LDS and Catholic Differences

[Prodigal_Son1]

Clearly you missed this. This popular notion that marriage was strictly required is a misconception.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Even though I certainly do not intend to convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of L.D.S., I would like to read the Book of Mormon. Though it is of somewhat dubious origins, it still sounds interesting.

 

[ricko]

Paul himself says he was not married.

1 Corinthians 7, in that very chapter Paul actually endorses celibacy for those capable of it: "To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am.

 

[dianaiad]

Oy vey! (The Jewishness comes out!)

Y’know, I think it must be because I hail from outside of Christianity completely that I just don’t understand one Jesus-affirming group declaring that another Jesus-affirming group is going to hell. Some Catholics do it to Protestants, some Protestants do it to Catholics. Some Protestants to it to other Protestants. Some of Catholic/Protestant do it to LDS and other groups that affirm Jesus but are admittedly outside of the mainstream. Believe it or not I even have a Catholic friend who was told by LDS that he was going to hell (though I can’t help but wonder if my friend misunderstood that…)

Well, given that we don’t actually BELIEVE in the sort of hell that is described to us by many Catholics and Protestants, yeah, I’ll be he misunderstood that.

Oh yeah, and then there are those who evangelize Jews with “Christian love” and when Jews don’t “get it”, they are told they’re going to hell. Let me tell you, THAT is a fun experience.

Such behavior is so un-Christ-like.

I don’t get it.

Oh, well, me neither. However, my point with that comment wasn’t about the going to hell thing…it was this; that just because some Catholics have told me this, it doesn’t mean that ALL Catholics think this, or that the Catholic church has it as an official statement on my probable destination.

However, folks like Prodigal Son and others seem to think that if one Mormon says something unkind, that this is set in stone; that ALL Mormons, then, think that way.

 

[dianaiad]

Even if this were true, the point remains: the epistle to Timothy was written by an unmarried and celibate man.

Ancient Jewish culture, contrary to popular opinion, did not strictly require rabbis to be married. Dedication to the Word of God could take precedence. When Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai, in the early 2nd century, was criticized for not marrying, he responded “What shall I do? My soul clings lovingly to the Torah; let others contribute to the preservation of the race.” The rabbis subsequently wrote of him: “if a person cleaves to the study of the Torah, like Simeon ben Azzai, his refusal to marry can be condoned,” and they praised him saying “with the passing of Ben Azzai diligent scholars passed from the earth.”

The Prophets, similarly, were believed by ancient Jews to be celibate. Not just the unmarried ones, like Elijah and Elisha, but even the married ones. Ancient Jews believed that Moses, though married with children, became celibate at Sinai and remained celibate thereafter.

To say that Paul’s life as a Pharisee “demanded” marriage really is an overstatement.

I feel the same way.

The rules of the Sanhedrin were set in cultural stone…you not only had to be married, you had to have children. Not all Rabbis were in the Sanhedrin, y’know.

As to whether Jews believe that the ancient prophets were celibate or not I have no clue. I would have to ask a Jew.

 

[dianaiad]

The Catholic faith does not teach that they can know that, so they should not say that.

No, they should not. That was not, however, the point of the comment.

 

[dianaiad]

I am somewhat amused by LDS and their neutrality (feigned?) regarding paid clergy. There is a reason that LDS clergy are not paid, Joseph Smith taught it was “priestcraft”. From an Institute manual at lds.org:

D&C 52:39 39 Let the residue of the elders watch over the churches, and declare the word in the regions round about them; and let them labor with their own hands that there be no idolatry nor wickedness practised.

That’s why we don’t pay 'em, Rebecca. However, we are not in charge of, nor able to enforce, our opinions on others. As well, there is that pesky 11th Article of Faith.

 

[paul_c]

The rules of the Sanhedrin were set in cultural stone…you not only had to be married, you had to have children. Not all Rabbis were in the Sanhedrin, y’know.

As to whether Jews believe that the ancient prophets were celibate or not I have no clue. I would have to ask a Jew.

Where did you get your information on the Sanhedrin?

 

[dianaiad]

of but one wife" - Polygamists are disqualified from the eldership. This may have been a common phenomenon given the culture of the early church. Today, I would think this would disqualify “serial polygamists” - (those who remarry after divorce). The phrase “but one” (actually a single word “mia” in the greek) **does not disqualify single men, as Paul even recommends singleness as it frees one to servce God from from the distractions of marriage. (1Cor 7:32). **
bcbsr.com/books/1tim3.html

The way the Mormons interpert the bible they have verses conflicting with each other, as insisting that a bishop MUST be married conflicts with 1Cor. Allowing the Holy Spirit to guide you will solve that problem and allow you to see that HAVING to be married is taken out of context with the rest of what the bible says of marriage and serving God.

Nice dodge, Ricko, but the question isn’t about how this verse relates to Mormonism, but how the CATHOLICS deal with it, in terms of a celibate priesthood. Would you care to take a crack at that?

 

[dianaiad]

And that is one of the things that makes LDS a false religion as the bible says that there are no new revelations to come as Jesus, who is perfect gave all that is necessary for salvation and there is no need for any new (public) revelations.

and where, (she asks, sweetly) does it say that?

 

[dianaiad]

Paul was also a Jew. After his conversion he taught circumcision was not required, and neither is marriage. It is easy enough to read these teachings. They are very clear.

The question was about whether Paul was married. Not about when. Or are you one of those who figure that anybody who was married before becoming Catholic wasn’t really? Married, that is?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The question was about whether Paul was married. Not about when. Or are you one of those who figure that anybody who was married before becoming Catholic wasn’t really? Married, that is?

Where is the conclusive evidence that he was ever married? It’s not in the Bible.

 

[RebeccaJ]

The question was about whether Paul was married. Not about when.

bukowski seems to think that Paul was married before, therefore that is a teaching, or indication, that everyone should be married. I was addressing this illogical conclusion.

Or are you one of those who figure that anybody who was married before becoming Catholic wasn’t really? Married, that is?

There you go, making stuff up again.

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s why we don’t pay 'em, Rebecca. However, we are not in charge of, nor able to enforce, our opinions on others. As well, there is that pesky 11th Article of Faith.

Pratt and Talmage had something to say about Catholics in this regard.

 

[dianaiad]

He wants the websites where I got the quotes…

you want the websites?

Sure. For St. Patrick’s in Cranston, go here: catholicweddings.net/costs.htm

For St. James in Falls Church, go here: stjamescatholic.org/weddings.html

For weddings in St. Peter’s Basilica, go here: santasusanna.org/weddingsRome/stPeters.html

You will have to scroll down quite a bit on that last one, to the purple title “Wedding costs” almost to the end of the web page. I promise you, however, it’s there.

 

[paul_c]

Where did you get your information on the Sanhedrin?

 

[dianaiad]

tu quo·que used to accuse accuser: used when accused of an offense to accuse the accuser of the same offense

Or in other words… “Same to you buddy!!”

Precisely…I’m glad you see how this qualifies.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

you want the websites?

Sure. For St. Patrick’s in Cranston, go here: catholicweddings.net/costs.htm

For St. James in Falls Church, go here: stjamescatholic.org/weddings.html

For weddings in St. Peter’s Basilica, go here: santasusanna.org/weddingsRome/stPeters.html

You will have to scroll down quite a bit on that last one, to the purple title “Wedding costs” almost to the end of the web page. I promise you, however, it’s there.

So I don’t get accused of jumping to conclusions, what is your point?

 

[dianaiad]

Clearly you missed this. This popular notion that marriage was strictly required is a misconception.

You are equivocating. Not all rabbis were Pharisees…and by the way, Rabbis WERE expected to marry. Those who did not were very few and far between. As well, I am going to take your claim that all OT prophets were celibate with a very large shaker of salt.

 

[paul_c]

Nice dodge, Ricko, but the question isn’t about how this verse relates to Mormonism, but how the CATHOLICS deal with it, in terms of a celibate priesthood. Would you care to take a crack at that?

The Catholics deal with this just fine. The celibate priesthood is a church practice, not a doctrine. It was a reform taken by the Latin church about 1000 years ago to focus the clergy on their vocations and eliminate questions about inheritances by the children of priests.