LDS and Catholic Differences

[dianaiad]

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

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

Oh, good grief.

Rebecca, Mormons believe that “angel” is a JOB DESCRIPTION. It means "messenger.’ and yes, they are humans. What is this ‘state somewhere before exaltation’ bushwa?

 

[dianaiad]

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

I quit posting?

News to me.

 

[ParkerD]

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

Jay53,
The word translated into the word “angels” has several different and distinct meanings in the Bible. If you will look at Revelation 19:10 and then Revelation 22:9 and then Revelation 12:7, you will see two of those different meanings. One has to do with spirits before coming into mortality, led by Michael the Archangel. One has to do with messengers from God who have already lived on the earth, and return to it with a message. Another has to do with those “angels” who are in the presence of God giving glory to Him, or singing praises. It is less clear what their role is other than that. The meaning needs to be gleaned from the context of the passage where it is used. But when John writes about “joint heirs” or “sons of God” being “like Him” or inheriting a throne, then those passages do not refer to that kind of glory as being an “angel.” Christ is not described as an angel; thus, to be like Christ is not synonymous with being like an “angel”.

 

[SteveVH]

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.)

I find it fascinating that two people could read the same words and derive two completely different meanings. While it is fascinating, it is common and is the reason we need an authoritative interpreter.

ParkerD, John had no need to be a father in order give advice. He is not speaking in order to give advice as to when you should “have the talk” with your teenage son or how to patch things up with the wife. He is speaking to a Christian community and how, through the grace of God and the knowledge of Jesus they are armed against the “evil one”. He does not need to be a biological father in order to be a spiritual father. He is speaking of spiritual things which tell us nothing of his marital status.

As for Paul, I’m not sure where to begin. When Paul says that bishops should be the “husband of one wife” he means that they should have no more than one wife. He is speaking against polygamy. It is not a requirement that bishops be married. And your ascertion that Paul was married totally ignores 1 Cor 7:8 “Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they can’t exercise self-control they sould marry…”

It doesn’t much clearer than that. That is what happens when you approach scripture with a preconceived notion and twist and turn it until it fits in your little box. The words could not be clearer in this case to anyone choosing to incorporate reason as a component in their method of interpretation.

How do you possibly arrive at your conclusions?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For instance, Paul’s death is never mentioned…yet Eusebius (and Tradition) claim that he was beheaded about three miles from Rome on Feb. 22, AD 64 or thereabouts. **Are you going to tell me that, because his death isn’t mentioned in the bible, that Paul is bebopping around the planet right now? **

Tradition does tell us Paul was beheaded, as opposed to being crucified. Tradition explains as it was because of Paul claiming the rights of a Roman, which Romans were not crucified in the same manner as Christians were. Beheading was a quick death and not a lingering death that could take hours.

I see so much irony in the part of your quote that I bolded for emphasis. Let me ask you, as you phrased it, ‘are you going to tell me that, because his death isn’t mentioned in the Bible, that John is bebopping around the planet right now?’ Don’t Mormons believe that John did not die? Where does that belief come from?

 

[Desert_Catholic]

Anyone who believes Christ was the Son of God. And was divine in his pronouncements would have to believe Christ told Peter “Simon you name shall be Peter and on this rock I shall build my Church, But it will only last your lifetime”

I don’t believe Christ was wrong when he told Peter that Hell will not prevail against the Church he gave to Peter.

But thats just me and a Billion other Catholics.

God loves you and we pray for the Blessed Virgins intercession for you.

 

[dianaiad]

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

Uh huh, and Catholics tell me that I’m going to hell, that I’m not a Christian, and that I have no business coming anywhere near them. (yes, Catholics HAVE done this.) …and I’ll bet you anything you don’t get the point of what I just wrote.

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

My point is that you claimed that these people were NOT paid, and I just showed you that they are. Whereas our services in this area are, well…free. I don’t know how else to put that to make you feel better about it, to be honest.

As for me, if you guys want to charge for these services, it’s no skin off of my nose. Go charge whatever you like.

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

What earthly difference does that make? I compared services to services; weddings to weddings. As it happens, the local parish HERE DOES pay it’s organist and choir director a salary. Not much of one, I’ll grant you, but it does do so. In fact, a few years ago the local priest heard me sing and asked if I would perform from time to time, for a stipend of $50 per service. I couldn’t do it, of course, but I was very flattered to have been asked.

…and yes, I can sing. At one time I was pretty good. I can still hit the high notes when I have to, though I wouldn’t go auditioning for “America’s Got Talent.”

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

Any insinuation that Mormon clergy are ‘more righteous’ is strictly in your own head, m’friend. You haven’t seen me–or come to think of it, any OTHER Mormon on this thread say any such thing. We only say that ours doesn’t get a church stipend until their church activities really do preclude their earning their own livings. If simple fact seems to insinuate something like that to you, that’s your problem. You might want to think about that.

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

Y’know, Prodigal Son, I realize that it’s President’s Day and all, but I DO have a life outside my computer chair. I think that it would behoove you to wait more than an hour between posts before you start accusing people of running away from you or abandoning the thread. Perhaps you could actually wait two?

Or (gasp) an entire afternoon?

 

[dianaiad]

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

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

And getting letters of authorization makes him a Sanhedrin how?

Because one had to be a member of the Sanhedrin in order to get such letters…much like one must be a duly authorized member of a police department NOW to get and use court issued search warrents. It’s a legal thing, y’know?

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

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

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

No, because the fact that he DID get those letters means that he was qualified both to ask for, and be legally entitled, to them. That means…member of the Sanhedrin until it is proven that an exception was made for him.

So…where is your proof that the high priest made such an exception for Paul?

Really, what you are doing is like the guy who complains that his arrest was illegal because there is no proof that the guy who took him in was a cop. Mind you, the man drove a cop car, wore the uniform, had the cuffs, was greeted at the police station with back slaps and congratulations, testified in court AS a cop and was never denounced by anybody in authority for only pretending to be one, but hey, there’s no proof that he was a cop, is there?

That’s what you are reminding me of.

 

[ParkerD]

I find it fascinating that two people could read the same words and derive two completely different meanings. While it is fascinating, it is common and is the reason we need an authoritative interpreter.

ParkerD, John had no need to be a father in order give advice. He is not speaking in order to give advice as to when you should “have the talk” with your teenage son or how to patch things up with the wife. He is speaking to a Christian community and how, through the grace of God and the knowledge of Jesus they are armed against the “evil one”. He does not need to be a biological father in order to be a spiritual father. He is speaking of spiritual things which tell us nothing of his marital status.

As for Paul, I’m not sure where to begin. When Paul says that bishops should be the “husband of one wife” he means that they should have no more than one wife. He is speaking against polygamy. It is not a requirement that bishops be married. And your ascertion that Paul was married totally ignores 1 Cor 7:8 “Now to the unmarried and to widows I say: It is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do, but if they can’t exercise self-control they sould marry…”

It doesn’t much clearer than that. That is what happens when you approach scripture with a preconceived notion and twist and turn it until it fits in your little box. The words could not be clearer in this case to anyone choosing to incorporate reason as a component in their method of interpretation.

How do you possibly arrive at your conclusions?

SteveVH,
1 Corinthians 7 has several references to widows or to men or women whose spouses were not part of the church, and some spouses had left their marriage. Verse 8 says that Paul didn’t remarry–that is what can be understood from reading the entire chapter and comparing the different kinds of examples he gives.

But for those who justify their having chosen to ignore the commandment and blessing given to Adam and Eve, which Christ reiterated so plainly in His teaching, then it’s great that they have reasons that they can bring to judgment day and say something such as "but I thought I was being told that to not marry was exercising self-control and was “a good thing”; and I suppose Paul will be sent for and he will say, “Now wait a minute, I wrote “neither the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Don’t blame your choice on me–it was your choice. You had Genesis to teach you, and Christ’s words to teach you.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Uh huh, and Catholics tell me that I’m going to hell, that I’m not a Christian, and that I have no business coming anywhere near them. (yes, Catholics HAVE done this.) …and I’ll bet you anything you don’t get the point of what I just wrote.

My point is that you claimed that these people were NOT paid, and I just showed you that they are. Whereas our services in this area are, well…free. I don’t know how else to put that to make you feel better about it, to be honest.

As for me, if you guys want to charge for these services, it’s no skin off of my nose. Go charge whatever you like.

What earthly difference does that make? I compared services to services; weddings to weddings. As it happens, the local parish HERE DOES pay it’s organist and choir director a salary. Not much of one, I’ll grant you, but it does do so. In fact, a few years ago the local priest heard me sing and asked if I would perform from time to time, for a stipend of $50 per service. I couldn’t do it, of course, but I was very flattered to have been asked.

…and yes, I can sing. At one time I was pretty good. I can still hit the high notes when I have to, though I wouldn’t go auditioning for “America’s Got Talent.”

Any insinuation that Mormon clergy are ‘more righteous’ is strictly in your own head, m’friend. You haven’t seen me–or come to think of it, any OTHER Mormon on this thread say any such thing. We only say that ours doesn’t get a church stipend until their church activities really do preclude their earning their own livings. If simple fact seems to insinuate something like that to you, that’s your problem. You might want to think about that.

Y’know, Prodigal Son, I realize that it’s President’s Day and all, but I DO have a life outside my computer chair. I think that it would behoove you to wait more than an hour between posts before you start accusing people of running away from you or abandoning the thread. Perhaps you could actually wait two?

Or (gasp) an entire afternoon?

Anyone can read through this thread, specifically referencing ‘salaries’ and see what I described. My last post on the subject, as I really consider it a ‘moot’ discussion only for the purposes of some saying ‘look how righteous we are because our clergy…’

 

[paul_c]

SteveVH,
1 Corinthians 7 has several references to widows or to men or women whose spouses were not part of the church, and some spouses had left their marriage. Verse 8 says that Paul didn’t remarry–that is what can be understood from reading the entire chapter and comparing the different kinds of examples he gives.

But for those who justify their having chosen to ignore the commandment and blessing given to Adam and Eve, which Christ reiterated so plainly in His teaching, then it’s great that they have reasons that they can bring to judgment day and say something such as "but I thought I was being told that to not marry was exercising self-control and was “a good thing”; and I suppose Paul will be sent for and he will say, “Now wait a minute, I wrote “neither the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” Don’t blame your choice on me–it was your choice. You had Genesis to teach you, and Christ’s words to teach you.”

Where does it say in genesis or anywhere that every man must be fruitful and multiply. Gos said that to Adam and Eve, sure, but it doesn’t say that every man must have a wife.

 

[sablouwho]

Anyone can read through this thread, specifically referencing ‘salaries’ and see what I described. My last post on the subject, as I really consider it a ‘moot’ discussion only for the purposes of some saying ‘look how righteous we are because our clergy…’

Going back to the original post, which was a quote. I did sense that the unknown author of that quote was kinda implying that LDS bishops were somehow more righteous than mainstream Christian clergy (Catholic/Protestant) because the former aren’t paid.

HOWEVER, when I read Diana’s posts, honestly do not get the sense that she agrees with that stance.

But that’s just me

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Because one had to be a member of the Sanhedrin in order to get such letters…much like one must be a duly authorized member of a police department NOW to get and use court issued search warrents. It’s a legal thing, y’know?

So the Romans were Sanhedrin? Come on, you’re stretching here. Just as scriptures don’t say Paul was ever married, scriptures do not say Paul was a Sanhedrin. That speculation is being presented as fact to support a Mormon view, only.

No, because the fact that he DID get those letters means that he was qualified both to ask for, and be legally entitled, to them. That means…member of the Sanhedrin until it is proven that an exception was made for him.

So…where is your proof that the high priest made such an exception for Paul?

Were the chief priests a part of the persecution of the Christians? Were the Romans?

Paul was certainly working his way up through the Jewish ranks, but to make an assertion as factual is misleading, unless you can specifically show that he became a Sanhedrin prior to his conversion.

 

[dianaiad]

Tradition does tell us Paul was beheaded, as opposed to being crucified. Tradition explains as it was because of Paul claiming the rights of a Roman, which Romans were not crucified in the same manner as Christians were. Beheading was a quick death and not a lingering death that could take hours.

I see so much irony in the part of your quote that I bolded for emphasis. Let me ask you, as you phrased it, ‘are you going to tell me that, because his death isn’t mentioned in the Bible, that John is bebopping around the planet right now?’ Don’t Mormons believe that John did not die? Where does that belief come from?

Why the irony? We are not, after all, talking about John. We ARE talking about Paul, and the real irony is that you are using non-biblical sources as evidence of Paul’s death and thinking nothing of that—even as you insist that I must use ONLY biblical quotes to prove my points. Now that’s irony.

The next bit of irony is this: the idea that John might still be around actually DOES come from the NT–and that idea has been debated by many Christian scholars. John 21:20-23.

Now true, this passage goes on to mention that Christ did not say that John would not die, but rather 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

There are two ways to take that; first, as a “it’s none of your business whether John sticks around or not…” rather like someone might say “if I fly off the roof and perch in the oak tree, what’s it mean to you?” proposing something that one has no intention of doing…just to let the listener know that it’s none of his concern.

the OTHER way, which is also quite possible, is that Christ meant “so I have chosen to do this…and it’s still not your business.” which is also quite acceptable.

The speculation that Jesus meant it in the first way is what John thought. This has been debated for centuries by many different Christian scholars; it’s not exactly a unique Mormon idea. However, MORMONS have this prophet thing going… so in Doctrine and Covenants section 7 it is spelled out verymuch more clearly; he’s still around.

But it started in the NT, m’friend. Sorry about that.

…and THAT is irony.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Going back to the original post, which was a quote. I did sense that the unknown author of that quote was kinda implying that LDS bishops were somehow more righteous than mainstream Christian clergy (Catholic/Protestant) because the former aren’t paid.

HOWEVER, when I read Diana’s posts, honestly do not get the sense that she agrees with that stance.

But that’s just me

I agree that the unknown author was implying that LDS unpaid clergy were somehow more righteous than others paid clergy but also noted that the original poster of the quote stated his agreement with it.

 

[aspirant]

where Paul is speaking “not of the Lord, but of himself”

He says this regarding his statement that a believer should not divorce an unbelieving spouse (7:12), not regarding the truth that it is better to be unmarried.

The word “eunuch” in the context in Matthew can mean just “staying unmarried.”

A eunuch is someone who, in Jewish culture, was never able to marry. When Jesus says some have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven, he is saying that some have chosen never to marry for the sake of the kingdom, and “Let anyone who is able to receive this saying receive it.” Celibacy is, as St. Paul said, a gift from God to some and not others: “each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.”

marriage and children are a wonderful blessing

Yes, they are. Marriage is a sacrament, sanctifying those to whom the gift of matrimony is given. And freely received celibacy is the greater gift, already participating in the deeper reality to which marriage points. When marriage passes away, the divine union already being realized in the lives of the celibate will remain.

 

[dianaiad]

Anyone can read through this thread, specifically referencing ‘salaries’ and see what I described. My last post on the subject, as I really consider it a ‘moot’ discussion only for the purposes of some saying ‘look how righteous we are because our clergy…’

Y’know, one of these days you are going to conceed a point or admit an error with grace, and without rolling your eyes. I will be so shocked when that happens that I might not be able to type for a whole five minutes.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Why the irony? We are not, after all, talking about John. We ARE talking about Paul, and the real irony is that you are using non-biblical sources as evidence of Paul’s death and thinking nothing of that—even as you insist that I must use ONLY biblical quotes to prove my points. Now that’s irony.

The next bit of irony is this: the idea that John might still be around actually DOES come from the NT–and that idea has been debated by many Christian scholars. John 21:20-23.

Now true, this passage goes on to mention that Christ did not say that John would not die, but rather 'If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee?

There are two ways to take that; first, as a “it’s none of your business whether John sticks around or not…” rather like someone might say “if I fly off the roof and perch in the oak tree, what’s it mean to you?” proposing something that one has no intention of doing…just to let the listener know that it’s none of his concern.

the OTHER way, which is also quite possible, is that Christ meant “so I have chosen to do this…and it’s still not your business.” which is also quite acceptable.

The speculation that Jesus meant it in the first way is what John thought. This has been debated for centuries by many different Christian scholars; it’s not exactly a unique Mormon idea. However, MORMONS have this prophet thing going… so in Doctrine and Covenants section 7 it is spelled out verymuch more clearly; he’s still around.

But it started in the NT, m’friend. Sorry about that.

…and THAT is irony.

I knew how you preferred to interpret it, because it’s more interpreting to fit something to a theology rather than fitting a theology to scriptures.

John was clearly letting the brethren know it was not that he wasn’t going to die, it was so what if I have other plans for him, do as I ask Peter and follow thou me.

So, the Church lost it’s valid priesthood when the last Apostle died, but then Mormons don’t believe the last Apostle died. More contradictions…

Are you sure you want to discuss Mormon prophets, especially Joseph Smith’s? He missed more than one, and it only takes one to be a false prophet.

 

[dianaiad]

So the Romans were Sanhedrin? Come on, you’re stretching here. Just as scriptures don’t say Paul was ever married, scriptures do not say Paul was a Sanhedrin. That speculation is being presented as fact to support a Mormon view, only.

Were the chief priests a part of the persecution of the Christians? Were the Romans?

Paul was certainly working his way up through the Jewish ranks, but to make an assertion as factual is misleading, unless you can specifically show that he became a Sanhedrin prior to his conversion.

No, the Romans were not Sanhedrin…but then I was unaware that the high priest was a Roman official. As to this being a Mormon view, only…I’m sorry to burst that bubble but it is by no means a uniquely Mormon idea.

As for whether the chief priests were a part of the persecution of the Christians…I am at a complete lost as to where you are attempting to go with THAT one. Of course they were. The Romans at THAT time didn’t give a hoot except that the Sanhedrin DID.

 

[dianaiad]

I knew how you preferred to interpret it, because it’s more interpreting to fit something to a theology rather than fitting a theology to scriptures.

John was clearly letting the brethren know it was not that he wasn’t going to die, it was so what if I have other plans for him, do as I ask Peter and follow thou me.

So, the Church lost it’s valid priesthood when the last Apostle died, but then Mormons don’t believe the last Apostle died. More contradictions…

Are you sure you want to discuss Mormon prophets, especially Joseph Smith’s? He missed more than one, and it only takes one to be a false prophet.

Do you have the two Johns conflated here?