LDS and Catholic Differences

[dianaiad]

Not Mormons?

Uh, yeah. Not Mormons. If we honestly believed that WE were the ones teaching ‘another gospel,’ we’d be something else, at least individually…and if all the individuals of a faith leave it, the faith…rather goes away.

 

[TheosisM]

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.

Actually, JW’s believe that the 144,000 will go to Heaven, and the rest of the saved will live on earth in the earth-paradise.

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

I thought that you didn’t have to be sealed to go to the lower two levels of the Celestial Kingdom. Sealing is needed for exaltation, the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom, but not the other two. Or is that wrong?

 

[dianaiad]

Actually, JW’s believe that the 144,000 will go to Heaven, and the rest of the saved will live on earth in the earth-paradise.

Thank you… I guess it’s ‘Heaven’ and ‘heaven-lite.’ At any rate, everybody else simply vanishes, I guess.

I thought that you didn’t have to be sealed to go to the lower two levels of the Celestial Kingdom. Sealing is needed for exaltation, the highest glory in the Celestial Kingdom, but not the other two. Or is that wrong?

\

No, you are quite correct with that.

 

[wyp8riot]

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)

That was an interesting article.

Like I said it has been a tradition in Christianity The LDS church was young and mostly all converts. Some of the opinions may have stemmed from convverts that left catholisicm or didn’t like it, that I can not answer.

I believe the Churches position is that we worship the life and example of Christ and not his death.

No offense intended but my personal belief might be worded a bit more strongly. If someone I loved and important to me were murdered i would not wear the murder weapon around my neck as a symbol of that persons importance in my life. I would be more likely to have a picture of them.

 

[dmbell]

The biggest difference between the Catholic faith and the Mormon faith is that 99.9% of the key events in the Catholic past were witnessed by many, including those of other faiths, while the key events of the Mormon faith were witnessed by one or two people only in 99.9% of their events…

The initial event in the forming of the Mormon faith was to two people, both of which wished to live life in a certain way and they created that way through their visions and such. There were no other witnesses to any of the visions/etc. Just these two. They then formed their faith base and grew from there. Other events, such as the one dealing with “blacks” in clergy, again came from one person’s “vision”, and was not share by more than that one person.

This is why I have a problem with the Mormon faith system… (And I have been studying faith systems for over 30 years now…)

 

[Robert_in_SD]

"The first, and probably most important, of our **differences is in the area of authority.**And yet we both reject the idea of scripture alone. We agree that Christ’s Church has as part of its structure a visible head (Pope or Prophet). The issue ultimately is which of these is true. As you state, there are people of good conscience on both sides.

wyp8riot:

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

And it is obvious that Catholics reject the notion of a “Great Apostasy” followed by a “Restoration.” History also belies the Mormon claim, although I’ve seen some colorful arguments in support of the Mormon position.

wyp8riot:

Another area where we disagree is in the area of a professional clergy

. In the Catholic Church, as with most Christian denominations, being a preacher is a career.The distinction is much larger. It’s not that the Catholic clergy are merely “professional preachers.” They are a sacrificing priesthood. The LDS has no equivalent. You have the two priesthood autorities, but no sactifice is offered by your priesthood. Also, it does not seem to be the case that the LDS Church makes an effort to train theologians. Are there LDS seminaries? If so, why?

wyp8riot:

…in many cases the minister is beholden to the people who hire him to teach what they want to hear rather then what his conscience might dictate. If he doesn’t, then his congregation is likely to fire him.

Not really a Catholic issue.

wyp8riot:

Having a full-time minister also deprives the membership of opportunities for service.

Don’t really see this as an issue either. The only thing that laypersons cannot engage in are the sacraments and the mass. Since your church has neither of these, it seems that LDS and Catholics are in pretty much the same boat.

wyp8riot:

Our leaders provide for their own material needs by working at some career. Since they are busy making a living and raising families, they don’t have time to do all of the things that a career minister would do.

I wouldn’t call that a positive, but I agree that the LDS Church does wonderful charitable works with the system that they do have.

wyp8riot:

Another area of disagreement is in the area of baptism

. Catholic believe that we are all born with the stain of original sin. Therefore, we must be baptized in order to be cleansed of Adams transgression. This leads to the practice of baptizing infants lest they should die and be condemned.First, unbaptised babies were never “condemned.” The issue that led to the question of “limbo” arises on the apparent controversy that arises from clear scriptural reference to Baptism being necessary for salvation. The LDS doctrine comes with some fundamental problems.

wyp8riot:

We believe that we are born innocent. Christ’s atonement paid the price of Adam’s transgression. It is only when we become mature enough to know good from evil that we become capable of committing sin and, therefore, it is only at that point that we need to be baptized."

An interesting form of semi-pelagianism? Do you believe that one is saved or damned based solely upon their own conduct. Do you believe a man can avoid sin without God’s grace, or do you believe that baptism is always necessary. And if it is always necessary, then why put it off until one is older? Why not confer that grace as soon as possible, so that one can start avoiding sin earlier?

wyp8riot:

I would add to the above comments that as part of the beliefs of the LDS faith as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we allow men to believe and worship as they may. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints we should not name call and call other religions cults or non Christians, etc.

Yet, you clearly believe that your religion is the “true” religion that has been restored, and the rest of christianity arises from an apostate church. If you really believed that, you would be going door to door trying to get people out of that apostate state… Oh, wait, you do that. So, where’s the live and let live vibe?

wyp8riot:

My personal belief is that “Saints” and “Christians” are those that live the teachings of Christ to the best of their ability and knowledge.

That’s very Catholic of you. Did you know that?

Peace,
Robert

 

[mfbukowski]

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

I guess you didn’t read the post?

 

[mfbukowski]

That leaves us to depend on the teachings of those who are in authority over teaching us, through scriptures and tradition.

Yep. That’s what Mormons do.

 

[mfbukowski]

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).

This is specifically to TheosisM, and I won’t discuss this with anyone else, because he has shown that he is willing to show at least a respectful attitude toward Mormons.

I think that many of the doctrines of the Orthodox church are very close to ours, and actually serve as evidence of the authenticity of our practices. There are certain sacraments of theirs which are very close to our temple ceremonies, but of course I will not go there. There is no possible way that Joseph could have known these details about early Christianity and restored all these details he could not have possibly known. If you read for example about Coptic Orthodox baptism and confirmation - these sacraments are very close to LDS practice.

 

[mfbukowski]

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.

The way I see it, the apostasy was a progressive event, like a “Y” in a trail- there was a small difference in direction at first, which just got greater as time moved forward. In my opinion, it started perhaps in the first century, even during the lifetime of some of the Apostles and by the time of the Orthodox split, the apostasy was well established, but the Orthodox retained more of the original doctrines while the Roman Church went even farther from these doctrines.

That’s my opinion on it.

 

[mfbukowski]

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)

I personally have no problem with crosses, but it is now not the “Mormon way”. Perhaps it will change, I would have no problem with it.

 

[mfbukowski]

Since this thread is about the LDS and Catholic differences, I have always wondered
about the three heavens the LDS believe in.
Where would non LDS people end up in their idea of the three heavens?

Thank you

Since we believe you can become “Mormon” in the afterlife, people who are not LDS in this life could end up in the highest portion of the Celestial Kingdom.

The usual answer though doctrinally is in the Terrestrial kingdom, or the second kingdom assuming one did not accept our pov in the afterlife.

Ironically, this is precisely what folks like Catholics already expect “heaven” to be - one would be as the angels and worship God forever. So we believe in short, that you will be exactly where you think you should be, you will get what you are expecting.

 

[AMDGtoo]

Since we are talking about differences between Catholics and LDS, I thought I’d mention yet another, the Melchisedek priesthood. Catholics believe that as Hebrews chapter 7 indicates, he is “without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God’ abideth a priest continually” refers only to Jesus our high priest. The LDS think that any 18-19 year old LDS male holds the Melchisedek priesthood (and I believe they think it can be taken away for bad behavior.)

 

[MyzTek]

Where is the conclusive proof that he never was, especially since it would have been HIGHLY unusual for him not to be? In fact, given his ambition and his position, he would not only have to have been married, but also a father.

You realize that lack of proof is not proof of lack here, right? Use your logic; if you send a bouquet of roses to your sweetheart, and they are all supposed to be red ones, what is the safest thing to assume when she simply says thank you…that they arrived as they were supposed to, or that someone put a thistle in the middle? She would mention something that unusual, don’t you think? The thing is, the norm was that Paul not only would have been married, but also have children. The safe thing to assume is that his life was as it was expected to be UNLESS there was specific mention that it was not. That is, if the bible does NOT state that he was never married, then the logical thing to assume is…given his position…that he was.

[2¢]
I am still waiting for any evidence at all that Paul was a member of the Sanhedrin. We have a clear biblical statement that he was commissioned by the Sanhedrin to do a particular job, however there is no indication in scripture that this was any more than just that. I’m sure the Sanhedrin commissioned many people to do many different jobs, some of which may have required written authorization from the Sanhedrin, but none of which require the employed person to have a vote in the Sanhedrin. It has been established that Rabbis, while normally married, were not all married, so again where is the proof?
[/2¢]

 

[jake23]

Here are some main differences between the CATHOLIC religion and that of THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST of Latter-day saints

I didn’t write this but I believe it clearly outlines some of the main differences and I dont agree these are three of the main differences.

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

Now I wrote that this is probably the most important difference. I assert this because we can’t both be right. If the Catholics are right, then they are right about everything else they believe. The same is true if we Latter-day Saints are right about the source of our authority then we are the true church. Obviously there are sincere believers on both sides.

Another area where we disagree is in the area of a professional clergy. In the Catholic Church, as with most Christian denominations, being a preacher is a career. The minister goes to school to learn how to be a preacher. One of the problems with a professional clergy is that in many cases the minister is beholden to the people who hire him to teach what they want to hear rather then what his conscience might dictate. If he doesn’t, then his congregation is likely to fire him. (This is probably more of a problem with protestant churches that lack a strong hierarchal structure than it is with the Catholic Church.) Having a full-time minister also deprives the membership of opportunities for service. In our church, we have a lay ministry. None of the positions of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints are paid positions. Our leaders provide for their own material needs by working at some career. Since they are busy making a living and raising families, they don’t have time to do all of the things that a career minister would do. So, these responsibilities are spread among the members of the congregation. Those that preside over the congregation call on various members to give the sermons each week among other things. This gives us all opportunities to serve each other, draw closer together as a congregation, and better learn the Gospel.

Another area of disagreement is in the area of baptism. Catholic believe that we are all born with the stain of original sin. Therefore, we must be baptized in order to be cleansed of Adams transgression. This leads to the practice of baptizing infants lest they should die and be condemned. We believe that we are born innocent. Christ’s atonement paid the price of Adam’s transgression. It is only when we become mature enough to know good from evil that we become capable of committing sin and, therefore, it is only at that point that we need to be baptized."

I would add to the above comments that as part of the beliefs of the LDS faith as members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints we allow men to believe and worship as they may. As members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints we should not name call and call other religions cults or non Christians, etc.

My personal belief is that “Saints” and “Christians” are those that live the teachings of Christ to the best of their ability and knowledge.

The differences are one is christian and one is not! Christ gave us the Catholic church and a con-man gave us the mormon church. Catholics believe in One triune God and mormon believe in miltiple Gods and also beleive they can becom a God themselves. Priests live off a humble salary that is considered poverty whil a mormon bishop makes no money at all being one, he is taken care of verry well by others, especialy if he lives in Utah! I who was once mormon and now catholic can tell you that there are differences in mormons and christianity in its entirity! If you wish to see some of the evidence revealing the scams of JS then please watch “the bible vs.the book of mormon” and the book of mormon vs. DNA" you can see them both on youtube.

 

[Prague]

Thank you for the information provided on the three heavens.

 

[aspirant]

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

The stations of the cross are not usually done in pageant form, but I still don’t think most Mormons would have a problem with this sort of devotional practice (apart from the doctrinal differences expressed).

Basically, the stations of the cross devotion is done by meditating on Jesus carrying the cross from his condemnation to death through his crucifixion and burial (and sometimes through his resurrection). Some of the scenes along this journey come from scripture (e.g. St. Simon of Cyrene assisting in carrying the cross) and some from other traditional sources (e.g. the woman now known as St. Veronica wiping Jesus’ face with her veil). Sometimes people use images (ranging from small printed pictures in booklets to lifesize sculptures) to assist in this meditation, other times it’s done just by stopping to imagine and meditate on the next scene. It can be done with live actors as in a pageant-- I did promotional art for one once-- but this is less common. Some people carry big wooden crosses while doing it, as a kind of personal “reenactment” to assist in meditation, but this is also less common.

I can imagine that this particular devotion wouldn’t necessarily appeal to Mormons, who (if I understand it correctly) have a different theology of atonement. But I don’t think Mormons would oppose the idea of meditating on scenes from Jesus’ ministry (or some other portion of salvation history), nor using images or other props to assist any devotional participants in the meditation.

Actually, JW’s believe that the 144,000 will go to Heaven, and the rest of the saved will live on earth in the earth-paradise.

This is also my understanding.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

My personal belief is that “Saints” and “Christians” are those that live the teachings of Christ to the best of their ability and knowledge.

Mormonism teaches that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones (D. & C. 130:22) and that Jesus is a creation. It teaches that he was begotten in heaven as one of God’s spirit children (See the Book, Jesus the Christ, by James Talmage, p. 8).

This is in strict contrast to the biblical teaching that he is God in flesh (John 1:1, 14), eternal (John 1:1, 2, 15), uncreated, yet born on earth (Col. 1:15), and the creator all (John 1:3; Col. 1;16-17). Jesus cannot be both created and not created at the same time. Though Mormonism teaches that Jesus is God in flesh, it teaches that he is “a” god in flesh, one of three gods that comprise the office of the Trinity (Articles of Faith, by Talmage, pp. 35-40). These three gods are the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. This is in direct contradiction of the biblical doctrine that there is only one God (Isaiah 44:6,8; 45:5).

Because Mormonism denies the biblical truth of who God is, who Jesus is, how forgiveness of sins is attained, and what the gospel is, the Mormon is not Christian – in spite of all his claims that he is Christian.

 

[aspirant]

I guess you didn’t read the post?

Yes, I did. Paul counts himself among the unmarried (αγαμος), so the epistles to Timothy were written by an unmarried, celibate bishop.

 

[mfbukowski]

But I don’t think Mormons would oppose the idea of meditating on scenes from Jesus’ ministry (or some other portion of salvation history), nor using images or other props to assist any devotional participants in the meditation.
This is also my understanding.

I have never heard of anything like this even remotely in 30 years of being LDS. We just don’t do anything like this, using “images or props to assist any devotional participants in the meditation.” I know what it means, having been Catholic, but in fact we typically don’t “meditate”. We “ponder” which is a spiritual prayerful thinking about some aspect of the gospel, and we pray which we see as a two way conversation with God. I think the attitude is different than “meditation”.

Using images or props is definitely non- Mormon. We use pictures to explain things to children or to illustrate various aspects of the gospel, that is very common, but not for anything like “meditation”