LDS and Catholic Differences

[kikkichan]

This probably goes w/o question, but that’s the same with heresy, the heretic is always the other.

-kc

I believe that it is a truism that apostates never think that they actually ARE. How many folks do you know of that, having taken a stand on a religious issue would acknowlege that there position was incorrect and apostate–and insist upon holding it anyway? "Apostate’ is most often used by the winners to describe the beliefs of the losers–or at least their theological opponents.

The fact is, I have never met an apostate who thought HE was the one going in the wrong direction.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I believe that it is a truism that apostates never think that they actually ARE. How many folks do you know of that, having taken a stand on a religious issue would acknowlege that there position was incorrect and apostate–and insist upon holding it anyway? "Apostate’ is most often used by the winners to describe the beliefs of the losers–or at least their theological opponents.

The fact is, I have never met an apostate who thought HE was the one going in the wrong direction.

But what about those outside the group? Those in the Roman Empire. Those in the Jewish hierarchy.

And then there’s the fact that Christianity covered quite a bit of area. Surely if someone showed up preaching that which wasn’t exactly what had been initially taught, it would have been noticed. People are not stupid and besides they were already warned to “hold fast to the original teachings.”

 

[aspirant]

It’s interesting to me that, from the Catholic perspective, there is no doctrinal difference between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (except the role of the Bishop of Rome and where his authority comes from), and from the Orthodox perspective, there are doctrinal differences. But that’s for another thread.

Please, God, let it be for another thread.

On another thread, I learned that the Mormons have a pageant that is put on in the summer, re-enacting stories from the BoM. Also, I know that in the summertime, LDS kids will “re-enact” the pioneers pushing handcarts across the plains, in an effort to remind the young what their ancestors went through (religious persecution?).

Why then, are Catholics criticized for “re-enacting” the Stations of the Cross during Lent, focusing on the death and passion of Christ, instead of His resurrection?

I wasn’t aware that Mormons have a problem with Catholics participating in the Stations of the Cross. I mean, it may not fit with their own theology of atonement, but I’m not aware of any Mormons talking smack about us doing anything like it?

 

[TheosisM]

Please, God, let it be for another thread.

Someone already started the latest iteration of “Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism”.

I wasn’t aware that Mormons have a problem with Catholics participating in the Stations of the Cross. I mean, it may not fit with their own theology of atonement, but I’m not aware of any Mormons talking smack about us doing anything like it?

I wasn’t either. Franky, I don’t think most Mormons are aware of Stations of the Cross, unless they were Catholics. Perhaps he was confusing this with the issue of using the cross as a symbol in the LDS faith?

 

[dianaiad]

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).

Oh, we are aware…but please forgive us for the oversight in mentioning the Eastern Orthodoxy…we, rather like the Catholics, rather assumed that it was the Eastern folks that split away from the Catholics, not vice versa. This view may have been exacerbated by the fact that, while Catholics were a presence in Salt Lake City from almost the beginning, there was no Orthodox church until 1905, when the Greek Orthodoxy built one on 4th South between 3d and 4th West (that is, to those who understand how SLC is laid out, a VERY prestigious address…

 

[aspirant]

Someone already started the latest iteration of “Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism”.

:takethat:

 

[dianaiad]

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

Our thoughts on this are simple…and rather obvious when you consider the matter. We believe that we ARE teaching the gospel of Jesus…the one that He preached, and it is everybody else, when they disagree with us, who are 'recieving a different spirit."

C’mon, m’friend, if we honestly didn’t believe that, we’d be something ELSE.

 

[wyp8riot]

Someone already started the latest iteration of “Orthodoxy vs. Catholicism”.

I wasn’t either. Franky, I don’t think most Mormons are aware of Stations of the Cross, unless they were Catholics. Perhaps he was confusing this with the issue of using the cross as a symbol in the LDS faith?

I am not bothered by people wearing crosses but I don’t agree with it and it doesn’t make sense in my mind except that it is traditionally used as a symbol of belief in Christ.

 

[Xavierlives]

Our thoughts on this are simple…and rather obvious when you consider the matter. We believe that we ARE teaching the gospel of Jesus…the one that He preached, and it is everybody else, when they disagree with us, who are 'recieving a different spirit."

C’mon, m’friend, if we honestly didn’t believe that, we’d be something ELSE.

Not Mormons?

 

[sablouwho]

I am not bothered by people wearing crosses but I don’t agree with it and it doesn’t make sense in my mind except that it is traditionally used as a symbol of belief in Christ.

What about it doesn’t make sense then, if you can see it is a symbol for faith in Jesus? Why don’t you agree with this? (I am not trying to be contrary in any way when I ask this question–I am just genuinely curious!)

 

[TheosisM]

What about it doesn’t make sense then, if you can see it is a symbol for faith in Jesus? Why don’t you agree with this? (I am not trying to be contrary in any way when I ask this question–I am just genuinely curious!)

I’m sure that he will respond with his own views. Here is an article that may be interesting:

mormontimes.com/studies_doctrine/doctrine_discussion/?id=10632

(the researcher in question is an ex-Mormon)

 

[Prague]

Thank you for your response SteveVH. Looks like the Mormons aren’t interested in my question listed in #289.

 

[wyp8riot]

What about it doesn’t make sense then, if you can see it is a symbol for faith in Jesus? Why don’t you agree with this? (I am not trying to be contrary in any way when I ask this question–I am just genuinely curious!)

I would rather not say on here as it may offend people.

-Paul

 

[Jay53]

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.

And I suppose that someone “such as me” who hasn’t studied the Bible as extensively as some others here couldn’t possibly receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit and receive a different interpretation - the same way the Holy Spirit couldn’t possibly have confimed the reality of a Catholic priest’s authority to forgive sins through the sacrament of Confession to me?

While I appreciate your attempts to explain, I could really do without the pompous, condescending rhetoric.

Hope you have a good day, too!

 

[wyp8riot]

Thank you for your response SteveVH. Looks like the Mormons aren’t interested in my question listed in #289.

Quote your Bible in 2 Corinthians 12 Verse 2 and post it here so we can see what it says.

 

[dianaiad]

They would end up in the “Terrestial” level of heaven. As the name suggests, that would earth.

Uhmn…no…

I could be wrong here, but that is my understanding. The whole thing is bizarre. Like the JW’s they don’t believe in hell, so everyone will reach some state of heaven no matter what you believed.

Not exactly, no. As I understand it, the JW’s believe that there is a heaven for those who are not one of the 144000, and THAT heaven is an earthly paradise. Those who don’t make it simply cease to exist. We believe very much in a hell…or ‘outer darkness’ or “perdition…” which is a complete and utter absence of the influence of God; Satan is there, and those who qualify join him. It is, I believe, rather difficult to qualify for that…one has to commit the unpardonable sin…that is, to reject the Holy Ghost in full and complete understanding that this exactly what you are doing. That’s…hard to do, I would imagine.

So…the terrestrial Kingdom IS a heaven, in that it’s a lot better than here, but it is also a hell in that everyone there could have had more–and they know it. Didn’t someone once say that true hell is realized when the person you are meets the person you should have been?

Oh, and it is NOT going to be on earth. We have no clue where it is, if it’s a specific place. I suppose it would have to be, given that those who dwell there will be resurrected beings with bodies and all.

You cannot reach the “celestial” level unless you have been baptized and married “for time and eternity” in the Mormon church.

Eventually, yes. Of course, we don’t believe that everybody has a full chance to do that here, but we have that covered.

You will be given your own planet

sorry…no…I understand that this is what non-Mormons WANT to think we believe, and I do hate to spoil your illusions, but…nope.

and will procreate for eternity (that part doesn’t sound to bad:blush

Why blush over that one?

resulting in spirit children who will then worship you. I guess that leaves out St. Paul and Jesus as they were never married. It also gives you a clue on why they are so insistant that Paul and Jesus were married. The formula doesn’t work otherwise.

I’ll be happy to defer to a Mormon in case I got any of this wrong.

I thank you for the deference.

 

[zaffiroborant]

And I suppose that someone “such as me” who hasn’t studied the Bible as extensively as some others here couldn’t possibly receive the guidance of the Holy Spirit and receive a different interpretation - the same way the Holy Spirit couldn’t possibly have confimed the reality of a Catholic priest’s authority to forgive sins through the sacrament of Confession to me?

While I appreciate your attempts to explain, I could really do without the pompous, condescending rhetoric.

Hope you have a good day, too!

Didn’t someone else comment on this recently, the insinuations questioning whether a person really reads the bible, understands it , is willing to listen the Holy Spirit, yada yada yada? Me, I think if you always read the whole post you’ll see this quite frequently though always in the last paragraph and couched in a compliment-light.

 

[dianaiad]

Interesting hearing that. How do you respond to Church of Christ Temple Lot’s claim they are the true restored Church and the other Mormons are apostates from them?

They are the apostates. Why? because I said so. I believe that the post to which yours is the reply explains the reasons for this.

 

[dianaiad]

Why not?

Because…he’s not LDS?

Just a thought…

 

[dianaiad]

Please, God, let it be for another thread.

I wasn’t aware that Mormons have a problem with Catholics participating in the Stations of the Cross. I mean, it may not fit with their own theology of atonement, but I’m not aware of any Mormons talking smack about us doing anything like it?

Uh…no. I can’t imagine why any Mormon would do so. We love a good pageant.