your final question, the Sadducees really were the kind of people who didn’t believe in Jesus, didn’t believe His teachings about the resurrection, and would absolutely not be qualified to be married in heaven, so none of them would be married to the woman, and they and the woman (if she was also a Sadducee with their beliefs) would be like the angels in heaven–unmarried.

The Luke text does indeed use the words “the children of this world”, which is a clear reference to those who are “of the world” meaning they are not the “sons of God” which is a reference Christ often used to describe those who were His true believing followers.

Christ taught that everyone will be resurrected. “The children of this world” are the understood subject for the word “they” in Luke 20:35. It is a distinction about those who love the world more than God, and they have their reward in that they have no marriage in heaven but are “like angels who do not marry” as you noted, but are indeed resurrected in the hereafter.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Actually, I"m not wedded to the notion that he was a widower. It makes more sense, however, that he was than that he was not, given his position previous to his conversion. All the arguments that hint that Jesus may have been married (cultural, not scriptural) go double for Paul, and he doesn’t have the excuse of divine origin to forbid it.

As to scriptural verses to support it, well…there aren’t any. However, deciding that unless scriptures say he was then he was not is a little short sighted. The scriptures do not mention that he had a father or mother, either, nor that he took baths, but we know he did. The culture he lived in and the rules he lived by demanded that he be married in order to fullfill his duties. For instance, he was a member of the Sanhedrin, and the rules for THAT were rather strict; in order to be there, he had to be married and the father of children! The scriptures do not come out and say that he never WAS married, only that at the time he was preaching that he was not. He wasn’t a fan of divorce, ergo…the odds are rather high that he was a widower.

(shrug) Just my thoughts on the matter.

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?

 

[Stephen168]

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.

Joseph Smith took it unto himself which is wrong.

However, we do not believe that the Popes represent an unbroken chain of authority leading back to Jesus.

The Pope is one of many Bishops who have the authority handed down by the Apostles. My Bishop was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop, who was ordained by a Bishop; all the way back to an Apostle. This is historical fact.
Joseph Smith took it unto himself which is part of the apostasy he led his people into in April 1844.

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 a nice bedtime story told by Joseph Smith for which there is no historical evidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe that what was done was to say that the verse meant that he should be married to at least one wife.

However, the real explanation is that we have this thing called ‘continuing revelation,’ and that this revelation made it rather clear that there were times when polygamy was to be practiced–and times when it was not.

I do note your interpretation, though…which only helps your church.

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?

 

[zach_dunn]

Zach Dunn,
I sincerely don’t care about “exegesis”. I care about what Christ taught.

Of course you don’t care about exegesis. :banghead:

In answer to your final question, the Sadducees really were the kind of people who didn’t believe in Jesus, didn’t believe His teachings about the resurrection, and would absolutely not be qualified to be married in heaven, so none of them would be married to the woman, and they and the woman (if she was also a Sadducee with their beliefs) would be like the angels in heaven–unmarried.

The Luke text does indeed use the words “the children of this world”, which is a clear reference to those who are “of the world” meaning they are not the “sons of God” which is a reference Christ often used to describe those who were His true believing followers.

Christ taught that everyone will be resurrected. “The children of this world” are the understood subject for the word “they” in Luke 20:35. It is a distinction about those who love the world more than God, and they have their reward in that they have no marriage in heaven but are “like angels who do not marry” as you noted, but are indeed resurrected in the hereafter.

:nope: sigh, so much wriggling Parker. When our Lord, in Lk 20:35, says that the people worthy of that world will not be married or given in marriage, what do you think He is referring to by “that world”? It is obvious that he is talking about heaven (aka the “new earth”), and since these people are worthy of it they would be sons of God. This means that the sons of God will not be married in heaven contrary to Mormon doctrine.

 

[ParkerD]

And there is evidence that both were married? Please, provide some evidence.

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.)

 

[ParkerD]

Of course you don’t care about exegesis.

:nope: sigh, so much wriggling Parker. When our Lord, in Lk 20:35, says that the people worthy of that world will not be married or given in marriage, what do you think He is referring to by “that world”? It is obvious that he is talking about heaven (aka the “new earth”), and since these people are worthy of it they would be sons of God. This means that the sons of God will not be married in heaven contrary to Mormon doctrine.

Zach,
The texts are simple texts. One need not “wriggle” nor “bang their head”. All one has to do is take the subject and diagram the paragraph to understand what subject is carried into the understood subject when a verb is used with the understood subject. This is not exegesis–it is grammar, and is basic to language.

“Worthy of that world” surely to you does not mean “heaven” since he was talking about the “children of this world”. Go ahead and look up every reference Christ ever made to the “children of this world”. It was a clear inference every time, and was a distinction between His true followers and those who loved the world more than God. The expression “sons of men” or “daughters of men” are also used in the Old Testament, of which Christ was intimately familiar with that text and in those cases it also meant to distinguish between the children of the world and the “sons of God”.

As I noted and I am supposing you believe, everyone is going to be resurrected, “the just and the unjust.” So the Luke passage has a bit of a flaw in it if it is taken to mean that only certain people will be “counted worthy” to be resurrected.

 

[sablouwho]

Of course you don’t care about exegesis. :banghead:

I feel your pain Zach. (With no offense intended, Parker).

[Rant]
I’ve stated elsewhere (in one of the LDS threads) that I don’t relate well to an approach to scripture that has no room for exegesis. I do not “get” the literal mindset. And this is in no way limited to LDS, though I did experience it there almost ubiquitously. (And yes, this is one of the reasons I could not in good faith join the LDS. I cannot stomach this type of literalism.)

But I’ve seen the effects of literalist interpretation in my own extended family which includes some “fundamentalist” Jews. The way they literally understand Torah (and their lack of awareness of documentary hypothesis) has huge consequences for the way they live their lives. (I cannot tell you how happy I was when I asked God to show me the Truth and he showed me that Jesus was the real deal, because I knew that the only other option was Judaism, and I really didn’t want to have to live a life so restricted by what I considered to be arcane laws.)

And I know that there are enough people here on CAF who used to be Protestant that they would be familiar with the fundamentalist approach.

Of course, we also get literalist Catholics, too. Sigh.

IMO, a literalist approach, one that isn’t interested in exegesis, does violence to scripture and its meaning.
[/Rant]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Zach,
The texts are simple texts. One need not “wriggle” nor “bang their head”. All one has to do is take the subject and diagram the paragraph to understand what subject is carried into the understood subject when a verb is used with the understood subject. This is not exegesis–it is grammar, and is basic to language.

“Worthy of that world” surely to you does not mean “heaven” since he was talking about the “children of this world”. Go ahead and look up every reference Christ ever made to the “children of this world”. It was a clear inference every time, and was a distinction between His true followers and those who loved the world more than God. The expression “sons of men” or “daughters of men” are also used in the Old Testament, of which Christ was intimately familiar with that text and in those cases it also meant to distinguish between the children of the world and the “sons of God”.

As I noted and I am supposing you believe, everyone is going to be resurrected, “the just and the unjust.” So the Luke passage has a bit of a flaw in it if it is taken to mean that only certain people will be “counted worthy” to be resurrected.

But taking it as you present is taken out of context it was as it was in response to a direct question.

Luk 20:33 In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife.
Luk 20:34 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry and are given in marriage:
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.

Then add verse 36, which is specific on Christ’s answer.

**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. **

Surely, the children of the resurrection in this passage is referring to the children of God, which are in heaven.

So reading how Christ refers to ‘children’ in other areas of the Bible is not applicable to the children He is specifically referencing in this passage.

 

[wyp8riot]

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

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.

 

[ParkerD]

But taking it as you present is taken out of context it was as it was in response to a direct question.

Luk 20:33 In the resurrection therefore, whose wife of them shall she be? For all the seven had her to wife.
Luk 20:34 And Jesus said to them: The children of this world marry and are given in marriage:
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.

Then add verse 36, which is specific on Christ’s answer.

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.

Surely, the children of the resurrection in this passage is referring to the children of God, which are in heaven.

So reading how Christ refers to ‘children’ in other areas of the Bible is not applicable to the children He is specifically referencing in this passage.

Prodigal Son1,
Christ did indeed say that the children of the resurrection are the children of God. He is the author of salvation and of the resurrection from the dead, and He is God the Son. All persons who are resurrected (which is all the just and the unjust) will be “children of God” in the sense that they have been given the gift of resurrection by God. The sons of perdition will be cast out of any part of heaven, but the angels who receive a heavenly place are indeed the “children of God” and will be grateful for their glory and position as children of God.

So I don’t disagree that the children of the resurrection are the children of God. I disagree as to the “children of this world”, even though they will indeed become the “children of God” in the resurrection, inheriting more glory than they were willing to receive by their choices in life.

By the way, I was totally taking the passage in its context.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Prodigal Son1,
Christ did indeed say that the children of the resurrection are the children of God. He is the author of salvation and of the resurrection from the dead, and He is God the Son. All persons who are resurrected (which is all the just and the unjust) will be “children of God” in the sense that they have been given the gift of resurrection by God. The sons of perdition will be cast out of any part of heaven, but the angels who receive a heavenly place are indeed the “children of God” and will be grateful for their glory and position as children of God.

So I don’t disagree that the children of the resurrection are the children of God. I disagree as to the “children of this world”, even though they will indeed become the “children of God” in the resurrection, inheriting more glory than they were willing to receive by their choices in life.

By the way, I was totally taking the passage in its context.

So now it seems you’re accepting that they are speaking about heaven in the passage. Excuse me for saying so, but that was a quick backstep. This mean Christ was speaking about heaven in Luke 20:35.

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.

I have bolded part of your previous statement, below, for emphasis.

Zach,
The texts are simple texts. One need not “wriggle” nor “bang their head”. All one has to do is take the subject and diagram the paragraph to understand what subject is carried into the understood subject when a verb is used with the understood subject. This is not exegesis–it is grammar, and is basic to language.

"Worthy of that world" surely to you does not mean “heaven” since he was talking about the “children of this world”. Go ahead and look up every reference Christ ever made to the “children of this world”. It was a clear inference every time, and was a distinction between His true followers and those who loved the world more than God. The expression “sons of men” or “daughters of men” are also used in the Old Testament, of which Christ was intimately familiar with that text and in those cases it also meant to distinguish between the children of the world and the “sons of God”.

As I noted and I am supposing you believe, everyone is going to be resurrected, “the just and the unjust.” So the Luke passage has a bit of a flaw in it if it is taken to mean that only certain people will be “counted worthy” to be resurrected.

 

[ParkerD]

So now it seems you’re accepting that they are speaking about heaven in the passage. Excuse me for saying so, but that was a quick backstep. This mean Christ was speaking about heaven in Luke 20:35.

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.

I have bolded part of your previous statement, below, for emphasis.

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.