LDS and Catholic Differences

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not so. “Agamoi” is the word used here in verse 7 as well as in verse 9, which is clearly about people who have been married before.

Douay-Rheims Version
**1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that.
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 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. **

King James Version**
1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.**

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries disagrees with your definition.

Agamos definition makes no mention of a prior marriage. From verse 8 below:

G22
ἄγαμος
agamos
ag’-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.

From verse 9 below:

G1060
γαμέω
gameō
gam-eh’-o
From G1062; to wed (of either sex): - marry (a wife).

G1062 as referenced in both definitions above.

G1062
γάμος
gamos
gam’-os
Of uncertain affinity; nuptials: - marriage, wedding.

 

[ricko]

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.

You’re totally wrong. I do not explain LDS beliefs, never have. If LDS want to give a biblical REASON for their beliefs I accept only inspired material. All LDS material is not inspired by God. To say we do this or believe this because Joseph Smith told us so is fine but does not express the will of God as Joseph Smith is a false prophet.

snip, snip (sigh) (sigh)

 

[mfbukowski]

Douay-Rheims Version
**1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as myself. But every one hath his proper gift from God: one after this manner, and another after that.
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 7:9 But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt. **

King James Version**
1Co 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
1Co 7:8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
1Co 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.**

Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries disagrees with your definition.

Agamos definition makes no mention of a prior marriage. From verse 8 below:

G22
ἄγαμος
agamos
ag’-am-os
From G1 (as a negative particle) and G1062; unmarried: - unmarried.

From verse 9 below:

G1060
γαμέω
gameō
gam-eh’-o
From G1062; to wed (of either sex): - marry (a wife).

G1062 as referenced in both definitions above.

G1062
γάμος
gamos
gam’-os
Of uncertain affinity; nuptials: - marriage, wedding.

You are completely right. My mistake.

The only problem was that I misquoted the verse. Look at verse 11. If you had looked at my context you would have seen it.

Paul uses the same word in verse 11 for “unmarried”, which he uses to describe women separated from their husbands.

Strongs G22 Verse 8 and verse 11. Same word, G22

My point stands.

 

[aspirant]

Precisely.

Meaning, as previously stated, that the epistles to Timothy were written by an unmarried and celibate bishop.

 

[ParkerD]

Thank you for trying to explain, Parker, but this post does not answer my question at all. In fact, it leads me to more questions, because I have seen no evidence of St. Michael becoming a man, which is what I am getting from your point above “…coming into mortality, led by Michael the Archangel”. ???

Jay53,
I realize that this thread has gone in other directions, but wanted to get back to you on this question.

I don’t have the perfect Biblical answer for you, since the Bible does not define who Michael the Archangel was other than mentioning his importance. But the allusion in Jude 1:6 about the fallen “angels” who “kept not their first estate” seems to tie to the same “war in heaven” that is described in Revelation 12:7-9, and the implication is that there were those “angels” who did “keep their first estate” and those who rebelled and did not “keep their first estate”, and that Michael the Archangel was the leader of those “angels” who did “keep their first estate”. One needs to read the two passages and put them together to gather the meaning.

One also would need to have a question in their mind as to why the Bible even talks about such “angels” or about “Michael the Archangel” without explaining more about their role, unless it is gained by getting the wisdom of the Holy Spirit described in 1 Corinthians 2 and alluded to by Jude in Jude 1:20 in contrast to those who keep not the Holy Spirit and “walk in ungodly deeds” “after their own lusts” (Jude 1:15-16). It is clear from Jude that there was a situation described as a “first estate” where there was a division of ideas and a separation of the rebellious from those who followed God, and that this happened in the early stage of the coming about of God’s plan for the “angels”. One can also glean that the angels who followed Michael the Archangel are the “sons of God” who “shouted for joy” as described in Job 38:4-7.

But one can explain those verses differently and say they have to do with a separate set of “angels” than pre-mortal spirits, and create a whole body of speculation about those separate angels. I think it is clear that it is going to take having the Holy Spirit’s guidance in order to understand the hidden meaning in those texts, that there was a pre-mortal life where the “sons of God” supported God’s plan and His creation, and that those same “sons of God” are the “sons of God” whom the Bible talks about many times who are followers of God’s plan on earth.

Have a good day, Jay.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are completely right. My mistake.

The only problem was that I misquoted the verse. Look at verse 11. If you had looked at my context you would have seen it.

Paul uses the same word in verse 11 for “unmarried”, which he uses to describe women separated from their husbands.

Strongs G22 Verse 8 and verse 11. Same word, G22

My point stands.

In verse 8, Paul distinguishes ‘unmarried and widows’ and in verse 11 the same word is used for a woman who was married but ‘what if’ she departed her husband, as we were told she should not do in verse 10. This is a mutiple use term, evidently, meaning ‘unmarried’, whether unmarried to begin with, or through a separation. So again, it doesn’t verify that Paul was ever married.

As for the argument that another poster made, that scriptures doesn’t tell us he had a mother, father or that he died, therefore we had to naturally assume he had all, we cannot naturally assume he had taken the action, which is under his control unlike being born or dieing, of being married simply because the scriptures don’t tell us he did. Did Paul decide to become a eunuch? The Bible doesn’t tell us he didn’t.

Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t, either way we shouldn’t be building doctrines on examples that cannot be proven one way or the other. That leaves us to depend on the teachings of those who are in authority over teaching us, through scriptures and tradition.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, y’all!

Although it is not in any way “a church”, much less The Church, the Mormons do have a sense of the importance of One Church to anything that has arisen out of Christianity, even a polygamous cult like the L.D.S. or (in former times, when the Trinitarian R.L.D.S. Mormons took their group more seriously) the Community of Christ. Mormons stress the authority of the church and of its apostolic origins and priesthood in a way that few Protestants (e.g. Lutherans) or sectaries (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals) do so. Their problem is not overemphasising the church, but of not being The Church, claims which only Eastern Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and Roman (and Eastern) Catholicism, on the other, can sustain, historically as well as doctrinally.

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[JMJ4]

Hi, y’all!

Although it is not in any way “a church”, much less The Church, the Mormons do have a sense of the importance of One Church to anything that has arisen out of Christianity, even a polygamous cult like the L.D.S. or (in former times, when the Trinitarian R.L.D.S. Mormons took their group more seriously) the Community of Christ. Mormons stress the authority of the church and of its apostolic origins and priesthood in a way that few Protestants (e.g. Lutherans) or sectaries (e.g. Baptists, Pentecostals) do so. Their problem is not overemphasising the church, but of not being The Church, claims which only Eastern Orthodoxy, on the one hand, and Roman (and Eastern) Catholicism, on the other, can sustain, historically as well as doctrinally.

Pax, Jerry Parker

Hi Jerry - Do the Mormons consider the POSSIBILITY that the Catholic Church is the True Church?
One of the visiting LDS missionaries told us that “it’s either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church that is true, not the Protestants, and we are here to tell you it’s the Mormon Church.”
I thought that was an interesting comment. (Our LDS friend told us they were repeating something one of their church leaders had said years ago).
Any thoughts?

 

[paul_c]

Do you dispute that he was a Pharisee? Are you actually going to make me look up the reference in the NT where he explicitly says so?

Edit: ACTS 26:5

I am going to bed. I am not doing well.

Of course Paul was a Pharisee. That is not the question. The question was whether he was a member of the Sanhedrin. The ultimate question was whether Paul was married. He says he was not, The proposition was put forth that he must have been a widower, then, because all members of the Sanhedrin had to be married. I was merely pointing out that he was not a member of the sanhedrin because he was not experienced enough or mature enough to be considered for the supreme court of Israel. At the time he wa a highly motivated student of Gameliel, who was in fact a member of the Sanhedrin.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Have been trying to read this thread about the proposed differences and I wonder if it might have been mentioned that one main difference is that the foundations of the Catholic ways are Biblical and logical while the LDS is just from a man named Joseph Smith.

There appears to be nothing wrong with paid clergy. The Bible states “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And the laborer is worthy of his reward.” (1 Timothy 5:18) And Paul himself gives praise to those who make it so they can devote themselves solely to God’s work. (And it’s only common sense that devotion to ones secular job and family PLUS God’s work is a divided focus.)

About a total apostasy. It’s only common sense that if if was indeed real, someone–anyone–would have noticed. And yet there is no one. Then the very idea of a total apostasy flies in the face of Jesus’ statement in Matthew 16:18 “that the gates of hell will not prevail” and that He will be with it until the end of time. Are the LDS calling Jesus a liar? I know we aren’t.

And about Baptism, well it’s only logical that we can’t pass on what we don’t have. So if Adam lost the gifts of being able to live with God, etc., it’s logical that he couldn’t pass those gifts on. The ability to live with God had to be “reinstated”, if you will, and that’s through Baptism. I think we all agree that a baby has not committed any personal sins. It’s a matter of having supernatural grace restored. In this case I think that the LDS fail to understand what “original sin” is. It’s not “original guilt” and it’s not someone being guilty of the sin of another.

 

[TheosisM]

Hi Jerry - Do the Mormons consider the POSSIBILITY that the Catholic Church is the True Church?
One of the visiting LDS missionaries told us that “it’s either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church that is true, not the Protestants, and we are here to tell you it’s the Mormon Church.”
I thought that was an interesting comment. (Our LDS friend told us they were repeating something one of their church leaders had said years ago).
Any thoughts?

I’ve heard that statement a number of times (it’s from someone specific, but I can’t remember who). Seems as if most Mormons aren’t aware of the Orthodox Church (indeed, their apologetics on the Great Apostasy tend to be from the perspective that the Catholic Church was the continuation of the Church after it apostatized).

 

[SteveVH]

I’ve heard that statement a number of times (it’s from someone specific, but I can’t remember who). Seems as if most Mormons aren’t aware of the Orthodox Church (indeed, their apologetics on the Great Apostasy tend to be from the perspective that the Catholic Church was the continuation of the Church after it apostatized).

Are you still considering the LDS church? You don’t seem to be there quite yet looking at your responses. Don’t mean to pry, just curious.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

J4M4,

**You wrote: ** *Do the Mormons consider the POSSIBILITY that the Catholic Church is the True Church? One of the visiting LDS missionaries told us that “it’s either the Catholic Church or the Mormon Church that is true, not the Protestants, and we are here to tell you it’s the Mormon Church.”

I thought that was an interesting comment. (Our LDS friend told us they were repeating something one of their church leaders had said years ago). Any thoughts? *​

The L.D.S. Mormons have come more and more in recent decades to make comparisons of what the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches have in common with them, dismissing Protestantism and the Fundamentalist sects out of hand. By contrast, they stop to make comparisons with the hierarchical structures of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches; the Mormon concept of priesthood differs greatly from that of these genuine Churches, but the underlying concept that the hierarchy has real authority on earth and in heaven is similar. This concept of churchly authority is so important to Mormons (whether L.D.S. or R.L.D.S.) that they have come to grant some authenticity to Catholic Christianity that which deny to essentially anti-ecclesiastically oriented Protestantism and sectarianism. Therefore, if a L.D.S. Mormon says “It is the L.D.S. Church or the Catholic Church”, do not be surprised!

Pax, Jerry Parker

 

[sablouwho]

I’ve heard that statement a number of times (it’s from someone specific, but I can’t remember who). Seems as if most Mormons aren’t aware of the Orthodox Church (indeed, their apologetics on the Great Apostasy tend to be from the perspective that the Catholic Church was the continuation of the Church after it apostatized).

I wonder if this is because LDS is a US-based movement and the CC is more “known” in the West than the Eastern Orthodox. JS wasn’t formally educated so he probably wasn’t aware of the EO.

 

[Haggisman]

What are the LDS thoughts on these 2 points?

(1) 2 Corinthians 11:3-5,13-15 “But I am afraid that, as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts may be corrupted from a sincere (and pure) commitment to Christ. For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough. … For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.”

(2) youtube.com/watch?v=jFZ1jVO3-OE

 

[Stephen168]

I wonder if this is because LDS is a US-based movement and the CC is more “known” in the West than the Eastern Orthodox. JS wasn’t formally educated so he probably wasn’t aware of the EO.

I think Mormonism is a continuation of the Protestant revolt of the 16th century. It was a revolt against the Catholic Church; not the Orthodox.

 

[JMJ4]

dianaiad - Isn’t it difficult to compare LDS and Catholic priests?

If I am correct, Mormon boys enter the priesthood at 12 and therefore would not need to be paid due to the fact they live with their parents.

(I know you don’t have a problem with priests being paid, I was just curious).

 

[sablouwho]

I think Mormonism is a continuation of the Protestant revolt of the 16th century. It was a revolt against the Catholic Church; not the Orthodox.

I agree with you.

I guess what I was thinking, but failed to say explicitly in my post above, was that the LDS are going to ALSO need to prove why the EO apostacized, not just the Catholics. But it doesn’t seem that they do that.

But then, I still haven’t seen an argument that I personally have found convincing (and I’m pretty open minded about these matters – having told God on several occasions that I will follow whatever he shows me to be truth, no matter where it came from) regarding the Great Apostacy.

For LDS, such a belief is necessary, but to me, the “best” I can say of it is that it is an important symbolic belief for them. However, I do not believe that the GA is literally true. If I did, I’d already be a temple-going Mormon.

 

[dmbell]

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.

This, in it’s original writing, did not REQUIRE that the person be married to become Bishop, but required that they be married only once if they were to be married when they were being presented to be a Bishop.

As happens way too often, people only look at a text with one mind set, and do not look at the times, the original writing, or content in general.

 

[TheosisM]

I agree with you.

I guess what I was thinking, but failed to say explicitly in my post above, was that the LDS are going to ALSO need to prove why the EO apostacized, not just the Catholics. But it doesn’t seem that they do that.

I agree (and this is something I’ve said before on MADB, a Mormon forum). The Great Apostasy is always looked at as if the Catholic Church was the result of the apostatized original Church, ignoring the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. While it is okay to do that in many arguments (such as the issue of apostolic succession, Trinity, infant baptism, Real Presence, etc), other arguments ignore the East and come off as if the Catholic Church was the only church existing until the Reformation.

On the other hand, I think that by “proving” the Catholic Church apostatized, you also “prove” that the Eastern churches did as well, if you are specifically referring to common beliefs. Issues such as the Bishop of Rome and Papal doctrines, Indulgences, some Marian doctrines and speculative theology, Limbo of Infants speculation, Purgatory, Treasury of Merits, specifics on original sin, etc. are specific to the Catholic Church.